Hand-in-Hand Combat: Affectionate Touch Promotes Relational Well-Being and Buffers Stress During Conflict

Abstract

Relational conflict has a considerable impact on relational and personal well-being, but whether that impact is positive or negative depends on how the conflict is managed. Individuals struggle to have constructive conflicts that protect their relationships and avoid excess stress, which can lead to declines in relationship quality over time. The current set of experiments tested whether a brief touch intervention would promote relational well-being and prevent stress during couple conflict discussions. Results indicated that engaging in touch prior to and during conflict was effective to improve couple-members’ conflict behavior and to buffer stress in real (Experiment 1) and imagined (Experiments 2a and 2b) contexts. The results of these experiments suggest that touch may be a simple yet effective intervention for improving couple conflict discussions. In addition, we provide initial evidence that enhanced state security and cognitive interdependence serve as mechanisms underlying these effects.

Keywords

touch close relationships intervention conflict

Romantic couples disagree, argue, and may eventually “kiss and make-up.” As the expression indicates, couple-members engage in physical affection after an argument to signal reconciliation. Couple-members may offer a kiss or hug after conflict to calm themselves (and one another), to reaffirm the closeness of the relationship, and to move forward as allies rather than combatants. However, if they instead touched prior to or during conflict (e.g., a hug before voicing a concern, holding hands during an argument), perhaps couple-members would be motivated to discuss their conflicts cooperatively and could remain calm throughout the discussion. Such a shift in perspective might improve the quality of the conflict discussion, prevent excessive stress, and protect perceptions of the relationship.

Building on recent empirical and theoretical work describing benefits of affectionate touch in close relationships (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a, 2016b, 2017), the current investigation tested whether touch interventions prior to and during a conflict discussion protect relational well-being and buffer stress. Specifically, we tested whether affectionate touch improved observable relational behaviors during conflict (i.e., increased constructive and decreased destructive behaviors), protected perceptions of the relationship, and buffered observable and self-reported stress. In addition, we investigated whether two theorized relational–cognitive consequences of receiving affectionate touch—enhanced state security and cognitive interdependence—explained the hypothesized effects of the touch intervention. Next, we describe research on conflict and present an argument for touch as a valuable conflict intervention.

Conflict in Close Relationships

On average, couples report that they experience several disagreements each week (Papp, Cummings, & Goeke-Morey, 2009). Couples who experience frequent and severe conflicts report poorer well-being and greater decreases in relationship quality over time than couples with less conflict (e.g., Kluwer & Johnson, 2007; Proulx, Helms, & Buehler, 2007). However, conflicts also provide opportunities for couples to improve their relationships by working toward productive compromises or requesting changes that facilitate cohesion. In addition, because conflicts are diagnostic situations in which individuals infer their partner’s motives, conflicts can increase satisfaction and commitment when couple-members behave responsively (Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006). Given its potential positive and negative outcomes, conflict is neither inherently good nor bad; conflict’s impact depends on how it is managed (Ostenson & Zhang, 2014). Thus, relationship researchers have prioritized identifying behaviors that determine conflict’s effects (e.g., Gottman & Notarius, 2002).

Several conflict behaviors are reliably destructive including (a) negative affect/hostility (expressions of displeasure and antagonism), (b) criticism (attacking one’s character), (c) defensiveness (warding off a perceived attack by denying responsibility), (d) contempt (mocking or disparaging), (e) stonewalling (disengaging), and (f) denial (denying a problem’s existence to avoid the conflict altogether) (e.g., Gottman, 1994; Zietlow & Sillars, 1988). Both self-reported and objective measures of destructive conflict behaviors prospectively predict decreases in relationship quality and an increased likelihood of divorce over time (e.g., Birditt, Brown, Orbuch, & McIlvane, 2010; Gottman & Levenson, 1992, 2002; Matthews, Wickrama, & Conger, 1996).

In addition to these relational costs, there are also health costs associated with destructive conflicts (Wright & Loving, 2011). Destructive conflicts are damaging, in part, because they are a prominent source of stress, and repeated or chronic stress impacts health (Cohen, Janicki-Deverts, & Miller, 2007; Thoits, 2010). Specifically, negative conflict behaviors predict weakened immune function, endocrine changes, cardiovascular reactivity, depression, anxiety, and disturbed sleep (e.g., El-Sheikh, Kelly, Koss, & Rauer, 2015; Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2005; Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1993; Newton & Sanford, 2003; Rodriguez & Margolin, 2013).

As relationship scientists have increasingly emphasized positive relationship processes (e.g., Feeney & Collins, 2015), they have also increasingly investigated benefits of enacting positive behaviors (rather than simply avoiding negative behaviors) during conflict. Constructive conflict behaviors include maintaining positive affect, providing verbal affection, accepting responsibility for a part of the problem, supporting and validating one’s partner, and problem-solving by suggesting potential solutions and compromises (Birditt et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2005; Woodin, 2011). Research supports the benefits of constructive behaviors to decrease the likelihood of divorce (Matthews et al., 1996) and to buffer the destructiveness of negative conflict behaviors (Huston & Chorost, 1994; Johnson et al., 2005). Constructive conflict behavior also reduced physiological reactivity to conflict, independent of the effects of destructive behaviors (e.g., Robles, Shaffer, Malarkey, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2006). Thus, it is desirable to promote positive behaviors and reduce negative behaviors during conflict.

Improving Conflict Discussions With Affectionate Touch

Although researchers have studied conflicts extensively, there have been few attempts to improve conflict interactions, and the interventions that do exist are limited. Most conflict interventions (e.g., marital therapies) involve practicing constructive communication skills but only target distressed couples who are often unable to overcome years of destructive conflicts (e.g., Baucom & Epstein, 1990; Greenberg & Johnson, 1988). Preventive interventions instead target nondistressed couples to prevent relationship declines (Glenn, 1998; VanLaningham, Johnson, & Amato, 2001). These interventions also typically teach conflict skills, and although they improve conflict behavior, they tend to be time-consuming, expensive, or difficult to access (e.g., Cummings, Faircloth, Mitchell, Cummings, & Schermerhorn, 2008; Markman, Renick, Floyd, Stanley, & Clements, 1993). An ideal conflict intervention should target couples before they become distressed and should be non-invasive and accessible.

Although most conflict interventions teach skills, a better approach may be to target couple-members’ motivation to protect the relationship during conflict (Winczewski, Bowen, & Collins, 2016). According to interdependence theory, individuals are naturally motivated by self-interests. Therefore, to have a constructive conflict, couple-members need to transform this basic, selfish motivation into a prorelational motivation in which they are willing to incur a personal cost to benefit their partners and/or relationships (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). Because of the negative health consequences of prolonged stress, an ideal intervention also should buffer stress during conflict (Thoits, 2010). Interventions that improve conflict behaviors may reduce stress associated with destructive behavior, but an intervention that directly targets stress would be optimal.

Affectionate touch—touch intended to demonstrate affection or typically associated with affection—may be an ideal conflict intervention because it is a readily accessible behavior that is theorized to enhance prorelational motivation and effectively buffers stress (see Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017, for a review). A touch intervention may seem trivial, but minimal interventions can be effective when they target important psychological processes (Finkel, Slotter, Luchies, Walton, & Gross, 2013; Walton, 2014). The current research tested whether an affectionate touch intervention—delivered before and during a conflict discussion—would protect relational well-being and buffer stress during conflict. Next, we summarize links between touch and relational well-being and stress, and we describe theoretical reasons why touch may affect these outcomes during conflict.

Affectionate Touch and Relational Well-Being

In general, individuals who touch frequently in their relationships report greater satisfaction, commitment, and intimacy than individuals who touch less often (e.g., Gulledge, Gulledge, & Stahmann, 2003; Heiman et al., 2011). Regarding conflict in particular, couples who report more touch report that they have more effective communication, less conflict, and easier conflict resolution (Gulledge et al., 2003; Leavitt & Willoughby, 2014). This correlational research leaves open the possibility that satisfied couples resolve conflicts effectively and simply choose to touch more frequently. Although this interpretation is reasonable, there is also strong theoretical rationale (yet untested) for a causal role of touch to enhance relational well-being and improve conflict discussions (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017).

Affectionate touch may promote or protect relational well-being during conflict by shaping how individuals see themselves and their relationships—that is, by facilitating relational–cognitive changes (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). Individuals who receive affectionate touch normatively infer that their partner is concerned with their well-being and likely to be responsive to their needs (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2007). Although many individuals in close relationships already hold these expectations, touch may reinforce the closeness of the relationship and provide a salient reminder of the partner’s love. As a result, individuals who receive affectionate touch may experience state security because they feel safe and cared for in the moment (Collins & Feeney, 2004). This idea is consistent with research showing that touch promotes state security and intimacy (Debrot, Schoebi, Perrez, & Horn, 2013; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016b).

If affectionate touch promotes state security during conflict, this would be a significant asset to improve conflict discussions and protect relational well-being because security is one key factor that facilitates prorelational motivation and behavior. Specifically, state security encourages sacrifice, support-provision, and positive relational expectations (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, & Sahdra, 2014; Mikulincer, Shaver, Sahdra, & Bar-On, 2013; Rowe & Carnelley, 2003). Individuals who feel secure trust their partners to be responsive and are therefore less concerned about prioritizing self-interests. Thus, even without skills training, couples may have more constructive conflicts when they touch.

Receiving touch may also promote cognitive interdependence to promote relational well-being (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998). In other words, touch may encourage couple-members to see themselves as a collective “we” rather than a singular “I”. Individuals in close relationships automatically incorporate their partners into their self-concepts (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991), but touch may amplify cognitive interdependence momentarily because it blurs the boundary between self and other. Consistent with theories of embodied cognition (Meier, Schnall, Schwarz, & Bargh, 2012), physical overlap during touch may lead to the perception of a merged dyadic identity with shared perspectives and goals. Indeed, greater touch is correlated with greater perceived self-other overlap (Ledbetter, 2013).

Research also provides preliminary support for a link between cognitive interdependence and relational well-being during conflict. Couples who exhibited cognitive interdependence during their conflicts (e.g., first person plural pronoun usage) behaved more constructively and were less likely to divorce than couples who exhibited less cognitive interdependence (Buehlman, Gottman, & Katz, 1992; Seider, Hirschberger, Nelson, & Levenson, 2009).

Thus, we predicted that an affectionate touch intervention would protect relational well-being during a conflict discussion. Specifically, we hypothesized that participants assigned to touch affectionately would behave more constructively and less destructively during conflict and would maintain more positive relational perceptions than participants assigned not to touch. We also predicted that these effects would be explained indirectly through increased state security and cognitive interdependence (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Hypothesized theoretical model for Experiment 1.

Affectionate Touch and Stress Reactivity

Past research suggests that touch may also buffer the stress associated with conflict discussions. Greater touch is linked to less daily stress, less reactivity to stressors, and faster stress recovery (e.g., Ditzen, Hoppman, & Klumb, 2008; Robinson, Hoplock, & Cameron, 2015). There is also robust experimental evidence that touch reduces stress: Touch produced declines in physiological stress-markers (Holt-Lunstad, Birmingham, & Light, 2008), and receiving or imagining touch prior to stressful laboratory tasks buffered stress reactivity compared with receiving or imagining verbal support or no support (Ditzen et al., 2007; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a). In past experiments, the stressful laboratory tasks were unrelated to the relationship; in the current research, we tested whether affectionate touch would similarly buffer conflict, a relational stressor.

The relational–cognitive mechanisms described previously may also play a role in buffering stress. State security has been shown to reduce distress (Cassidy, Shaver, Mikulincer, & Lavy, 2009), and dispositional security predicts less intense stress during conflict (Brooks, Robles, & Dunkel Schetter, 2011; Powers, Pietromonaco, Gunlicks, & Sayer, 2006). Therefore, if touch promotes state security, it may buffer conflict stress. Cognitive interdependence also should reduce the stressfulness of a conflict because couples should not perceive a threat to their relationship’s stability when they feel interdependent. Indeed, couples who emphasized their role as part of a couple had less severe stress reactivity during conflict than couples who emphasized individuality (Buehlman et al., 1992; Seider et al., 2009).

Based on this past research and theory, we predicted that participants assigned to touch affectionately would self-report less stress and behave in ways that indicate less stress during conflict. In addition, we predicted that these effects would be at least partly explained by increased state security and cognitive interdependence (see Figure 1).

Overview of the Current Research

In three experiments, we tested whether affectionate touch promotes relational well-being and buffers stress during conflict. In Experiment 1, we randomly assigned couples to hold hands (touch condition) or neutral objects (control condition) prior to and during a conflict discussion. We measured state security and cognitive interdependence after the first touch manipulation, prior to the conflict discussion, and we assessed objective (observationally coded) and subjective (self-reported) measures of relational well-being and stress during the conflict. In two follow-up experiments, we tested whether imagining affectionate touch prior to and during an imagined conflict discussion enhanced state security and cognitive interdependence (Experiments 2a and 2b), and we again tested whether touch improved objective relational well-being (Experiment 2b) and buffered self-reported stress (Experiments 2a and 2b).

Experiment 1

Method

Participants

Participants were 140 (128 heterosexual, 10 homosexual, 2 non-gender conforming) romantic couples recruited from an urban community and undergraduate courses via flyers and online advertisements. Sample size was determined by a power analysis to detect small to medium effects.¹ Couples were eligible to participate if they had been together for at least 6 months (M = 34.56, SD = 57.98) and were both at least 18 years old (M = 24.13, SD = 7.79). Most couples were unmarried (90.7%), and 41.8% were cohabitating. Participants were predominantly White/Caucasian (48.2%), Asian (33.2%), multiracial (7.1%), or Black/African American (6.1%). Data from 13 couples were excluded from analysis; eight couples did not follow the manipulation instructions, and five couples guessed the purpose of the study.

Procedure and measures

Couples participated in an hour-long experimental session, one couple at a time. As a cover story, couples were told that the study was investigating handedness (i.e., right- or left-hand dominance) and the physiological effects of participating in everyday activities while limited to one hand. Participants’ heart rates were measured throughout the study to support the cover story, but the heart rate sensors did not provide usable stress reactivity data.²

Background questionnaires

First, participants completed a measure of handedness (to support the cover story) and the following background measures.

Relationship quality

We measured relationship satisfaction (four items; e.g., “All things considered, how happy are you in your relationship?”), commitment (six items; e.g., “Do you feel commited to maintaining your relationship with your partner?”), and conflict (three items; e.g., “How often do you and your partner have arguments and disagreements?”) with items from Van Lange and colleagues (1997) and Collins and Read (1990). Participants responded using a 9-point scale with appropriate labels (0 indicated low quality; 8 indicated high quality). Composite relationship quality (with conflict items reverse-coded; α = .88) served as a baseline measure to control for participants’ typical perceptions of their relationship in analyses predicting self-reported relational perceptions.

Typical touch

Participants reported their comfort being touched by their partners from 0 (not at all) to 8 (completely), and they reported how commonly they touch in public, while discussing something stressful, and while relaxing together from 1 (never) to 7 (very often). These items were included to describe the sample (see results).

Perceived stress

Background stress was assessed with the four-item Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). Participants rated their stress over the past month from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). This measure (α = .88) served as a baseline to control for participants’ typical stress in self-reported stress analyses.

Relational disagreements

To select a topic for the conflict discussion, participants rated the severity of 14 sources of conflict (e.g., money, communication) in their relationship from 0 (not severe) to 100 (very severe).

Demographics

Finally, participants completed relevant demographic information.

Neutral activity

Next, couple-members completed a brief activity together. The experimenter instructed participants to build something together with Lego blocks and informed participants that they could each use only one hand. These instructions provided a cover story for the touch manipulation.

Manipulation instructions

Couples randomly assigned to the touch condition were instructed to hold hands throughout the activity to ensure that they remembered to use one hand. Although the cover story provided a non-affectionate rationale for holding hands, hand-holding is typically associated with affection and thus provides an affectionate touch manipulation.³ Couples randomly assigned to the control condition were given two exercise weights to place between them. The experimenter instructed couple-members to each hold onto one weight during the activity and to rest the weights on the sofa. Thus, couples in the control condition were unable to touch, and all couples were limited to one hand. The experimenter left couples to build for 6 min while she observed whether they followed instructions through a hidden camera.

Relational–cognitive mechanisms

After the neutral activity, participants separately completed a brief measure of their perceptions of being limited to one hand to support the cover story. Then, they completed a state security scale (Luke, Sedikides, & Carnelley, 2012). They indicated the extent to which they felt secure in the moment by rating a set of nine adjectives (e.g., comforted, safe) from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much), α = .89, (M = 4.59, SD = .87).

Next, participants completed items to measure cognitive interdependence. First, they completed a state version of the Inclusion of Other in Self Scale (IOS; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992), a one-item pictorial measure that depicts pairs of circles labeled self and partner that range from completely separate (1) to completely overlapping (7). Participants selected the pair of circles that best represented their relationship with their partner in that moment. Participants also rated their agreement with three items designed for this study (e.g., “I feel a sense of one-ness with my partner”) from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). The four items formed a composite measure of cognitive interdependence (α = .72; M = 5.45, SD = .91).

Conflict discussion

Participants were reunited and sat side by side on the sofa again. If both couple-members agreed to have a conversation about a relationship disagreement (only two couples did not agree), the experimenter provided the conflict topic on an index card. The experimenter selected the topic that had the highest severity rating across couple-members on the disagreements questionnaire. Money (21.6%) and communication (16.8%) were discussed most frequently, and the discussed topics were prerated as moderately severe (M = 47.2, SD = 27.8).

The experimenter asked couples to discuss their disagreement while limited to one hand, as in the neutral activity, and participants were reminded either to hold hands (touch condition) or hold weights (control condition) during the entire discussion. Couples remained in the same condition throughout the experiment; couples who touched during the neutral activity also touched during the conflict discussion. The couple discussed their disagreement for 6 min while the experimenter observed through a hidden camera to ensure that they followed instructions. The experimenter video-recorded the conflict discussion from another hidden camera. This camera recorded couple’s faces only so that coders could remain blind to condition.

Postconflict measures

Next, participants separately completed a measure of their perceptions of being limited to one hand to support the cover story and the following measures.

Stress

Participants reported their stress by reporting the extent to which six adjectives (e.g., anxious, upset, stressed out) embedded in a mood questionnaire applied to them in the moment. Participants responded to each item on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much). These items were averaged to form the self-reported stress composite (α = .88; M = 2.09; SD = .95).

Relational perceptions

The relational perceptions composite included four measures. To measure state relationship quality, participants responded to three items from the background relationship questionnaire (modified to measure state perceptions) from 0 (not at all) to 8 (completely), α = .86 (M = 6.52, SD = 1.33). Participants also responded to five items that assessed perceptions of the conflict discussion (e.g., “Overall, how satisfied were you with the discussion you just had?”) from 1 (least positive perceptions) to 5 (most positive perceptions), α = .81(M = 3.81, SD = .80). Participants reported general perceptions of their partners during the conflict by rating 10 positive (e.g., supportive, cooperative) and 10 reverse-coded negative adjectives (e.g., dismissive, critical) from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely), α = .93 (M = 4.27, SD = .61). Finally, we measured perceived partner responsiveness (Reis, Maniaci, Capariello, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2011) with 12 items modified to measure state perceptions from 1 (not at all true) to 9 (completely true), α = .94 (M = 6.90, SD = 1.08). These four scales all measured relational perceptions after conflict and were intercorrelated (rs ranging from .23 to .75, ps < .01). Thus, they were standardized and averaged to form a relational perceptions composite (α = .88).

Observational measures

Trained observational coders later watched videos of the conflict discussions and coded five constructive behaviors (e.g., verbal affection, cooperation), six destructive behaviors (e.g., criticism, defensiveness) and stress for each participant (see Table 1 for code descriptions). Coders were blind to condition and coded only one couple-member to ensure that codes were independent. Ratings assessed both the frequency and quality of the behavior from 1 (did not occur at all) to 5 (occurred consistently/highest quality). Two independent coders (out of 10 unique coders) coded each behavior, and their interrater reliability was assessed with intraclass correlations (ICCs; Hallgren, 2012; see Table 1). The average of the two raters’ codes was retained for data analyses. Ratings on the five constructive behaviors were averaged to form a constructive behaviors composite (α = .60; M = 2.09, SD = 0.48). Ratings on five of the destructive behaviors were averaged to form a destructive behaviors composite (α = .85, M = 1.29, SD = 0.46). Stonewalling was excluded because it occurred very rarely.

Table 1.

Experiment 1: Observational Codes.

Observational code	M (SD)	ICC	Brief description
Constructive conflict behaviors
Verbal affection	1.27 (.58)	.775	Statements to the partner used to demonstrate positive regard
Positive affect toward partner	2.75 (.86)	.702	Any positive affect directed at the partner
Emotional support/validation	2.46 (.79)	.656	Demonstrating support and understanding to the partner
Cooperation/positive problem-solving	2.34 (.85)	.668	Describing the problem positively or neutrally, working toward a mutually beneficial solution
Accept responsibility	1.62 (.77)	.771	Admitting responsibility for problem
Destructive conflict behaviors
Negative affect/hostility	1.32 (.67)	.773	Demonstrating displeasure or anger
Criticism	1.31 (.58)	.715	Disparaging partner’s character
Defensiveness	1.38 (.65)	.713	Trying to ward off a partner’s perceived attack
Denial	1.30 (.58)	.736	Rejecting a problem’s existence
Contempt	1.14 (.45)	.814	Attacking partner with intention to insult
Stonewalling/withdraw	1.07 (.32)	.791	Withdrawing to avoid conflict
Stress
Anxiety/distress	1.79 (.81)	.718	Exhibiting stress or anxiety

Note. ICC = intraclass correlation.

Data analytic strategy

Data collected from couple-members are not independent. Therefore, we used the mixed procedure in SPSS 21 to fit analytic models that treat couple-members’ data as repeated measures from one subject (i.e., the dyad). This approach is a modified version of the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model appropriate for testing dyad-level interventions (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) and is equivalent to specifying random intercepts for each couple. In all models, condition was included in the model as a treatment-coded factor (touch = 1, control = 0). To increase power to test effects of the manipulation for the self-report outcomes, we controlled for relevant baseline measures (i.e., relationship quality or perceived stress).

Results and Discussion

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations

Zero-order correlations among all analyzed variables are presented in Table 2. Participants reported high relationship quality overall (M = 6.25, SD = 0.99), high comfort with being touched by their partners (M = 7.28, SD = 1.15), frequent touch with their partners while relaxing together (M = 6.57, SD = 0.81) and while in public (M = 5.01, SD = 1.67), and moderate touch while discussing something stressful (M = 4.74, SD = 1.82).

Table 2.

Experiment 1: Zero-Order Correlations Between Analyzed Variables.

Analyzed variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Relational–cognitive mechanisms
1. State security
2. Cognitive interdependence	.47**
Relational well-being
3. Constructive behavior composite	.03	.14*
4. Destructive behavior composite	−.08	−.34**	−.26**
5. Positive relational perceptions composite	.33**	.52**	.20**	−.53**
Stress
6. Observer-rated stress	−.10	−.14*	−.11^†	.41**	−.33**
7. Self-reported stress composite	−.26**	−.25**	−.01	.16*	−.57**	.32**
Control variables
8. Relationship quality (baseline)	.30**	.49**	.14*	−.40**	.65**	−.22**	−.36**
9. Perceived stress (baseline)	−.21**	−.17**	−.05	.02	−.20**	.01	.39**	−.26**

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Touch predicting relational well-being

Conflict behavior

We predicted that the touch intervention would improve conflict behavior. As expected, participants who were assigned to touch used more constructive behaviors (M = 2.19, SD = 0.44) than participants in the control condition (M = 1.99, SD = 0.50), t(116.1) = 2.77, p = .007, Cohen’s d = 0.42. However, there was no difference in the use of destructive behaviors between participants assigned to touch (M = 1.25, SD = 0.35) and not touch (M = 1.33, SD = 0.56), t(116.4) = −1.02, p = .309, Cohen’s d = 0.17. See Table 3 for 95% confidence intervals, mean differences, and partial ICCs between spouses.

Table 3.

Experiment 1: Summary of Primary Results.

	Relational well-being			Stress		Relational–cognitive mechanisms
	Constructive behavior composite	Destructive behavior composite	Relational perceptions	Observer-coded stress	Self-reported stress	State security	Cognitive interdependence
	Estimate	Estimate	Estimate	Estimate	Estimate	Estimate	Estimate
Predictor variables
1. Condition effect (touch vs. control)	.20** [.05, .34]	−.09 [–.24, .08]	.003 [–.20, .21]	−.25* [–.48, –.02]	−.27* [–.52, –.02]	.04 [–.21, .28]	−.12 [–.38, .13]
Control variables
2. Relationship quality (baseline)	—	—	.54** [.45, .62]	—	—	—	—
3. Perceived stress (baseline)	—	—	—	—	.45** [.31, .59]	—	—
Partial ICC between spouses	.34**	.72**	.48**	.20*	.31**	.34**	.30**

Note. The condition effect estimates the effect of the touch intervention; estimates for continuous control variables are unstandardized beta weights; 95% confidence intervals are in brackets. ICC = intraclass correlation.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Because there was a low base rate of destructive behavior in this sample, we tested whether touch reduced destructive behavior for participants with lower relationship quality who are especially likely to behave negatively (relationship quality and destructive behavior were correlated, r = –.40, p < .001). The interaction between condition and background relationship quality significantly predicted destructive behaviors, t(227.0) = 2.80, p = .006 (see Figure 2). For participants low in relationship quality (1 SD below the mean), touch reduced negative behavior, t(161.7) = 2.75, p = .007, Cohen’s d = 0.36. However, there was no effect of the touch intervention on negative behavior use for participants with average relationship quality, t(108.8) = 1.33, p = .187, Cohen’s d = 0.17, or high relationship quality (1 SD above the mean), t(162.3) = 0.64, p = .523, Cohen’s d = 0.08.

Figure 2.

Effect of touch on destructive conflict behavior by relationship quality.

Relationship quality was quite high in this sample, so even participants with relatively low (–1 SD) relationship quality rated their relationships above the scale midpoint. Therefore, these results suggest that touch mitigated destructive behavior for individuals with moderate relationship quality. Destructive behaviors occurred rarely, perhaps due to the laboratory setting, which may have obscured the effect of the touch intervention for all but the least satisfied couples. If the touch intervention occurred at home where negative behaviors are more common, it may reduce destructive behavior more broadly. Overall, objective ratings of conflict behaviors supported hypotheses; touch was effective to increase constructive behavior and to decrease destructive behavior for participants in poorer quality relationships, who may be especially likely to behave destructively during conflict.

Relational perceptions

We also predicted that touch would protect relational perceptions during conflict so that (controlling for baseline relationship quality) participants who held hands would report more positive relational perceptions than participants in the control condition. However, there was no effect of the touch intervention on relational perceptions (M_touch = –.01, SD_touch = .82; M_control = .02, SD_control = .92), t(119.1) = −0.03, p = .973 (see Table 3). Relational perceptions were very high in this sample, suggesting a possible ceiling effect. Given that touch enhanced constructive conflict behaviors, it is reasonable to predict that it would affect relational perceptions over a longer time course. By promoting constructive conflicts, touch may protect relational perceptions from normative declines and declines associated with destructive conflict (e.g., Glenn, 1998).

Touch predicting stress

Observer-rated stress

We predicted that holding hands would buffer the stress of the conflict discussion so that participants assigned to touch would exhibit less observable signs of stress than participants assigned not to touch. Indeed, participants assigned to touch exhibited less stress (M = 1.67, SD = 0.66) than participants assigned not to touch (M = 1.92, SD = 0.92), t(116.6) = −2.15, p = .034, Cohen’s d = 0.31 (see Table 3).

Self-reported stress

We also predicted that touch would buffer participant’s self-reported perceptions of stress during conflict, controlling for baseline perceived stress. As expected, participants assigned to touch reported less stress (M = 1.96, SD = 0.91) than participants assigned not to touch (M = 2.21, SD = 0.97), t(117.6) = −2.14, p = .034, Cohen’s d = 0.27 (see Table 3). Together, the condition differences in stress support the hypothesis that touch buffers the relational stress of conflict.

Indirect effects through relational–cognitive mechanisms

We predicted that the first touch intervention during the neutral activity would produce relational–cognitive changes that account for touch’s effects on relational well-being and stress. However, there was no effect of the first touch intervention on state security, t(122.0) = 0.30, p = .765, Cohen’s d = 0.05, or cognitive interdependence, t(122.7) = −0.95, p = .343, Cohen’s d = −0.13. Participants who held hands (M_security = 4.62, SD = 0.84; M_{interdependence} = 5.40, SD = 0.80) and participants who held weights (M_security = 4.58, SD = 0.86; M_{interdependence} = 5.52, SD = 0.99) during the Lego task reported similar levels of state security and cognitive interdependence (see Table 3).⁴ Thus, the hypothesized indirect effects were not supported. The Lego activity may not have been as neutral as intended; it may have been interpreted as play and increased state security and cognitive interdependence for all participants (Van Vleet & Feeney, 2015). The decision to measure relational–cognitive mechanisms prior to the conflict also may have prevented their detection because these mechanisms may be most influential during the conflict itself. Individuals who receive touch during conflict may be insulated from reductions in state security and cognitive interdependence that result from conflict.

Follow-ups to Experiment 1

We designed Experiments 2a and 2b to provide a stronger test of whether receiving affectionate touch affects the proposed relational–cognitive mechanisms (Experiments 2a and 2b) and to replicate the effects of touch on relational conflict behaviors (Experiment 2b) and stress (Experiments 2a and 2b). We used an imagined touch manipulation in which we more explicitly manipulated the affectionate nature of the touch, and we used an imagined conflict task in which participants imagined their partner behaving negatively to test whether touch protects state security and cognitive interdependence during relational threats. Imagined experiences can provide an analog of actual experiences; for instance, prior research has shown that the benefits of receiving touch to buffer stress and enhance state security are also observed when individuals imagine receiving touch (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a, 2016b). For these follow-up experiments, we used Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to recruit more diverse samples regarding relationship quality, relationship length, and age. The MTurk sample provides an opportunity to examine whether a touch intervention insulates individuals with more variable degrees of conflict from negative relational–cognitive changes and stress and promotes constructive behavior during an imagined conflict.

Experiment 2a

Method

Participants

Participants were 515 individuals recruited through MTurk. Of those, 501 (323 female, 176 male, 2 non-gender conforming) participants passed the attention check and were included in the final sample. Sample size was determined by a power analysis to detect small effects (Cohen’s d = .3), expecting exclusions. Participants were required to be fluent in English, at least 18 years old (M = 36.6, SD = 11.5), and in a relationship for at least 1 year (M = 9.6, SD = 9.2).

Procedure and measures

Participants provided demographic information and completed a three-item version of the relationship quality measure included in Experiment 1 (Collins & Read, 1990; Van Lange et al., 1997).

Guided visualization

In both conditions, participants completed a visualization task in which they imagined: (a) discussing their day with their partner on the sofa at home, (b) discussing a current conflict with their partner, and (c) their partner responding negatively during the conflict. Participants were randomly assigned to complete a touch or control version, based on Jakubiak and Feeney’s (2016b) visualization instructions. The instructions included the partner’s name and appropriate pronouns.

Part 1: Discuss day

Participants in the touch condition imagined their partner stroking their arm and putting their arm around them while they discussed their day. Then, they provided additional examples of how their partner could touch them in a comfortable way and visualized this interaction for 1 min. Participants in the control condition imagined details of the room in which they discussed their day with their partner. Then, they provided additional details about decorations in the room and visualized the room for 1 min.

Part 2: Discuss conflict

Next, participants thought of a current conflict in their relationship, described it briefly, and categorized it. Participants in the touch condition imagined that, as they began to discuss the conflict, their partner touched them affectionately in the same way they imagined in Part 1. Participants in the control condition imagined that, as they began to discuss the conflict, they noticed details of the room in the same way as in Part 1.

Part 3: Partner’s negative response

All participants imagined their partner interrupting and saying “Yeah, I hear you. But I still don’t really know what you want from me. I’m really frustrated, and I’m not sure how to resolve this.” Participants were instructed to read this sentence aloud, to briefly describe how it would feel to have the interaction, and to spend 1 min visualizing the interaction with their eyes closed.

Outcome measures

Next, participants completed the same state security (Luke et al., 2012), α = .94 (M = 2.60, SD = 1.30), and self-report stress scales, α = .89 (M = 3.68, SD = 1.30), described in Experiment 1. They also completed a measure of cognitive interdependence in which they rated their agreement with seven items similar to those used in Experiment 1 from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely), α = .92 (M = 3.68, SD = 1.30).

Results and Discussion

Zero-order correlations among all variables are presented in Table 4. Participants in this sample reported moderate relationship quality overall (M = 5.79, SD = 1.36). The most common conflict classifications were money (17.6%) and communication (11.4%).

Table 4.

Experiments 2a and 2b: Zero-Order Correlations.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5
1. State security		.75**	−.54**	.07	−.22**
2. Cognitive interdependence	.82**		−.63**	.13**	−.27**
3. Stress (self-reported)	−.59**	−.61**		−.12**	.28**
4. Constructive verbal behavior	—	—	—		−.52**
5. Destructive verbal behavior	—	—	—	—

Note. Experiment 2a correlations are below the diagonal; Experiment 2b correlations are above the diagonal.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Consistent with the hypothesized model, participants who imagined receiving affectionate touch from their partners prior to and during an imagined conflict reported greater state security, greater cognitive interdependence, and less stress than participants who did not imagine receiving touch (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Experiments 2a and 2b: Condition Differences.

	Touch condition	Control condition	Difference
	M (SD)	M (SD)	t	Cohen’s d	95% CI of the difference
Experiment 2a
State security	3.09 (1.31)	2.44 (1.21)	t(499) = 5.79**	0.52	[.43, .87]
Cognitive interdependence	3.69 (1.56)	3.07 (1.45)	t(499) = 4.61**	0.41	[.36, .88]
Stress (self-reported)	3.52 (1.28)	3.83 (1.30)	t(499) = −2.69**	0.24	[–.54, –.08]
Experiment 2b
State security	3.77 (1.31)	3.32 (1.30)	t(477) = 3.78**	0.34	[.22, .68]
Cognitive interdependence	3.68 (1.78)	3.06 (1.70)	t(477) = 3.98**	0.36	[.32, .94]
Stress (self-reported)	3.90 (1.40)	4.31 (1.32)	t(477) = −3.30**	0.30	[–65, –.17]
Constructive verbal behavior	2.56 (0.73)	2.44 (0.77)	t(456) = 1.78^†	0.16	[–.01, .26]
Destructive verbal behavior	1.43 (0.65)	1.56 (0.71)	t(456) = −2.11*	0.19	[–.26, –.01]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Because the relational–cognitive mechanisms and stress were measured simultaneously, the study design does not allow for a strong test of indirect effects. However, we tested the hypothesized indirect effects with a strong caveat that we cannot rule out the reverse effect (i.e., touch buffers stress, which protects state security and cognitive interdependence). Results indicated a significant indirect effect linking affectionate touch receipt and stress through increased state security and cognitive interdependence (see Table 6).⁵

Table 6.

Experiments 2a and 2b: Bootstrapping Results for Indirect Effects (Normal Theory Test Included).

	Effect	SE	Z	95% CI
Stress (Experiment 2a)
Total indirect effect	−.38	.08	−5.97**	[–.54, –.24]
State security	−.18	.06	−3.52*	[–.31, –.08]
Cognitive interdependence	−.20	.06	−3.74**	[–.34, –.11]
Stress (Experiment 2b)
Total indirect effect	−.32	.08	−4.00**	[–.49, –.17]
State security	−.07	.04	−2.34*	[–.17, –.01]
Cognitive interdependence	−.24	.08	2.48*	[–.41, –.12]
Constructive verbal behavior (Experiment 2b)
Total indirect effect	.05	.02	2.33*	[.01, .10]
State security	−.02	.02	−0.86	[–.07, .02]
Cognitive interdependence	.06	.02	2.37*	[.02, .14]
Destructive verbal behavior (Experiment 2b)
Total indirect effect	−.07	.03	−2.93**	[–.13, –.03]
State security	.01	.02	0.62	[–.02, .06]
Cognitive interdependence	−.08	.03	−2.79*	[–.15, –.04]

Note. Effects, standard errors (SE), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were produced using bootstrapping. The normal theory test (Z) is included.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Experiment 2a provided evidence that imagined affectionate touch impacts the proposed relational–cognitive mechanisms and replicated the finding that touch buffers stress during conflict in a more diverse sample. Thus, this experiment provided additional support for the overall theoretical model (Figure 1). Experiment 2b was designed to replicate the effects of imagined touch on state security, cognitive interdependence, and stress as well as to test whether affectionate touch fosters constructive (and reduces destructive) verbal behavior during imagined conflict.

Experiment 2b

Method

Participants

Participants were 500 individuals recruited through MTurk. Of those, 479 (299 female, 178 male, 2 non-gender conforming) participants passed the attention check and were included in the final sample. Sample size was determined by a power analysis to detect small effects (Cohen’s d = .3), expecting exclusions. Participants were required to be fluent in English, at least 18 years old (M = 35.9, SD = 11.7), and in a romantic relationship for at least the past year (M = 9.6, SD = 9.0).

Procedure and measures

The procedure was the same as Experiment 2a with some exceptions. Participants completed an identical touch or control visualization (Part 1). However, when participants imagined a current disagreement and imagined touch or details of the room (Part 2), they were asked to imagine that they brought up the topic and were prompted to write exactly what they would say to their partner. After this conflict disclosure, participants completed Part 3 (imagining the partner’s negative response) in the same way as Experiment 2a.

Next, participants completed a four-item version of the state security scale (Luke et al., 2012), α = .91 (M = 3.53, SD = 1.32), a three-item measure of cognitive interdependence, α = .95 (M = 3.35, SD = 0.75), and a two-item stress scale, α = .82 (M = 4.12, SD = 1.37). Finally, participants were reminded of the partner’s negative response and prompted to write exactly what they would say to their partner in response (conflict response).

Observational measures of conflict behavior

Trained coders, blind to condition, coded the conflict disclosures and responses on a rating scale from 1 (did not occur at all) to 5 (occurred consistently/highest quality). Two independent coders (out of eight unique coders) rated each disclosure and response for constructive verbal behavior (including verbal affection, emotional support/validation, cooperation/positive problem-solving, accepting responsibility, and soft start-up; ICC_disclosure = .749, ICC_response = .798) and destructive verbal behavior (including negative affect/hostility, criticism, defensiveness, denial, contempt, and stonewalling; ICC_disclosure = .760, ICC_response = .852). The average of the two raters’ codes was retained. To test condition differences in verbal behavior, we averaged participants’ disclosure and response because they were significantly correlated (r_constructive = .414, p < .001, r_destructive = .504, p < .001). Thus, we analyzed one constructive verbal behavior code (M = 2.50, SD = 0.75) and one destructive verbal behavior code (M = 1.50, SD = 0.69) for each participant.

Results and Discussion

Zero-order correlations among all variables are presented in Table 4. Consistent with Experiment 2a, participants in this sample reported moderate relationship quality overall (M = 5.69, SD = 1.22), and the most common conflicts were money (12.0%) and communication (11.8%).

Consistent with Experiment 2a, participants in the touch condition reported greater state security, greater cognitive interdependence, and less stress than participants in the control condition (see Table 5). In addition, coders rated marginally more constructive behavior and significantly less destructive behavior in responses written by participants who imagined receiving touch than participants in the control condition (see Table 5).⁶ Unlike Experiment 1, there was no interaction between background relationship quality and condition to predict either destructive (B = .03, p = .672) or constructive behavior (B = .02, p = .724).

Like Experiment 2a, the design of this study prohibits a strong test of indirect effects for the stress outcome because stress was measured concurrently with the relational–cognitive mechanisms. However, the “verbal response” coded behavior was measured after the relational–cognitive mechanisms, so it is possible to test indirect effects for the relational behavior outcomes. Consistent with Experiment 2a, there was a significant indirect effect linking touch receipt and stress through increased state security and cognitive interdependence (see Table 6).⁷ In addition, these data support the hypothesized indirect effect linking touch receipt and constructive conflict behavior through increased cognitive interdependence but not through increased state security. The results for destructive conflict behavior are identical; increased cognitive interdependence provides a significant indirect effect but increased security does not.⁸ Although participants who imagined touch reported higher state security, security did not predict constructive (“b” effect B = –.04, p = .365) or destructive behavior (“b” effect B = –.01, p = .677) during the response.⁹

General Discussion

The current research demonstrates that engaging in affectionate touch prior to and during conflict helps couples to navigate conflict discussions. Although behaving constructively, resisting destructive behaviors, and avoiding stress during conflict may seem like herculean tasks, a brief affectionate touch intervention was effective to promote these outcomes. The results of this research suggest that affectionate touch may contribute to positive relational and personal well-being.

Relational Well-Being

In both experiments that assessed conflict behavior (Experiments 1 and 2b), couples who were assigned to touch affectionately behaved more constructively than couples assigned not to touch. Affectionate touch also reduced destructive conflict behavior in both experiments. In a sample of couples in new, highly satisfying relationships (Experiment 1), touch reduced destructive behaviors for those with lower background relationship quality, and in a sample of couples in longer relationships with more variable relationship quality (Experiment 2b), touch reduced destructive behavior overall. These findings are consistent with past research in which touch buffered negative relationship processes (Kim, Feeney, & Jakubiak, 2017). Although we did not observe an effect of affectionate touch to improve relational perceptions postconflict, the current research suggests that touch would promote relationship quality over time by facilitating constructive conflict discussions. Future longitudinal research should investigate this possibility.

A recent theory and model of affectionate touch in adult close relationships asserted that touch can improve and protect relational well-being (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). The current study provided the first experimental evidence to support this theory and suggests a key pathway through which touch may help couples to protect or enhance relationship quality: constructive conflict discussions. In addition, the effectiveness of touch to improve conflict behaviors suggests important applications. Touch may serve as an alternative to intensive conflict interventions; couples may use touch to improve their conflict discussions and prevent normative declines in relationship quality (Glenn, 1998; VanLaningham et al., 2001). The current research sampled predominantly nondistressed couples and therefore provides evidence regarding how touch may help nondistressed couples prevent relationship declines rather than how highly distressed couples might improve relationship quality. Affectionate touch may affect couples differently based on their relationship quality because individuals may interpret touch’s meaning within the broader relational context (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). To evaluate the generalizability of touch’s benefits, future research should investigate touch in distressed samples.

Stress

The current study also demonstrated that affectionate touch buffers both objective and subjective stress during couple conflict discussions. This finding extends previous research linking affectionate touch and stress (e.g., Ditzen et al., 2007) by showing that touch buffers stress even when the touch-provider is a source of the stress. Thus, the current study reveals the communicative power of touch: It not only provides an assurance that someone is available to provide support during an individual stressor but provides reassurance during interpersonal stressors as well. Touch may communicate that the relationship is stable or simply make salient the proximity of one’s social network to mitigate stress reactivity (e.g., Beckes & Coan, 2011). Although this possibility must be investigated over time, the observed stress-buffering effects of touch suggest long-term health implications. Stress contributes to physical and psychological health problems over time (e.g., Cohen et al., 2007); therefore, touch may protect personal well-being by buffering interpersonal stress during conflict (e.g., Cohen, Janicki-Deverts, Turner, & Doyle, 2015).

Relational–Cognitive Mechanisms

We also tested two relational–cognitive mechanisms—state security and cognitive interdependence—that are theorized to underlie the links between affectionate touch and relational well-being and stress. In Experiment 1, all participants reported high state security and cognitive interdependence (there was no condition difference) likely because the variables were measured after a fun activity, prior to the conflict discussion. However, Experiments 2a and 2b provided a stronger test of the relational–cognitive mechanisms because they were measured during the imagined conflict discussion and after a partner’s negative behavior, which could threaten state security and cognitive interdependence and prevent ceiling effects.

As predicted, participants who imagined receiving touch in a conflict context reported higher state security and cognitive interdependence than participants who did not imagine touch. Consistent with the overall theoretical model (Figure 1), follow-up analyses revealed significant indirect effects through the relational–cognitive mechanisms to buffer stress. We also observed indirect effects through enhanced cognitive interdependence, but not state security, to improve conflict behavior. State security was higher in the touch condition, correlated negatively with destructive verbal behavior, and mediated the effect of touch on destructive verbal behavior when included in the model alone. Therefore, the multiple-mediation analysis may have suppressed state security as a mediator (at least for destructive behavior) due to high correlations between state security and cognitive interdependence. Individuals who feel secure (or who experience state intimacy—a closely related construct) should theoretically be more motivated to avoid destructive behaviors and engage in prorelational behaviors (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Thus, state security should continue to be tested in future studies assessing affectionate touch consequences.

Limitations and Future Directions

One important limitation of the current study that should be addressed in future research is the homogeneity of the samples. The samples were relatively satisfied and committed which limits generalizability to very distressed couples. Affectionate touch may be less effective for distressed couples because they may interpret touch as controlling or contemptuous (see Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). Alternatively, touch may benefit distressed couples if it provides a fresh approach to conflict that breaks normal, destructive patterns or if it serves as “repair attempt” during the conflict to prevent a discussion from worsening (e.g., Gottman, 1994). To fully evaluate our claims that affectionate touch promotes relationship quality, buffers stress, and represents an optimal conflict intervention, these claims should be evaluated in distressed samples. Based on the promising results presented here, it is imperative that future research assess any benefits and boundary conditions of affectionate touch interventions for distressed couples.

Another question for future researchers is the ideal timing for touch interventions. In the current research, we manipulated touch both prior to and during conflict. It may be necessary to have both touch interventions to observe benefits, or one intervention may be sufficient. Given that the initial touch manipulation did not affect the relational–cognitive mechanisms in Experiment 1, affectionate touch during the conflict itself may be optimal. However, prior research on emotional capital suggests that positive relational experiences constitute “relationship wealth” that couples can use as a resource to navigate later difficulties (Feeney & Lemay, 2012). Therefore, if affectionate touch is one source of emotional capital, frequent touch in daily life may be a resource to facilitate constructive conflict discussions. Future research (e.g., daily diary investigations) can compare the effectiveness of touch in daily life, touch immediately prior to conflict, and touch during conflict.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current research demonstrated that engaging in affectionate touch prior to and during a conflict discussion (a) facilitates constructive conflict behaviors, (b) attenuates destructive behavior use, and (c) buffers objective and subjective stress. These results provide experimental evidence for the benefits of affectionate touch and lend support to a recent theory and model of affectionate touch (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). In addition, these results suggest that touch may promote relational and personal well-being by facilitating constructive conflict. The current research also provides initial evidence that increases in state security and cognitive interdependence may be two potential mechanisms responsible for touch’s effectiveness during conflict. The current research suggests that touch may be a practical and effective intervention to improve conflict discussions and to help couples maintain relational and personal well-being.

Supplemental Material

Jakubiak_OnlineAppendix – Supplemental material for Hand-in-Hand Combat: Affectionate Touch Promotes Relational Well-Being and Buffers Stress During Conflict

Supplemental material, Jakubiak_OnlineAppendix for Hand-in-Hand Combat: Affectionate Touch Promotes Relational Well-Being and Buffers Stress During Conflict by Brett K. Jakubiak and Brooke C. Feeney in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: National Research Service Award from the National Institute on Aging 1F31AG052991-01A1; Foundation for Personality and Social Psychology Heritage Dissertation Award; American Psychological Association (APA) Dissertation Award; American Psychological Foundation (APF) Dissertation Scholarship.

Notes

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article.

References

Agnew

C. R.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Langston

C. A.

(1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939-954.

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.

Aron

E. N.

Tudor

Nelson

(1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253.

Baucom

Epstein

(1990). Cognitive-behavioral marital therapy. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

Beckes

Coan

J. A.

(2011). Social baseline theory: The role of social proximity in emotion and economy of action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 876-988.

Ben-Ari

Lavee

(2007). Dyadic closeness in marriage: From the inside story to a conceptual model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 627-644.

Birditt

K. S.

Brown

Orbuch

T. L.

McIlvane

J. M.

(2010). Marital conflict behaviors and implications for divorce over 16 years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1188-1204.

Brooks

K. P.

Robles

T. F.

Dunkel Schetter

(2011). Adult attachment and cortisol responses to discussions with a romantic partner. Personal Relationships, 18, 302-320.

Buehlman

K. T.

Gottman

J. M.

Katz

L. F.

(1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 195-318.

10.

Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

Mikulincer

Lavy

(2009). Experimentally induced security influences responses to psychological pain. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 28, 463-478.

11.

Cohen

Janicki-Deverts

Miller

G. E.

(2007). Psychological stress and disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298, 1685-1687.

12.

Cohen

Janicki-Deverts

Turner

R. B.

Doyle

W. J.

(2015). Does hugging provide stress-buffering social support? A study of susceptibility to upper respiratory infection and illness. Psychological Science, 26, 135-147.

13.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 386-396.

14.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2004). An attachment theory perspective on closeness and intimacy. In Mashek

D. J.

Aron

A. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 163-188). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

Collins

N. L.

Read

S. J.

(1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.

16.

Cummings

E. M.

Faircloth

W. B.

Mitchell

P. M.

Cummings

J. S.

Schermerhorn

A. C.

(2008). Evaluating a brief intervention program for improving marital conflict in community families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 193-202.

17.

Debrot

Schoebi

Perrez

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, 1373-1385.

18.

Ditzen

Hoppman

Klumb

(2008). Positive couple interactions and daily cortisol: On the stress-protecting role of intimacy. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70, 883-889.

19.

Ditzen

Neumann

I. D.

Bodenmann

von Dawans

Turner

R. A.

Ehlert

Heinrichs

(2007). Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on cortisol and heart rate responses to stress in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32, 565-574.

20.

El-Sheikh

Kelly

K. J.

Koss

R. J.

Rauer

A. J.

(2015). Longitudinal relations between constructive and destructive conflict behavior and couples’ sleep. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 349-359.

21.

Feeney

B. C.

Collins

N. L.

(2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 113-147.

22.

Feeney

B. C.

Lemay

E. P.

(2012). Surviving relationship threats: The role of emotional capital. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1004-1017.

23.

Finkel

E. J.

Slotter

E. B.

Luchies

L. B.

Walton

G. M.

Gross

J. J.

(2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24, 1595-1601.

24.

Glenn

N. D.

(1998). The course of marital success and failure in five American 10-year marriage cohorts. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 569-576.

25.

Gottman

Notarius

(2002). Marital research in the 20th century and a research agenda for the 21st century. Family Process, 41, 159-197.

26.

Gottman

J. M.

(1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital process and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

27.

Gottman

J. M.

Levenson

R. W.

(1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 221-233.

28.

Gottman

J. M.

Levenson

R. W.

(2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a couple will divorce: Exploratory analyses using 14-year longitudinal data. Family Process, 41, 83-96.

29.

Greenberg

L. S.

Johnson

S. M.

(1988). Emotionally focused therapy for couples. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

30.

Gulledge

A. K.

Gulledge

M. H.

Stahmann

R. F.

(2003). Romantic physical affection types and relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 233-242.

31.

Hallgren

K. A.

(2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods in Psychology, 8, 23-24.

32.

Heiman

J. R.

Long

J. S.

Smith

S. N.

Fisher

W. A.

Sand

M. A.

Rosen

R. C.

(2011). Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness in midlife and older couples in five countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 741-753.

33.

Holmes

J. G.

Rempel

J. K.

(1989). Trust in close relationships. In Hendrick

(Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 187-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

34.

Holt-Lunstad

Birmingham

Light

B. Q.

(2008). Influence of a “warm touch” support enhancement intervention among married couples on ambulatory blood pressure, oxytocin, alpha amylase, and cortisol. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70, 976-985.

35.

Huston

T. L.

Chorost

A. F.

(1994). Behavioral buffers on the effect of negativity on marital satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Personal Relationships, 1, 223-239.

36.

Jakubiak

B. K.

Feeney

B. C.

(2016a). Keep in touch: The effects of imagined touch support on exploration and pain. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 59-67.

37.

Jakubiak

B. K.

Feeney

B. C.

(2016b). A sense of security: Touch promotes state attachment security. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 745-753.

38.

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, 228-252.

39.

Johnson

M. D.

Cohan

C. L.

Davila

Lawrence

Rogge

R. D.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2005). Problem-solving skills and affective expressions as predictors of change in marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 15-27.

40.

Kelley

H. H.

Thibaut

J. W.

(1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: John Wiley.

41.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

42.

Kiecolt-Glaser

J. K.

Loving

T. J.

Stowell

J. R.

Malarkey

W. B.

Lemeshow

Dickinson

S. L.

Glaser

(2005). Hostile marital interactions, proinflammatory cytokine production, and wound healing. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 1377-1384.

43.

Kiecolt-Glaser

J. K.

Malarkey

W. B.

Chee

Newton

Cacioppo

J. T.

Mao

H. Y.

Glaser

(1993). Negative behavior during marital conflict is associated with immunological down-regulation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 395-409.

44.

Kim

Feeney

B. C.

Jakubiak

B. K.

(2017). Touch reduces romantic jealousy in the anxiously attached. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0265407517702012

45.

Kluwer

E. S.

Johnson

M. D.

(2007). Conflict frequency and relationship quality across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1089-1106.

46.

Leavitt

C. E.

Willoughby

B. J.

(2014). Associations among attempts at physical intimacy and relational outcomes among cohabitating and married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 241-262.

47.

Ledbetter

A. M.

(2013). Relational maintenance and inclusion of the other in the self: Measure development and dyadic test of a self-expansion theory approach. Southern Communication Journal, 78, 289-310.

48.

Luke

M. A.

Sedikides

Carnelley

(2012). Your love lifts me higher! The energizing quality of secure relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 721-733.

49.

Markman

H. J.

Renick

M. J.

Floyd

F. J.

Stanley

S. M.

Clements

(1993). Preventing marital distress through communication and conflict management training: A 4- and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 70-77.

50.

Matthews

L. S.

Wickrama

K. A. S.

Conger

R. D.

(1996). Predicting marital instability from spouse and observer reports of marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 641-655.

51.

Meier

B. P.

Schnall

Schwarz

Bargh

J. A.

(2012). Embodiment in social psychology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 705-716.

52.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2007). An attachment and behavioral systems perspective on social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 7-19.

53.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Bar-On

Sahdra

B. K.

(2014). Security enhancement, self-esteem threat, and mental depletion affect provision of a safe haven and secure base to a romantic partner. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 630-650.

54.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Sahdra

B. K.

Bar-On

(2013). Can security-enhancing interventions overcome psychological barriers to responsiveness in couple relationships? Attachment & Human Development, 15, 246-260.

55.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Collins

N. L.

(2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641-666.

56.

Newton

T. L.

Sanford

J. M.

(2003). Conflict structure moderates associations between cardiovascular reactivity and marital interaction. Health Psychology, 22, 270-278.

57.

Ostenson

J. A.

Zhang

(2014). Reconceptualizing marital conflict: A relational perspective. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 34, 229-242.

58.

Papp

L. M.

Cummings

E. M.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

(2009). For richer, for poorer: Money as a topic of marital conflict in the home. Family Relations, 58, 91-103.

59.

Powers

S. I.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Gunlicks

Sayer

(2006). Dating couples’ attachment styles and patterns of cortisol reactivity and recovery in response to a relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 613-628.

60.

Proulx

C. M.

Helms

H. M.

Buehler

(2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 576-593.

61.

Reis

H. T.

Maniaci

M. R.

Capariello

P. A.

Eastwick

P. W.

Finkel

E. J.

(2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 557-570.

62.

Robinson

K. J.

Hoplock

L. B.

Cameron

J. J.

(2015). When in doubt, reach out: Touch is a covert but effective mode of soliciting and providing social support. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 831-839.

63.

Robles

T. F.

Shaffer

V. A.

Malarkey

W. B.

Kiecolt-Glaser

J. K.

(2006). Positive behaviors during marital conflict: Influences on stress hormones. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 305-325.

64.

Rodriguez

A. J.

Margolin

(2013). Wives’ and husbands’ cortisol reactivity to proximal and distal dimensions of couple conflict. Family Process, 52, 555-569.

65.

Rowe

A. C.

Carnelley

K. B.

(2003). Attachment related differences in processing of attachment-relevant information: Primed-style effects on recall, interpersonal expectations, and affect. Personal Relationships, 10, 59-75.

66.

Rusbult

C. E.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

(2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351-375.

67.

Seider

B. H.

Hirschberger

Nelson

K. L.

Levenson

R. W.

(2009). We can work it out: Age differences in relational pronouns, physiology, and behavior in marital conflict. Psychology of Aging, 23, 604-613.

68.

Thoits

P. A.

(2010). Stress and health: Major findings and policy implications. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(Suppl. 1), S41-S53.

69.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Drigotas

S. M.

Arriaga

X. B.

Witcher

B. S.

Cox

C. L

. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1373-1395.

70.

VanLaningham

Johnson

D. R.

Amato

(2001). Marital happiness, marital duration, and the U-shaped curve: Evidence from a five-wave panel study. Social Forces, 78, 1313-1341.

71.

Van Vleet

Feeney

B. C

. (2015). Young at heart: A perspective for advancing research on play in adulthood. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 639-645.

72.

Walton

G. M.

(2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 73-82.

73.

Winczewski

L. A.

Bowen

J. D.

Collins

N. L.

(2016). Is empathic accuracy enough to facilitate responsive behavior in dyadic interaction? Distinguishing ability from motivation. Psychological Science, 27, 394-404.

74.

Woodin

E. M.

(2011). A two-dimensional approach to relationship conflict: Meta-analytic findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 325-335.

75.

Wright

B. L.

Loving

T. J.

(2011). Health implications of conflict in close relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 552-562.

76.

Zietlow

P. H.

Sillars

A. L.

(1988). Life-stage differences in communication during marital conflicts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 223-245.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

3.84 MB