Touch, status, and gender at professional meetings
- Judith A. Hall
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Observers unobtrusively recorded instances of interpersonal touch at three large academic meetings (two of psychologists, one of philosophers). The names and affiliations of the individuals involved in these touches were later referred to published sources in order to develop codes reflecting the relative personal and institutional statuses of these individuals. There was mixed but on balance no overall evidence that higher-status individuals touched lower-status individuals more than vice versa. However, higher- and lower-status individuals initiated different kinds of touch. Higher-status individuals initiated touch that was judged more often to be affectionate and that was more often directed to the arm or shoulder, whereas lower-status individuals initiated more formal touches and handshakes. Gender asymmetry in touch was very weak overall, but favored male-to-female over female-to-male touch when the two individuals had equal professional status.
- American Psychological Association. (1989).Directory of the American Psychological Association, 1989 edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- American Psychological Association. (1993).Directory of the American Psychological Association, 1993 edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1985). Status organizing processes.Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.
- Burgoon, J. K. (1991). Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 233–259.
- Burgoon, J. K., & Walther, J. B. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations.Human Communication Research, 17, 232–265.
- De la Croix de Lafayette, J. M. (1984).National register of social prestige and academic ratings of American colleges and universities. Washington, DC: NASACU.
- Dovidio, J. F., Brown, C. E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S. L., & Keating, C. F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked topics: A multichannel study.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 580–587.
- Dovidio, J. F., Ellyson, S. L., Keating, C. F., Heltman, K., & Brown, C. (1988). The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 233–242.
- Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior: Basic concepts and issues. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.),Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–27). New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Endler, N. S., Rushton, J. P., & Roediger, H. L., III. (1978). Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. departments of psychology (1975).American Psychologist, 33, 1064–1082.
- Goldstein, A. G., & Jeffords, J. (1981). Status and touching behavior.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 79–81.
- Gourman, J. (1993).The Gourman Report: A rating of undergraduate programs in American & international universities (8th ed., rev.). Los Angeles: National Education Standards.
- Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1994). Patterns of matching and initiation: Touch behavior and touch avoidance across romantic relationship stages.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 137–153.
- Hall, J. A., & Veccia, E. M. (1990). More "touching" observations: New insights on men, women, and interpersonal touch.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1155–1162.
- Hall, J. A., & Veccia, E. M. (1992). Touch asymmetry between the sexes. In C. L. Ridgeway (Ed.),Gender, interaction, and inequality (pp. 81–96). New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Harper, R. G. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior: An overview. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.),Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 2948). New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Henley, N. M. (1973). Status and sex: Some touching observations.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 91–93.
- Henley, N. M. (1977).Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
- Henley, N. M., & LaFrance, M. (1984). Gender as culture: Difference and dominance in nonverbal behavior. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.),Nonverbal behavior: Perspectives, applications, intercultural insights (pp. 351–371). Lewiston, NY: C. J. Hogrefe.
- Howard, G. S., Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (1987). Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association.American Psychologist, 42, 975–986.
- Jones, S. E. (1994).The right touch: Understanding and using the language of physical contact. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
- Jones, L. V., Lindsay, G., & Coggeshall, P. E. (1982).An assessment of research-doctorate programs in the U.S. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
- Jones, S. E. (1986). Sex differences in touch communication.Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50, 227–241.
- Jones, S. E., & Yarbrough, A. E. (1985). A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch.Communication Monographs, 52, 19–56.
- Juni, S., & Brannon, R. (1981). Interpersonal touching as a function of status and sex.Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 135–136.
- Major, B. (1981). Gender patterns in touching behavior. In C. Mayo & N. M. Henley (Eds.),Gender and nonverbal behavior (pp. 15–37). New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Major, B., & Heslin, R. (1982). Perceptions of cross-sex and same-sex nonreciprocal touch: It is better to give than to receive.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 148–162.
- Major, B., Schmidlin, A. M., & Williams, L. (1990). Gender patterns in social touch: The impact of setting and age.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 634–643.
- Mayo, C., & Henley, N. M. (Eds.) (1981).Gender and nonverbal behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Press, J. C. (Ed.). (1982).Directory of American scholars, 8th ed., Volume IV: Philosophy, religion, and law. New York: R. R. Bowker Company.
- Ridgeway, C. L. (Ed.) (1992).Gender, interaction, and inequality. New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Shuter, R. (1977). A field study of nonverbal communication in Germany, Italy, and the United States.Communication Monographs, 44, 298–305.
- Shuter, B. (1979). A study of nonverbal communication among Jews and Protestants.Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 31–41.
- Stier, D. S., & Hall, J. A. (1984). Gender differences in touch: An empirical and theoretical review.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 440–459.
- Summerhayes, D. L., & Suchner, R. W. (1978). Power implications of touch in male-female relationships.Sex Roles, 4, 103–110.
- The philosopher's index, 1993 cumulative edition (Vol. 27). Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.
- Willis, F. N. Jr., & Briggs, L. F. (1992). Relationship and touch in public settings.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 55–63.
- Willis, F. N., & Rinck, C. M. (1983). A personal log method for investigating interpersonal touch.Journal of Psychology, 113, 119–122.
- Touch, status, and gender at professional meetings
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior
Volume 20, Issue 1 , pp 23-44
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers-Human Sciences Press
- Additional Links
- Judith A. Hall (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, 02115, Boston, MA