Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 143–156 | Cite as

Tactile communication and personality differences

  • John F. Deethardt
  • Debbie G. Hines


An introspective measure of tactile tendency was developed for college-age students. Personality correlates of high and low tactile tendencies explain some individual differences in the use of tactile communication.


Individual Difference Social Psychology Personality Difference Tactile Communication Introspective Measure 
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. Anderson, P.A. & Leibowitz, K. The development and nature of the construct touch avoidance.Environmental psychology and nonverbal behavior 1978,3 89–105.Google Scholar
  2. Berryhill, N. The influence of age, sex, family size, and community size on attitude toward tactile communication. Unpublished master's thesis, Texas Tech University, 1982.Google Scholar
  3. Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W., & Tatsuoka, M.M.Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, III.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1970.Google Scholar
  4. Clevenger, T. A synthesis of experimental research, in stage fright.Quarterly Journal of Speech 1959,45 134–145.Google Scholar
  5. Frank, L.K. Tactile communication.Genetic Psychology Monographs 1957,56 209–255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Henley, N.Body politics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Tabular Supplement No. 1 to the 16PF Handbook. Champaign: Institute, 1970.Google Scholar
  8. Jourard, S. An exploratory study of body accessibility.British Journal of Social Clinical Psychology 1966,5 221–231.Google Scholar
  9. Leibowitz, K., & Anderson, P. The development and nature of the construct touch avoidance. In B.W. Morse & L.A. Phelps (eds.),Interpersonal communication: A Relational Perspective. Minneapolis: Burgess, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. McCrosky, J.C. Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research.Human Communication Research 1977,4 78–96.Google Scholar
  11. Montague, A.Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  12. Morris, D.Intimate Behavior New York: Random House, 1971.Google Scholar
  13. Nie, N.H.,et al., Statistical Package for the Social Sciences New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970.Google Scholar
  14. Prescott, J.Behavior Today May 15, 1978,9 5–7.Google Scholar
  15. Scheflen, A.Body Language and the Social Order Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
  16. Silverman, A.R., Pressman, R., & Bartel, T. Self esteem and tactile communication.Journal of Humanistic Psychology 1973,13 76.Google Scholar
  17. Stembridge, D.A.An exploratory study of tactual behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, 1973.Google Scholar
  18. Walker, D.A dyadic interaction model for nonverbal touching behavior in encounter groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1971.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • John F. Deethardt
    • 1
  • Debbie G. Hines
    1. 1.Texas Tech UniversityLubbock

    Personalised recommendations