Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Views on and Perceptions of Experiences of Touch Avoidance: An Exploratory Study

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of physical touch by conducting semi-structured interviews with 14 participants, nine women and five men (M age = 25.1). A touch avoidance screening form was used to select subjects with the highest scores on touch avoidance as well as those with the lowest scores, that is, the greatest acceptance of touch, for the interviews (n = 7 in each group). Data were analyzed using Burnard’s stage-by-stage process of coding and categorization. The identified superordinate themes were labeled: 1) safe haven, 2) skill, 3) physical appearance, 4) ambivalence and 5) fear. Among other findings, touch avoiders seemed to have a greater need for bodily intimacy as a confirmation of the romantic partner relationship than did touch accepters. It was concluded that the experience of physical closeness is complex, and the relationships with attachment theory were discussed. Further research was suggested to more thoroughly investigate the present findings on touch avoidance, as well as the origins of touch avoidance and its consequences for personal relationships and communication skills.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The superordinate theme name safe haven refers to the attachment theory of and the work done by Ainsworth and colleagues (Ainsworth et al. 1971; Ainsworth et al. 1978; Bell and Ainsworth 1972). In their observation studies (Strange Situation) of mother–infant dyad interactions, particular attention was given to the child’s behavior in the reunion episode to determine how safe the baby felt with the mother (care-giver), that is the concept of safe haven referred a safe haven to which the child could return when feeling anxiety or fear (Ainsworth et al. 1978; van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988).

References

  • Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1971). Individual differences in strange-situation behavior of one-year-olds. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), The origins of human social relations (pp. 17–58). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P. A. (2008). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions (2nd ed.). Mountainview: Mayfield Publ. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P. A., & Leibowitz, K. (1978). The development and nature of the construct touch avoidance. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3, 89–106. doi:10.1007/BF01135607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P. A., & Sull, K. K. (1985). Out of touch, out of reach: tactile predispositions as predictors of interpersonal distance. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 57–72. doi:10.1080/10570318509374181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., & Lustig, M. W. (1987). Opposite sex touch avoidance: a national replication and extension. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 89–109. doi:10.1007/BF00990960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1, 385–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: an attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. M., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1972). Infant crying and maternal responsiveness. Child Development, 43, 1171–1190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, B. L. (2008). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationships functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998a). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overwiev. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K. A., Wu, S., & Loev, J. (1998b). Adult romantic attachment and individual differences in attitudes toward physical contact in the context of adult romantic relationships. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 394–428). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K. (1991). Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 233–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnard, P. (1991). A method of analyzing transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse Education Today, 11, 461–466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: the role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510–531.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, A., & Sanderson, H. (1995). The use of touch in nursing practice. Nursing Standard, 9, 31–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relationship with other defensive processes. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 300–323). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chugani, H. T., Behen, M. E., Muzik, O., Juhasz, C., Nagy, F., & Chugani, D. C. (2001). Local brain functional activity following early deprivation: a study of postinstitutionalized Romanian orphans. NeuroImage, 14, 1290–1301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, C. B. (1994). Effects of sex and sex roles on avoidance of same- and opposite-sex touch. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 107–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2004). Attachment style and subjective motivations for sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1076–1090.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deethardt, J., & Hines, D. (1983). Tactile communication and personality differences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 143–156. doi:10.1007/BF00987000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S. C. (1998). An anthropological interpretation of nurses’ and patients’ perceptions of the use of space and touch. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28, 809–817. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1998x.00706.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, J. A. (2008). Adult romantic attachment: Developments in the study of couple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 456–481). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, T. (2001). Touch. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, T. (2010). Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: a review. Developmental Review, 30, 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fromme, D. K., Jaynes, W. E., Taylor, D. K., Hanold, E. G., Daniell, J., & Rountree, J. R. (1989). Nonverbal behavior and attitudes toward touch. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: an overview. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 246–259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gentzler, A. L., & Kerns, K. A. (2004). Associations between insecure attachment and sexual experiences. Personal Relationships, 11, 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleeson, M., & Timmins, F. (2005). A review of the use and clinical effectiveness of touch as a nursing intervention. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 9, 69–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1991). The waxing and waning of relational intimacy: touch as a function of relational stage, gender and touch avoidance. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F. (2006). Associations among relational maintenance behaviors, attachment-style categories, and attachment dimensions. Communication Studies, 57, 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (1979). Gender, gender roles and nonverbal communication skills. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Skill in nonverbal communication (pp. 31–97). Cambridge: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (1996). Touch, status, and gender at professional meetings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (2006). Women’s and men’s nonverbal communication. Similarities, differences, stereotypes, and origins. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, H. F. (1959). Love in infant monkeys. Scientific American, 200, 68–74. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0659-68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, H. F. (1963). The maternal affectional system. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinant of infant behavior (pp. 3–29). London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hertenstein, M. J., Verkamp, J. M., Kerestes, A. M., & Holmes, R. M. (2006). The communicative functions of touch in humans, nonhuman primates, and rats: a review and synthesis of the empirical research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 5–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. E., & Yarbrough, E. (1985). A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch. Communication Monographs, 52, 19–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jourard, S. M. (1966). An exploratory study of body-accessibility. The British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 221–231. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1966.tb00978.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jourard, S. M., & Rubin, J. E. (1968). Self-disclosure and touching: a study of two modes of interpersonal encounter and their inter-relation. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 8, 39–48. doi:10.1177/002216786800800104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keats, D. M. (2000). Interviewing, a practical guide for students and professionals. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. London: The SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). InterViews. Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclean, K. (2003). The impact of institutionalization on child development. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 853–884.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, R., & Ernest, R. C. (1978). Sex differences in the perception of touching. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 577–578.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1993). Psychological and biological differences in touch avoidance. Communication Research Report, 10, 141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35) (pp. 53–152). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Avihou-Kanza, N. (2011). Individual differences in adult attachment are systematically related to dream narratives. Attachment & Human Development, 13, 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montagu, A. (1986). Touching: The human significance of the skin (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, C. A. (2007). A neurobiological perspective on early human deprivation. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 13–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, T., Heslin, R., & Nguyen, M. L. (1975). The meanings of touch: sex differences. Journal of Communication, 25, 92–103. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1975.tb00610.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ozolins, A., & Sandberg, C. (2009). Development of a multifactor scale measuring the psychological dimensions of touch avoidance. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach, 3, 33–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, Q. M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remland, M. S., & Jones, T. S. (1988). Cultural and sex differences in touch avoidance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 544–546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Routasalo, P., & Isola, A. (1996). The right to touch and be touched. Nursing Ethics, 3, 165–176. doi:10.1177/096973309600300209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, A. C., & Carnelley, K. B. (2005). Preliminary support for the use of a hierarchical mapping technique to examine attachment networks. Personal Relationships, 12, 499–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2010). New directions in attachment theory and research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 163–172. doi:10.1177/0265407509360899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, P. R., Belsky, J., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). The adult attachment interview and self-reports of romantic attachment: associations across domains and methods. Personal Relationships, 7, 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: the role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, G., & Beatty, M. J. (1988). The interactive effects of touch and touch avoidance on interpersonal evaluations. Communication Research Reports, 5, 84–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitz, R. A. (1945). Hospitalism. An inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1, 53–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spitz, R. A. (1946). Hospitalism: a follow-up report. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 2, 113–117.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spitz, R. A. (1951). The psychogenic diseases in infancy: an attempt at their etiologic classification. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 6, 255–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, J. S., & Anders, S. L. (1998). Adult attachment style and nonverbal closeness in dating couples. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuckett, A. G. (2005). Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: a researcher’s experience. Contemporary Nurse, 19, 75–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Underdown, A., Barlow, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2010). Tactile stimulation in physically healthy infants: results of a systematic review. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 28, 11–29. doi:10.1080/02646830903247209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (1988). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: a meta-analysis of the strange situation. Child Development, 59, 147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Ontario: The University of Western Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vortherms, R. C. (1991). Clinically improving communication through touch. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 17, 6–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zoglowek, H. (1999). Tematisk analyse. En framgangsmåte for å analysere kvalitative intervju. Nordisk Pedagogik, 19, 156–167.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Psychology and Sport Science, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden

    Caroline Johansson

Authors
  1. Caroline Johansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Johansson.

Additional information

Author Note

The present study was financed in part by Faculty of Health, Social Work and Behavioral Sciences, Linnaeus University, Sweden. Many thanks to the participants who made the study possible.

Appendix

Appendix

Interview Guide

Background information:

  1. a)

    Family background

  2. b)

    Age

  3. c)

    Current life situation

  4. d)

    Education

  5. e)

    Leisure activities

Open-Ended Questions/Themes

  1. I.

    Attitudes toward touch in general

  2. II.

    Attitudes toward touch in connection with specific relations

  3. a)

    Childhood

  4. b)

    Romantic Partner

  5. c)

    Same-sex friend

  6. d)

    Opposite-sex friend

  7. e)

    Professional touch

  8. f)

    Social touch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johansson, C. Views on and Perceptions of Experiences of Touch Avoidance: An Exploratory Study. Curr Psychol 32, 44–59 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-012-9162-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-012-9162-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation