Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patterns of matching and initiation: Touch behavior and touch avoidance across romantic relationship stages

  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the similarity of touch behavior and touch attitudes among dating and married couples. Touch behavior showed a strong matching effect for seriously dating and married couples. Z-tests revealed that correlations between relational partners were significantly stronger for marrieds than for serious or casual daters. Results for attitudes concerning touch showed a statistically significant but weak relationship between dyadic partners though the correlation strengthened in closer relationships. As was the case in previous studies, results showed that women reported less positive attitudes toward opposite-sex touch than men. A linear contrast in proportions demonstrated that men initiated touch significantly more in casual romantic relationships, but women initiated touch more in married relationships. Together, these data suggest that patterns of matching may vary as a function of relationship stage, while patterns of touch initiation may vary as a function of both relationship stage and sex.

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

References

  • Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973).Social penetrations: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P. A. (1985). Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.),Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P. A. (1989, May).A cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. Paper presented at the International Network Conference on Personal Relationships, Iowa City, IA.

  • Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1989, February).Avoiding communication: Verbal and nonverbal dimensions of defensiveness. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, Spokane, WA.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance, and affiliation.Sociometry, 28, 289–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid, E., Dion, K. K., Walster, E. H., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: Tests of the matching hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 173–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. W. (1983).American couples. New York: Pocket Books.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. C. (1989).Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Dillman, L., & Stern, L. A. (1993). Adaptation in dyadic interaction: Defining and operationalizing patterns of reciprocity and compensation.Communication Theory, 4, 295–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations.Human Communication Research, 2, 131–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors.Communication Monographs, 55, 58–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, B. R., & Denton, W. H. (1992). A new look at similarity and attraction in marriage: Similarities in social-cognitive and communication skills as predictors of attraction and satisfaction.Communication Monographs, 59, 268–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, B. R., Samter, W., & Lucchetti, A. E. (1992). Similarity in communication values as a predictor of friendship choices: Studies of friends and best friends.Southern Communication Journal, 57, 260–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1971).The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappella, J. N. (1985). Controlling the floor in conversations. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.),Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 69–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappella, J. N., & Greene, J. O. (1982). A discrepancy-arousal explanation of mutual influence in expressive behavior for adults and infant-adult interaction.Communication Monographs, 49, 89–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappella, J. N., & Palmer, M. T. (1990). Attitude similarity, relational history and attraction: The mediating effects of kinesic and vocal behaviors.Communication Monographs, 57, 161–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duck, S., & Barnes, M. K. (1992). Disagreeing about agreement: Reconciling differences about similarity.Communication Monographs, 59, 199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eakins, B. W., & Eakins, R. G. (1988). Sex differences in nonverbal communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.),Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 292–309). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fromme, D. K., et al. (1986). Attitudes toward touch: Cross-validation and the effects of gender and acquaintanceship.Passegha di Psicologia, 3, 49–63.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Henley, N. M. (1973). Status and sex: Some touching observations.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 91–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henley, N. M. (1977).Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. L., & Edwards, R. (1991). The effects of gender and type of romantic touch on perceptions of relational commitment.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, M. L., &-Hall, J. A. (1992).Nonverbal communication in human interaction (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1992).Interpersonal communication and human relationships (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1979). A review of nonverbal behaviors of women and men.Western Journal of Speech Communication, 43, 96–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication.Human Communication Research, 1, 323–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior.Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1, 323–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulac, A., Studley, L. B., Wiemann, J. W., & Bradac, J. J. (1987). Male/female gaze in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: Gender-linked differences and mutual influence.Human Communication Research, 13, 323–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, M. L. (1976). An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy.Psychological Review, 83, 235–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, M. L. (1983).Nonverbal behavior: A functional perspective. Springer-Verlag.

  • Pisano, M. D., Wall, S. M., & Foster, A. (1986). Perceptions of nonreciprocal touch in romantic relationships.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10, 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984).Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Street, R. L., Jr. (1982). Evaluation of noncontent speech convergence.Language and Communication, 2, 13–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thayer, S. (1986). Touch: Frontier of intimacy.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10, 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, F. N., Jr., & Briggs, L. F. (1992). Relationship and touch in public settings.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, F. N., Jr., Rinck, C. M., & Dean, L. M. (1978). Interpersonal touch among adults in cafeteria lines.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 1147–1152.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Arizona, USA

    Laura K. Guerrero (Doctoral candidate in Communication)

  2. San Diego State University, USA

    Peter A. Andersen (Professor of Speech Communication)

Authors
  1. Laura K. Guerrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter A. Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

She will be at Pennsylvania State University in the Fall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guerrero, L.K., Andersen, P.A. Patterns of matching and initiation: Touch behavior and touch avoidance across romantic relationship stages. J Nonverbal Behav 18, 137–153 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02170075

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02170075

Keywords

Search

Navigation