Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 23–44

Touch, status, and gender at professional meetings

  • Judith A. Hall
Article

Abstract

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (1989).Directory of the American Psychological Association, 1989 edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (1993).Directory of the American Psychological Association, 1993 edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1985). Status organizing processes.Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.Google Scholar
  4. Burgoon, J. K. (1991). Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 233–259.Google Scholar
  5. Burgoon, J. K., & Walther, J. B. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations.Human Communication Research, 17, 232–265.Google Scholar
  6. De la Croix de Lafayette, J. M. (1984).National register of social prestige and academic ratings of American colleges and universities. Washington, DC: NASACU.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Goldstein, A. G., & Jeffords, J. (1981). Status and touching behavior.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 79–81.Google Scholar
  12. Gourman, J. (1993).The Gourman Report: A rating of undergraduate programs in American & international universities (8th ed., rev.). Los Angeles: National Education Standards.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Henley, N. M. (1973). Status and sex: Some touching observations.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 91–93.Google Scholar
  18. Henley, N. M. (1977).Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, S. E. (1994).The right touch: Understanding and using the language of physical contact. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, L. V., Lindsay, G., & Coggeshall, P. E. (1982).An assessment of research-doctorate programs in the U.S. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, S. E. (1986). Sex differences in touch communication.Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50, 227–241.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, S. E., & Yarbrough, A. E. (1985). A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch.Communication Monographs, 52, 19–56.Google Scholar
  25. Juni, S., & Brannon, R. (1981). Interpersonal touching as a function of status and sex.Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 135–136.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. Mayo, C., & Henley, N. M. (Eds.) (1981).Gender and nonverbal behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Press, J. C. (Ed.). (1982).Directory of American scholars, 8th ed., Volume IV: Philosophy, religion, and law. New York: R. R. Bowker Company.Google Scholar
  31. Ridgeway, C. L. (Ed.) (1992).Gender, interaction, and inequality. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. Shuter, R. (1977). A field study of nonverbal communication in Germany, Italy, and the United States.Communication Monographs, 44, 298–305.Google Scholar
  33. Shuter, B. (1979). A study of nonverbal communication among Jews and Protestants.Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 31–41.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. Summerhayes, D. L., & Suchner, R. W. (1978). Power implications of touch in male-female relationships.Sex Roles, 4, 103–110.Google Scholar
  36. The philosopher's index, 1993 cumulative edition (Vol. 27). Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.Google Scholar
  37. Willis, F. N. Jr., & Briggs, L. F. (1992). Relationship and touch in public settings.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 55–63.Google Scholar
  38. Willis, F. N., & Rinck, C. M. (1983). A personal log method for investigating interpersonal touch.Journal of Psychology, 113, 119–122.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith A. Hall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNortheastern UniversityBoston

Personalised recommendations