Abstract
Interpersonal tactile stroking stimulation activates different peripheral nerve fibers, especially C-tactile afferents, which encode pleasant and erotic sensations. Hence, humans typically stroke close interaction partners with velocities that are suited to stimulate C-tactile afferents in the touch receivers’ skin. We aim to replicate this finding and we furthermore hypothesized that humans adjust their stroking velocity depending on the relationship with the interaction partner. We tested 60 participants in total (29 men, 31 women, mean age 23.3 years ± 3.6 years SD). They were asked to stroke their partner, their friend, a female stranger, a male stranger, an artificial arm and a table. Stroking was recorded by a video camera and each participant rated the emotional closeness to and attractiveness of each human interaction partner. In addition, we determined the velocity that each participant preferred to be stroked with in a forced choice paradigm. The participants stroked other humans slower and more in the optimal range for C-tactile fiber activation than non-humans. The stroking velocity was related to ratings of sympathy. The participants did not adjust their stroking velocities towards the stimulation they preferred for themselves. In conclusion, our study reaffirms that interindividual stroking touch is targeted to activate C-tactile fibers in the touch receiver. Furthermore, humans adjust their stroking velocity according to sympathy and interindividual attraction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackerley, R., Saar, K., McGlone, F., & Backlund Wasling, H. (2014). Quantifying the sensory and emotional perception of touch: Differences between glabrous and hairy skin. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience,8, 34.
Bendas, J., Georgiadis, J. R., Ritschel, G., Olausson, H., Weidner, K., & Croy, I. (2017). C-tactile mediated erotic touch perception relates to sexual desire and performance in a gender-specific way. The Journal of Sexual Medicine,14(5), 645–653.
Brennan, K. A., Wu, S., & Loev, J. (1998). 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 (p. 394–428). Guilford Press.
Brown, D., & Cox, A. J. (2009). Innovative uses of video analysis. The Physics Teacher,47(3), 145–150.
Croy, I., Luong, A., Triscoli, C., Hofmann, E., Olausson, H., & Sailer, U. (2016). Interpersonal stroking touch is targeted to C tactile afferent activation. Behavioural Brain Research SreeTestContent,1(297), 37–40.
Dainton, M., Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1994). Maintenance strategies and physical affection as predictors of love, liking, and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Reports,7(2), 88–98.
Debrot, A., Schoebi, D., Perrez, M., & Horn, A. B. (2013). Touch as an interpersonal emotion regulation process in couples’ daily lives: The mediating role of psychological intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,39(10), 1373–1385.
Ditzen, B., Neumann, I. D., Bodenmann, G., von Dawans, B., Turner, R. A., Ehlert, U., et al. (2007). Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on cortisol and heart rate responses to stress in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology,32(5), 565–574.
Dunbar, R. I. (1991). Functional significance of social grooming in primates. Folia Primatologica,57(3), 121–131.
Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,34(2), 246–259.
Gentsch, A., Panagiotopoulou, E., & Fotopoulou, A. (2015). Active interpersonal touch gives rise to the social softness illusion. Current Biology,25(18), 2392–2397.
Hautzinger, M., Keller, F., & Kühner, C. (2006). Beck depressions-inventar (BDI-II). Frankfurt: Harcourt Test Services.
Hertenstein, M. J., Keltner, D., App, B., Bulleit, B. A., & Jaskolka, A. R. (2006). Touch communicates distinct emotions. Emotion,6(3), 528.
Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2017). Affectionate touch to promote relational, psychological, and physical well-being in adulthood: A theoretical model and review of the research. Personality and Social Psychology Review,21(3), 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316650307.
Jönsson, E. H., Backlund Wasling, H., Wagnbeck, V., Dimitriadis, M., Georgiadis, J. R., Olausson, H., et al. (2015). Unmyelinated tactile cutaneous nerves signal erotic sensations. The Journal of Sexual Medicine,12(6), 1338–1345.
Löken, L. S., Wessberg, J., McGlone, F., & Olausson, H. (2009). Coding of pleasant touch by unmyelinated afferents in humans. Nature Neuroscience,12(5), 547.
Luong, A., Bendas, J., Etzi, R., Olausson, H., & Croy, I. (2017). The individual preferred velocity of stroking touch as a stable measurement. Physiology and Behavior,177, 129–134.
McGlone, F., Olausson, H., Boyle, J., Jones-Gotman, M., Dancer, C., Guest, S., et al. (2012). Touching and feeling: Differences in pleasant touch processing between glabrous and hairy skin in humans. European Journal of Neuroscience,35(11), 1782–1788.
McGlone, F., Wessberg, J., & Olausson, H. (2014). Discriminative and affective touch: Sensing and feeling. Neuron,82(4), 737–755.
Morrison, I. (2016). Keep calm and cuddle on: Social touch as a stress buffer. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology,2, 344–362.
Olausson, H., Wessberg, J., McGlone, F., & Vallbo, Å. (2010). The neurophysiology of unmyelinated tactile afferents. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,34(2), 185–191.
Suvilehto, J. T., Glerean, E., Dunbar, R. I., Hari, R., & Nummenmaa, L. (2015). Topography of social touching depends on emotional bonds between humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,112(45), 13811–13816.
von Mohr, M., Kirsch, L. P., & Fotopoulou, A. (2017). The soothing function of touch: Affective touch reduces feelings of social exclusion. Scientific Reports,7(1), 13516.
Willis, F. N., & Briggs, L. F. (1992). Relationship and touch in public settings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,16(1), 55–63.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None of the authors reports any conflict of interest for the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Statistical Analysis: Supplement to Emotional Ratings of the Receivers
We present the mean values and the standard deviation for the scales of velocity, sympathy, attractivity, emotional closeness and trust for each of the receivers 1–6. We further compare the general analysis with 60 participants and the restricted analysis with 22 participants.
General analysis | Restricted analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
Velocity.1 | 14.708 | 6.4649 | Velocity.1 | 15.582 | 7.7621 |
Velocity.2 | 16.316 | 7.2131 | Velocity.2 | 16.383 | 8.7857 |
Velocity.3 | 17.136 | 7.3181 | Velocity.3 | 16.129 | 7.5443 |
Velocity.4 | 16.603 | 6.7578 | Velocity.4 | 15.878 | 7.3796 |
Velocity.5 | 18.447 | 8.0846 | Velocity.5 | 18.026 | 9.1434 |
Velocity.6 | 21.423 | 8.4178 | Velocity.6 | 21.148 | 9.7025 |
Sympathy.1: | 9.390 | 1.3394 | Sympathy.1: sympathy | 9.850 | 0.3663 |
Sympathy.2: | 8.153 | 1.7500 | Sympathy.2: sympathy | 7.636 | 1.9651 |
Sympathy.3: | 4.623 | 3.0065 | Sympathy.3: sympathy | 4.476 | 2.6004 |
Sympathy.4: | 4.969 | 2.7384 | Sympathy.4: sympathy | 4.545 | 1.8186 |
Sympathy.5: | − 0.653 | 4.6168 | Sympathy.5: sympathy | − 0.824 | 4.5858 |
Attractivity.1: | 9.195 | 1.0300 | Attractivity.1: attractivity | 9.100 | 0.9119 |
Attractivity.2: | 5.356 | 3.7128 | Attractivity.2: attractivity | 5.045 | 2.8532 |
Attractivity.3: | 3.311 | 3.7883 | Attractivity.3: attractivity | 3.571 | 3.4867 |
Attractivity.4: | 3.031 | 3.6270 | Attractivity.4: attractivity | 3.000 | 2.5635 |
Emotional closeness.1 | 8.951 | 1.6424 | Emot_closeness.1: emotional closeness | 9.350 | 0.8751 |
Emotional closeness.2 | 5.949 | 2.8673 | Emot_closeness.2: emotional closeness | 5.455 | 2.4636 |
Emotional closeness.3 | − 1.754 | 5.5457 | Emot_closeness.3: emotional closeness | − 2.190 | 5.3630 |
Emotional closeness.4 | − 1.677 | 5.1390 | Emot_closeness.4: emotional closeness | − 2.773 | 4.6078 |
Emotional closeness.5 | − 5.265 | 5.5067 | Emot_closeness.5: emotional closeness | − 6.176 | 4.6130 |
Trust.1: trust | 9.390 | 0.9715 | Trust.1: trust | 9.200 | 1.1050 |
Trust.2: trust | 7.527 | 2.5593 | Trust.2: trust | 7.150 | 2.4339 |
Trust.3: trust | 0.233 | 4.9244 | Trust.3: trust | − 0.300 | 3.9881 |
Trust.4: trust | 0.302 | 4.6546 | Trust.4: trust | − 0.850 | 4.6710 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Strauss, T., Bytomski, A. & Croy, I. The Influence of Emotional Closeness on Interindividual Touching. J Nonverbal Behav 44, 351–362 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-020-00334-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-020-00334-2