The effect of relational stage and intimacy on touch: An extension of Guerrero and Andersen

Abstract

The effects of relational stage, intimacy, and gender on touch were examined. Participants were 270 partners from 135 couples involved in a heterosexual romantic relationship. Results indicated that touch varies as a function of relational stage. An examination of relational stage and subjects' perceptions of how much they touched their partner and how much their partner touched them generally indicated an asymptotic relationship. Specifically, men's and women's perceptions of how much they touched their partners, and women's perceptions of how much their partners touched them, increased from the casually dating to the seriously dating stage and then leveled off for seriously dating, engaged, and married couples. Men's perceptions of how much their partners touched them increased from the casually dating to the seriously dating stage then decreased from the seriously dating to the married stage. Relational intimacy was also curvilinearly related to self and partner perceptions of touch. Because there were no significant interaction effects between stage and gender, or intimacy and gender, the curvilinear effects of relational stage and intimacy on touch are generalizable to both men and women.

Topic Avoidance in Developing Romantic Relationships

“…One direction for additional work is to evaluate the extent to which relational uncertainty mediates the curvilinear associations that intimacy shares with a myriad of other indicators of relational turbulence. Indeed, we will be in a position to draw more comprehensive conclusions if the findings of this study replicate across markers of turmoil such as conflict (Braiker & Kelley, 1979;Christopher & Cate, 1985;Cloven & Roloff, 1994), verbal aggression (Billingham & Sack, 1987), public and private touch (Emmers & Dindia, 1995;Guerrero & Andersen, 1991), and indirect messages (Solomon, 1997). A second avenue for future research is to examine other mechanisms that may have a hand in promoting relational turbulence at moderate levels of intimacy.…”

Interference and facilitation from partners in the development of interdependence within romantic relationships

“…Intimacy coincides with language that is coordinated between partners, including idioms (Bell, Buerkel-Rothfuss, & Gore, 1987) and personalized communication (Planalp, 1993;Planalp & Benson, 1992). Similarly, intimacy corresponds with nonverbal signals of togetherness, such as tie-signs (Afifi & Johnson, 1999), relationship symbols (Baxter, 1987), and touch (Emmers & Dindia, 1995;Guerrero & Andersen, 1991). Thus, intimacy is linked to interdependence processes across the development of romantic relationships.…”

Stroking your Beloved One's White Bear: Responsive Touch by the Romantic Partner Buffers the Negative Effect of Thought Suppression on Daily Mood

“…Responsive touch, such as hugging, caressing or hand holding represents a way to express one's care. Touch is associated with improved mood (Burleson, Trevathan, & Todd, 2007;Coan et al, 2006), and the kind and amount of touch displayed in romantic relationships is unique (Rosenfeld, Kartus, & Ray, 1976) and reflects how serious and sincere a relationship is (Emmers & Dindia, 1995).…”

“…Touch is most frequent in this stage of the relationship (seriously dating; Emmers & Dindia, 1995). Moreover, the sample was composed of nondistressed couples.…”