Interpersonal touch as a resource to facilitate positive personal and relational outcomes during stress discussions

Abstract

This investigation examined the extent to which receiving touch during discussions of stressors predicts subsequent personal and relational well-being. Married couples were unobtrusively videotaped as couple-members took turns discussing their personal stressors with one another. We assessed the degree to which couple-members received touch from their spouses during the discussions and investigated whether touch receipt predicted beneficial personal and relational outcomes after the discussions. Results indicated that disclosers who received greater (higher frequency and higher intensity) touch while they discussed their stressors perceived that they were more able to overcome their stressors, experienced greater decreases in self-reported stress, reported greater increases in self-esteem, and viewed their partners more positively than disclosers who received less touch. Additionally, helpers (spouses in the listening role) who received greater touch during their partner’s stressor discussion also viewed their partners more positively than helpers who received less touch. Implications and potential future directions are discussed.

Keywords

Close relationships coping interpersonal communication interpersonal relationships social support stress touch

Inevitably, individuals experience stressors (e.g., unemployment, conflicts with friends, looming deadlines) that cause them to experience stress and threaten their self-esteem (Brantley, Waggoner, Jones, & Rappaport, 1987; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983; Gruenwald, Kemeny, Aziz, & Fahey, 2004; Saranson, Johnson, & Siegel, 1978). When adults perceive threats, they instinctively seek proximity to close others (especially romantic partners), and they often disclose the problem and their distress in an effort to regulate their emotions (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992; Zaki & Williams, 2013). Partners can then shape the way the stressor is experienced and influence the perception that the stressor can be overcome by offering social support: “psychological and material resources intended to benefit an individual’s ability to cope with stress” (Cohen, 2004, p. 676).

Ideally, close others will offer support that reduces stress, enhances self-esteem, and makes the individual believe that he or she can effectively manage and overcome the stressor. However, supportive behaviors can also have the unintended negative consequences of increasing stress or undermining self-esteem, particularly if they are delivered insensitively (e.g., Bolger & Amarel, 2007; Feeney & Collins, 2015). When individuals disclose their stressors to their partners, the resulting discussion also has implications for the relationship between the stress discloser and the recipient of the disclosure (the helper) because couple-members’ perceptions of one another may shift based on how they navigate key discussions (Barbee & Cunningham, 1995).

The current research investigated whether one behavior—physical touch—may serve as a resource to facilitate positive personal and relational outcomes during discussions about individuals’ stressors. Touch may offer benefits during stressor discussions because it makes salient one’s proximity to a close other and communicates affection and intimacy, components of emotional support that should not undermine self-esteem and should decrease, not increase, stress (Floyd, 2006; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). In the current study, we investigated the relationship between receiving touch during stressor discussions and post-discussion outcomes for newlywed couple-members who took turns in the roles of discloser and helper.

Personal stressors in an interpersonal context

Both general proximity to one’s spouse and the spouses’ specific communication behaviors can shape the way that an individual experiences a stressor (e.g., Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Beckes & Coan, 2011). Theoretically, proximity to close others is a cue that one is relatively safe from harm so it allows individuals to be less reactive to real or potential threats (Beckes & Coan, 2011; Bowlby, 1982). In one illustration of this phenomenon, individuals who were proximal to a friend estimated that a hill was less steep than individuals who were alone while they estimated the hill’s slope (Schnall, Harber, Stefanucci, & Proffitt, 2008; Study 1). As this study demonstrated, literal and figurative hills seem less threatening and more manageable with close others nearby.

This research is consistent with Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional model of stress, which suggests that individuals evaluate both the threatening situation (primary appraisal) and their available coping resources (secondary appraisal), and they experience stress to the extent that the demands of the threatening situation outweigh their available coping resources. Individuals who are proximal to close others perceive threats as less demanding and perceive greater resources to cope, so they experience less stress (Beckes & Coan, 2011).

In addition to general proximity, specific interpersonal behaviors also shape how individuals appraise and experience stressors. According to attachment theory, partners who offer comfort, reassurance, and assistance provide a safe haven during threats, which allows individuals to avoid excessive distress and thereby restores or maintains feelings of security (Bowlby, 1982; Collins & Feeney, 2000; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Indeed, support that is provided responsively (i.e., sensitively, nonintrusively) reduces perceived and physiological stress during threats (e.g., Gerin, Pieper, Levy, & Pickering, 1992; Kane, McCall, Collins, & Blascovich, 2012). A similar construct, referred to as affectionate communication (the intentional expression of care and positive regard), has been shown to buffer cardiovascular and endocrine stress responses (e.g., Floyd & Morman, 1998; Floyd & Riforgiate, 2008; Pauley, Floyd, & Hesse, 2014).

Consistent with the idea that receiving support communicates that one is esteemed, cared for, and loved (Collins & Feeney, 2004a; Floyd, 2006), receiving responsive support from one’s partner has been shown to increase self-esteem and to enhance one’s view of the partner and relationship (e.g., Belcher et al., 2011; Collins & Feeney, 2004b; Feeney, 2004; Fivecoat, Tomlinson, Aron, & Caprariello, 2014; Floyd, 2002). Support may be especially beneficial for self-esteem in stressful contexts that threaten feelings of self-worth and capability. Whereas struggling with problems in the environment may undermine one’s self-esteem, a partner’s supportive behavior may remind individuals that they are cared for, valuable, and capable.

Relationship perceptions may be particularly malleable in the context of discussions about one individual’s stress. Stressor discussions provide an opportunity for the discloser (the partner who discloses a personal stressor) and the potential helper (the recipient of the disclosure) to evaluate one another’s responsiveness and to update their perceptions of one another and the relationship accordingly (e.g., Belcher et al., 2011; Fivecoat et al., 2014). For example, if a discloser perceives that her spouse behaves responsively during a support interaction, she should trust her spouse to be responsive in the future and should be willing to increase interdependence in the relationship (Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006). The helper may also evaluate the discloser during a stressor discussion because disclosers can react to support attempts in responsive ways (with affection and gratitude) or in unresponsive ways (insultingly or critically). When a discloser behaves responsively, the helper should be more satisfied because it is reinforcing to have one’s support-provision attempts appreciated. Indeed, the quality of interactive coping prospectively predicted whether couples maintained or dissolved their relationships in past research (Barbee & Cunningham, 1995).

In sum, interpersonal proximity and specific interpersonal behaviors can enhance the perception that a stressor can be overcome, prevent excessive stress, protect/increase self-esteem, and lead to positive perceptions of one’s partner. However, receiving support has also been shown to increase stress and undermine self-efficacy when it communicates that the support-provider needs assistance, increases attention on the stressor, or makes an individual feel that they are being evaluated negatively for how they are experiencing the stressor or will be evaluated negatively if they do not successfully overcome the stressor (e.g., Bolger & Amarel, 2007; Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000; Crockett & Neff, 2012; Dakof & Taylor, 1990). In the light of these potential support costs, researchers have emphasized the importance of identifying behaviors that demonstrate responsiveness and affection without communicating inefficacy or increasing the stressor’s salience (e.g., Girme, Overall, & Simpson, 2013; Howland & Simpson, 2010). Touch may be one such support behavior, and it may therefore predict positive personal and relational outcomes during a stress discussion with one’s spouse.

Touch during stressor discussions

Touch is a potent behavior that has many important functions and consequences across the life span (for review, see Field, 2010; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). One key function of touch is as a form of nonverbal communication. Individuals touch to communicate affection as well as other emotions, and touch recipients typically perceive intimacy, immediacy, and trust when they receive touch from close others (Burgoon, 1991; Burgoon, Buller, Hale, & deTurck, 1984; Floyd, 2006; Hertenstein, Holmes, McCullough, & Keltner, 2009). Certainly not all touches are positive; people also touch to demonstrate anger and enact violence, and individuals react negatively to touch that they feel is inappropriate for the relationship or situation (e.g., Burgoon, Walther, & Baesler, 1992; Hertenstein et al., 2009). However, within the context of close relationships, touch is typically positive, welcomed, and regarded favorably. It is those positive forms of touch that we investigate here.

Although touch can have several meanings (i.e., affection, appreciation, playfulness; Jones & Yarbrough, 1985), touch also has some consistent and common interpretations that may make it beneficial during stress and stressor discussions. First, touch always indicates proximity because individuals can only receive touch from someone who is physically proximate. Moreover, because touch is a visceral experience, it likely makes proximity especially salient compared to other indicators of proximity (e.g., visual cues). Second, touch normatively indicates that a relationship is intimate and suggests that the touch-provider would be willing to provide tangible assistance, if necessary (Burgoon et al., 1984; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). Individuals—especially those in low-contact cultures like Northern Europe, North America, and Northeast Asia—typically reserve touch for their most intimate relationships (Gallace & Spence, 2010). Therefore, touch-providers are presumed to perceive the relationship as close and are expected to offer aid and resources more readily than someone who views the relationship as less close (Dunbar, 2010; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). Even in the context of long-term marital relationships, physical affection is positively associated with psychological intimacy (Mackey, Diemer, & O’Brien, 2000), which suggests that touch serves as an indicator of closeness and willingness to provide assistance even in established, marital relationships. Specific touch behaviors are regarded as more or less intimate, so touch can vary in intensity as well as frequency (Gulledge, Gulledge, & Stahmann, 2003).

Because touch provides a salient indication that a close other is proximal and willing to provide assistance, receiving touch should alter the extent to which stressors seem threatening versus manageable. Consistent with this idea, women who held their husbands’ hands while anticipating receiving a painful shock showed dampened neural threat activation compared to women who did not receive touch (Coan, Schaefer, & Davidson, 2006). This research provides evidence for a physiological benefit of touch during threat of pain; however, no research has tested whether touch alters the subjective belief that one’s authentic ongoing stressor can be overcome. This subjective belief is critical for individuals to enact proactive behavioral coping strategies (e.g., Nes & Segerstrom, 2006). In the current research, we predicted that disclosers who received greater (more frequent/intense) touch from their spouses during their stressor discussion would report more positive expectations that their stressor could be successfully managed and overcome than disclosers who received less touch (Hypothesis 1).

In addition to suggesting that one is willing to provide assistance in the future, touch elicits feelings of security (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a) and buffers stress in the present (e.g., Robinson, Hoplock, & Cameron, 2015). Individuals who were assigned to receive a massage from their spouses immediately prior to a laboratory stress task experienced less stress during the task than individuals assigned to receive verbal support or no support (Ditzen et al., 2007). Even imagining touch receipt effectively buffered acute stress in one set of experiments (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016b), which suggests that touch is a powerful resource during acute stress experiences. We aimed to extend this research to assess whether touch similarly serves as a resource during discussions about ongoing stressors to help individuals to regulate their stress. We predicted that disclosers who received greater (more frequent/intense) touch from their spouses during the stressor discussion would report greater declines in stress over the course of the discussion than disclosers who received less touch (Hypothesis 2).

Furthermore, receiving touch may increase self-esteem because an individual who receives touch may feel valued and esteemed by his/her spouse and may adopt his/her spouse’s positive view (e.g., Leary, Haupt, Strausser, & Chokel, 1998). Indeed, people do infer their own self-worth based on others’ reactions to them (Leary et al., 1998). If receiving touch from one’s spouse communicates that one is regarded positively and cared for, then receiving touch should encourage individuals to regard themselves positively as well. This process may be especially pronounced in stressful contexts where threats to self-esteem abound. Therefore, we tested the novel prediction that disclosers who received greater (more frequent/intense) touch from their spouses during the stressor discussion would report greater increases in state self-esteem over the course of the discussion than disclosers who received less touch (Hypothesis 3).

Finally, touch may influence couple-members’ perceptions of one another during a stressor discussion. Touch is theorized to contribute to relationship quality (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017), is associated with higher relationship quality (e.g., Gulledge et al., 2003; Mackey et al., 2000), and predicts increases in relationship quality (Debrot, Schoebi, Perrez, & Horn, 2013; Floyd et al., 2009; Muise, Giang, & Impett, 2014; Study 2). Touch has also been shown to improve couple-member’s behavior during conflict discussions (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2018) and may similarly serve as a relational resource during stressor discussions. Helpers who provide touch during their partner’s stressor disclosures may be perceived as engaged, caring, and responsive. Therefore, we predicted that disclosers who received greater (more frequent/intense) touch from their spouses during the stressor discussion would report more positive perceptions of their spouse (the helper) than disclosers who received less touch (Hypothesis 4). Helpers who receive touch may also perceive disclosers more positively because the disclosers’ touch may indicate that they are receptive to support, appreciative of it, and being mutually responsive, even as they are disclosing their stressor. We explored this potential dyadic benefit of touch in the current research. We predicted that helpers who received greater (more frequent/intense) touch from their spouses during the stressor discussion would report more positive perceptions of their spouse (the discloser) afterward than helpers who received less (Hypothesis 5).

We tested these hypotheses in a sample of newlyweds who were participating in a larger study investigating interpersonal processes in the early years of marriage. Couple-members were videotaped as they took turns disclosing and discussing a current personal stressor. In the first discussion, one spouse was assigned to be the discloser and the other was in the role of the helper, and in the second discussion, spouses switched roles. Observational coders viewed the tapes and coded each couple-member’s provision of affectionate touch (intentional touch used to show care and positive regard), casual touch (comfortable touch without any obvious intentionality), and playful touch (touch in the context of joking or playing) to compute a total touch score. We used partner touch scores to predict disclosers’ perceptions that the stressor could be successfully overcome, changes in disclosers’ stress and self-esteem, and disclosers’ and helpers’ perceptions of their partner after the discussion.

Method

Participants

Participants were newlywed couples who were recruited through flyers, local newspapers, bridal shows, and e-mail advertisements as part of a larger study of newlywed relationships, and they were compensated for their participation. To be eligible for the larger study, couples had to be married for less than a year in both partners’ first marriage, fluent in English, and no older than 40 years of age. Of the 229 couples who enrolled in the study, 210 couples attended the laboratory session and were, therefore, included in these analyses. Participants were, on average, 27.0 years old (SD = 4.6). Couples had been married for 4.8 months, on average (SD = 3.4), and they had been together for an average of 3 years and 9 months (SD = 29 months). The majority of participants (82.1%) were Caucasian/White.

Procedure and measures

Background and baseline measures

Participants came to the research laboratory, one couple at a time, to complete background questionnaires. Of relevance to the current study, couple-members (in separate rooms) completed an 18-item relationship quality measure. This questionnaire included items from Van Lange et al. (1997) and from Collins and Read (1990) to measure relationship satisfaction (e.g., “All things considered, how satisfied do you feel with your relationship?”), commitment (e.g., “Do you feel committed to maintaining your relationship with your spouse?”), and conflict (e.g., “How often do you and your spouse have arguments and disagreements”). Participants indicated their responses on a 9-point Likert-type scale with appropriate labels. The reliability for the composite relationship quality scale (with conflict items reverse-coded) was high in this sample (α = 0.91; M = 6.51, SD = 0.83). Higher scores indicate higher relationship quality.

Approximately 1 week later, couples returned to the laboratory for the observational session. First, couple-members each privately listed a current stressor (i.e., an important problem or concern) that they had not previously discussed with their spouse (or the least commonly discussed stressor if they had discussed all current stressors). Couple-members were instructed to choose a personal issue, event, or concern that did not involve a relationship problem or conflict with their spouse. Spouses also reported the severity of this stressor by answering “Overall, how upsetting or stressful is this event or issue for you” on a Likert-type scale from 1 = not at all upsetting/stressful to 5 = extremely upsetting/stressful. Stressor severity was moderate in this sample (M = 3.54, SD = 0.87).

Then, couples played a game of Pictionary to help them feel comfortable interacting in the laboratory. Afterward, they completed questionnaires to assess baseline variables prior to the stressor discussions. Nine items (i.e., worried, anxious, upset, concerned, distressed, frustrated, nervous, stressed out, and emotionally drained) were averaged to provide a baseline measure of stress (α = 0.78; M = 1.26, SD = 0.38). High scores indicated high stress. Couple-members also reported their state self-esteem by completing a modified version of McFarland and Ross’ (1982) state self-esteem measure. They were asked to describe themselves on 14 pairs of opposing attributes (e.g., capable–incapable, stupid–smart, unskilled–talented) by circling a number between 1 and 7 that corresponded to how they felt about themselves right then. Responses were averaged to form a composite measure of baseline state self-esteem (α = 0.90; M = 5.83, SD = 0.92). Items were reverse-coded as necessary so that high scores indicated high self-esteem.

Stressor discussions

Spouses were then reunited to discuss their stressors while they were unobtrusively videotaped. One couple-member was randomly selected to disclose his/her stressor first. The experimenter listed the stressor on an index card and asked the “discloser” whether he/she was willing to discuss the stressor with his/her spouse (i.e., the “helper”). If the discloser agreed, couple-members were left alone for 8 min to discuss the stressor. After the time elapsed, spouses were separated to complete questionnaires. The discloser reported his/her perception of capability regarding the stressor following the discussion by responding to 7 items. Example items included “To what extent do you feel it is possible to resolve or deal with this problem successfully,” and “To what extent do you have the ability to overcome your worry or concern” with appropriate anchors from 1 to 5. Responses were averaged with higher scores indicating greater positive perceptions of the stressor following the discussion (α = .84).

Additionally, both the discloser and helper completed the stress and self-esteem questionnaires again to provide post-discussion measures of stress (α = .89) and state self-esteem (α = .94). Both couple-members also rated their perceptions that their spouse behaved positively during the discussion by rating “how their spouse was” during the discussion. Thirty attributes, including 15 positive perceptions (e.g., understanding, interested, caring) and 15 reverse-coded negative perceptions (e.g., insulting, frustrating, annoying), were averaged to form a composite measure of an individual’s positive perception of their spouse during the discussion (α_discloser = .93; α_helper = .91).

Finally, couple-members were reunited to discuss the other couple-member’s stressor. Couple-members switched roles so that the initial helper disclosed a stressor, and the initial discloser became the helper in this discussion. Again, the experimenter provided a description of the stressor on an index card and asked the couple to discuss this stressor. If the new discloser agreed, couple-members discussed for 8 min and then completed the same post-discussion questionnaires as before, based on their new roles.

Touch coding

To assess touch behavior during the discussions, we developed 14 touch codes based on Jones and Yarbrough’s (1985) self-report classifications of touch, and we assessed the degree to which each participant provided each form of touch during the discussions. We used several touch codes to ensure that we captured touch that participants provided naturally during these discussions. Both stressor discussions were coded by undergraduate research assistants; most of whom had served as coders for other research projects previously. Coders were trained by the authors on the specific code definitions and the coding scale over several weeks until they were reliable with one another. Two coders coded each individual’s touch behavior, and separate coders were assigned to code each member of the same couple, resulting in four unique coders for each participant couple. All coders were blind to study hypotheses.

Coders evaluated each form of touch on a well-defined 5-point scale that takes into account both the frequency and quality (intensity) of the touch behavior (1 = this form of touch did not occur at all; 2 = this form of touch occurred rarely/with low quality; 3 = this form of touch occurred occasionally/with moderate quality; 4= this form of touch occurred often/with high quality; 5 = this form of touch occurred consistently/with highest quality).¹ Although 14 types of touch were coded, only three were included in our analysis: affectionate touch, casual touch, and playful touch. We selected these forms of touch because they represented positive forms of touch and occurred (coded 2 or greater) in at least 20% of interactions.² Other forms of touch (e.g., ritualistic touch, grooming touch) had extremely low base rates and therefore very minimal variability in this laboratory context. We computed intraclass correlations (ICCs) to assess interobserver reliability (McGraw & Wong, 1996).

The affectionate touch code (ICC = .90) assessed the extent to which an individual touched his/her spouse with the explicit intent of showing caring, affection, and positive regard (e.g., kissing, rubbing). Casual touch (ICC = .80) assessed the extent to which an individual touched his/her spouse in the process of doing something else, without any obvious purpose or intentionality (e.g., legs touching casually, resting an arm partially or completely on one’s spouse). Finally, playful touch (ICC = .78) assessed the extent to which an individual touched his/her spouse playfully while joking or in playful aggression (e.g., play-tickling). Descriptive statistics for each form of touch and correlations among the three forms of touch for both disclosers and helpers are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.
Descriptive statistics and correlations between touch codes for disclosers and helpers.

Touch code Mean (SD) for helper 1. Affectionate 2. Casual 3. Playful

Mean (SD) for discloser — 1.56 (.98) 1.60 (.92) 1.25 (.56)

1. Affectionate 1.64 (1.02) 0.500 0.296 0.189

2. Casual 1.61 (.92) 0.258 0.548 0.174

3. Playful 1.24 (.57) 0.266** 0.118* 0.323**

Note. Correlations below the diagonal are correlations between forms of touch for helpers. Correlations above the diagonal are for disclosers. Bold correlations in the diagonal represent the correlation of each form of touch between helpers and disclosers in the same discussion. SD = standard deviation.

^† p <.10; p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

We summed the scores on the affectionate, casual, and playful touch codes for a measure of total touch. This composite is appropriate to address our research questions because it evaluates the overall frequency/intensity of touch during a discussion and does not pit forms of touch against one another. Theoretically, we expect that some couples choose to use a specific preferred form of touch, whereas other couples may communicate using several forms. In our composite, a high total score could reflect either high frequency/intensity of one form of touch or moderate frequency/intensity across several forms of touch. The highest total touch score reflects frequent/intense touch across several forms of touch (i.e., the greatest use of touch). We used the total touch composite in all analyses. However, the results of analyses predicting outcomes from each of the three forms uniquely are provided in Online Supplemental Material.

Data analytic strategy

Of the 420 possible discussions (2 per couple), 36 disclosers opted to skip the discussion. Additionally, 72 discussions were excluded from analyses because the discloser and helper sat on separate sofas, which made it impossible for them to engage in interpersonal touch during the discussion. Therefore, 312 discussions were analyzed. Data were analyzed by discussion (with two discussions nested within each couple). In each discussion, spouses’ data were separated by their assigned roles during that discussion. For example, if John disclosed his stressor in Discussion 1 and Maria disclosed her stressor in Discussion 2, data would be organized so that John’s self-esteem after Discussion 1 was “discloser self-esteem” and Maria’s self-esteem after Discussion 1 was “helper self-esteem.” Then, because roles switched, Maria’s self-esteem after Discussion 2 would be “discloser self-esteem” and John’s reports would be “helper self-esteem.”

Analyses were conducted separately for disclosers and helpers by discussion, with all discussions included in each analysis. This allowed us to test for the relationship between touch and disclosers’ outcomes (or helpers’ outcomes) across all 312 discussions. To account for the nonindependence of discussions, we conducted a multilevel model that designated the couple as the unit of analysis and allowed for correlated errors between discussions (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Since couple-members switched roles, this is a way to allow for correlated errors between couple-members’ outcomes. For example, when predicting how touch impacts a discloser’s stress, allowing for correlated errors in disclosers’ stress between the first and second discussion actually allows for correlated errors for stress between the discloser in Discussion 1 (e.g., John) and the discloser in Discussion 2 (e.g., John’s partner, Maria). We tested for partner effects to examine whether a partner’s touch provision predicted the recipient’s outcomes. We analyzed the data using mixed models in SPSS 21.0.

In each analysis, we controlled for the discloser’s report of the severity of the stressor. Couple-members may simply touch more and have more positive outcomes when discussing less severe stressors; controlling for severity prevents our results from being due solely to stressor severity. We also controlled for relevant baseline variables where possible to assess how partner touch predicted changes in outcomes from the baseline. In analyses predicting perceptions of the partner, we controlled for background relationship quality, and in analyses predicting post-discussion stress or post-discussion self-esteem, we controlled for pre-discussion stress or pre-discussion self-esteem, respectively.

Results

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among primary study variables are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.
Descriptive statistics and correlations between primary study variables.

Variable Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Discloser’s perception of capability regarding the stressor 3.84 (0.74)

2. Discloser’s stress 1.78 (0.70) −.36

3. Discloser’s state self-esteem 5.71 (0.96) .44 −.45

4. Discloser’s positive perception of spouse 4.40 (0.46) .53 −.26 .39

5. Helper’s positive perception of spouse 4.13 (0.50) .42 −.26 .27 .40

6. Partner touch provision Helper: 4.71 (1.85)Discloser: 4.61 (1.81) .11 −.08 .09 .13* .21**

7. Discloser’s topic severity rating 3.56 (0.87) −.13* .36 −.16 −.07 −.15** .10^†

Note: Correlations with partner touch provision represent the between person correlations. Specifically, for discloser’s outcomes and ratings, partner touch represents touch that the helper provided. For helper’s positive perception of spouse, partner touch represents touch that the discloser provided. SD = standard deviation.

^† p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01.

Hypothesis 1: Touch predicting perceived capability to overcome stressor

We hypothesized that greater partner touch (provided by the helper during the discussion) would predict greater discloser perceptions that the stressor could be overcome after the discussion. Results were consistent with this hypothesis. Controlling for stressor severity, disclosers who received greater touch from helpers reported greater perceptions that the stressor could be overcome (see Table 3).

Table 3.
Helper touch provision predicting discloser’s perception of the stressor, stress, and state self-esteem.

Predictor Discloser’s perception of capability regarding the stressor Discloser’s stress Discloser’s state self-esteem

B p B p B p

Severity of stressor −.12 [−.21, −.03] .011* .28 [.20, .36] <.0005** −.13 [−.24, .02] .014*

Pre-discussion control variable — — .55 [.37, .73] <.0005 .51 [.41, .61] <.0005

Helper touch provision .04 [.00, .07] .038* −.04 [−.08, −.00] .035* .04 [−.00, .07] .057^†

Partial ICC between discussions .26 .002** .11 .164 .07 .434

Note: Estimates are pooled across discussions; unstandardized beta weights; 95% confidence intervals for significant effects are shown in brackets. For stress, the control variable is pre-discussion stress, and for state self-esteem, the control variable is pre-discussion self-esteem. ICC = intraclass correlation.

^†p < .10; p < .05; p < .01.

Hypotheses 2 and 3: Touch predicting decreased stress and increased self-esteem

We also predicted that greater helper touch would predict decreases in discloser stress and increases in discloser self-esteem following the discussion. We found support for each of these predictions. When helpers provided greater touch during the discussion, disclosers reported less stress (controlling for baseline stress and severity of the stressor) and marginally greater state self-esteem (controlling for baseline self-esteem and severity of the stressor) than when partners provided less touch during the discussion (see Table 3).

Hypotheses 4 and 5: Touch predicting partner perceptions

Finally, we predicted that both disclosers and helpers would report more positive perceptions of their partners when they received greater touch from their partners during the discussion. As predicted, controlling for stressor severity and background relationship quality, disclosers who received more touch from their spouses (helpers) reported more positive perceptions of the helper (see Table 4). Similarly, controlling for stressor severity and background relationship quality, helpers who received more touch from their spouses (disclosers) reported more positive perceptions of the discloser (see Table 4). In other words, both helpers and disclosers were perceived more positively by their partners when they provided more touch during the stressor discussions.

Table 4.
Partner touch provision predicting discloser’s and helper’s perceptions of spouse.

Predictor Discloser’s positive perception of spouse Helper’s positive perception of spouse

B p B p

Severity of stressor −.01 .714 −.09 [−.15, −.04] .002

Control variable: Background relationship quality .19 [.13, .25] <.0005 .14 [.07 .20] <.0005

Partner touch provision .02 [.00, .04] .018 .05 [.03, .07] <.0005**

Partial ICC between discussions .19 .035* .22 .022*

Note: Estimates are pooled across discussions; unstandardized beta weights; 95% confidence intervals for significant effects are shown in brackets. For disclosers’ perception of spouse, partner touch represents touch that the helper provided. For helper’s perception of spouse, partner touch represents touch that the discloser provided. ICC = intraclass correlation.

^†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01.

Discussion

The current research investigated whether receiving touch while discussing personal stressors with one’s spouse predicts positive personal and relational outcomes after the stressor discussion. Close others play an integral role as individuals cope with their personal stressors, and discussions about stressors are one key context in which close others can influence how individuals experience and respond to ongoing stressors (e.g., Cohen, 2004; Collins & Feeney, 2000; Feeney & Collins, 2015). Both couple-members’ behaviors during stress also have implications for relationship satisfaction and trust moving forward (e.g., Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Murray et al., 2006). We predicted that receiving touch would be associated with positive personal and relational outcomes because receiving touch demonstrates one’s general proximity to a close other (e.g., Beckes & Coan, 2011) and often communicates affection, relationship intimacy, and the availability of tangible assistance from the touch-provider (e.g., Burgoon et al., 1984; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a, 2017).

Consistent with predictions, results indicated that receiving touch was associated with benefits for the stress “discloser” as well as the partner (the “helper”). Disclosers who received greater touch while they discussed their personal stressors (1) perceived that they were more able to overcome their stressors, (2) experienced greater decreases in self-reported stress, (3) reported greater increases in state self-esteem, and (4) viewed their partners more positively than disclosers who received less touch. Additionally, helpers who received greater touch from their partners during their partner’s stressor discussion also viewed their partners more positively than helpers who received less touch. Taken together, these results demonstrate that touch (affectionate, playful, and casual touch) predicts personal and relational benefits in the context of stress discussions.

The results of this correlational study are consistent with prior work, demonstrating benefits of receiving touch in the context of one individual’s stressor. Past research demonstrated that receiving touch immediately after an acute stressor reduced distress and that receiving (or imagining receiving) touch immediately prior to an acute stressor buffered self-reported and physiological distress during the acute stress experience (Ditzen et al., 2007; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016b, 2018; Robinson et al., 2015). The current study extends past research by showing that receiving touch is associated with reductions in stress during discussions of real, ongoing stressors (not imposed by an experimenter). The current research is also consistent with work demonstrating the benefit of affectionate communication broadly to reduce stress (e.g., Floyd & Riforgiate, 2008; Pauley et al., 2014).

This work is also consistent with past research linking touch and relationship outcomes. Touch is consistently correlated with better relationship quality, and touch has been shown to serve as a resource during couple conflict discussions by facilitating more constructive conflict behavior (e.g., Gulledge et al., 2003; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2018). Because touch was associated with positive partner perceptions in the current research, touch may also offer relational benefits during stressor discussions. Individuals who maintain positive perceptions of their partners during times of stress may maintain their satisfaction with and commitment to the relationship over time. Stressor discussions may be a particularly important context in which disclosers evaluate their partners and relationships because a key function of close relationships is to provide a safe haven during stress (e.g., Bowlby, 1982; Collins & Feeney, 2000). Thus, disclosers should aim to maintain their relationships with partners who are perceived to behave positively during stress or discussions about one’s stressors.

Additionally, the results of the current study suggest that receiving touch may benefit individuals who are in a supporting role as well. Specifically, receiving touch was related to positive relational perceptions for helpers. Disclosers who provide touch while discussing their stressors may seem more responsive, appreciative, and receptive to the helper’s support attempts (e.g., less critical, more thoughtful), which may serve to protect relationship quality in stressful contexts that could otherwise overwhelm or frustrate a helper. It will be important for future research to test these proposed mechanisms.

Additionally, this is the first work (to our knowledge) to demonstrate that receiving touch is associated with the perception that a stressor can be overcome and with increased state self-esteem. The belief that a stressor can be overcome may enhance coping efforts and ultimately help individuals to surmount their stressors. Individuals who expect positive outcomes exert more effort toward coping, whereas individuals who expect negative outcomes are more likely to disengage from coping efforts (e.g., Nes & Segerstrom, 2006). Coping effectively with stressors is critical because stressors that remain unresolved and stressful can pose problems for individuals’ health and well-being as well as their close relationships (e.g., Cohen, Gianaros, & Manuck, 2016; Hammen, 2005; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Neff & Karney, 2009). Over time, the accumulation of stress contributes to disease onset and disease progression, exacerbates mental health problems, and can interfere with positive, adaptive processes in relationships (e.g., empathy, forgiveness, intimacy) to undermine relationship quality (e.g., Cohen, Janicki-Deverts, & Miller, 2007; Neff & Karney, 2009).

An association between touch and state self-esteem increases also a promising novel result. Whereas facing ongoing stressors may make individuals feel incapable and unskilled, support that enhances state self-esteem can facilitate active coping efforts (e.g., Mann, Hosman, Schaalma, & De Vries, 2004). The current research suggests that receiving touch is related to enhanced state self-esteem, perhaps because touch communicates that one is valued and esteemed. This is a noteworthy finding because receiving support is not always beneficial and some forms of support have been shown to undermine self-efficacy (e.g., Bolger & Amarel, 2007). The results of the current research suggest that touch may be one easy-to-enact behavior that spouses can use to enhance, rather than threaten, self-esteem.

In addition to these applied benefits, the current research also supports and extends a recent theory explaining the links between touch and relational, psychological, and physical well-being (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). This theory postulates that touch is associated with well-being in part because it mitigates stress, which would otherwise impair well-being. The current study supports this proposed mechanism and suggests two additional mechanisms. Specifically, we observed that receiving touch is associated with one’s perceived capability to overcome one’s stressor and enhanced state self-esteem, each of which may help to explain why touch is consistently related to well-being (see Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017 for review). First, if individuals who receive touch perceive their personal and relational stressors as challenges that can be overcome, they may cope more actively with these stressors and work to protect their individual and relational well-being. For example, an individual who receives touch and perceives that a health-related stressor (e.g., chronic illnesses, weight management concerns) can be overcome may engage in greater self-care behaviors. Second, touch may promote psychological well-being and help individuals to avoid mental health problems by enhancing self-esteem because self-esteem is one primary contributor to overall psychological well-being (e.g., Mann et al., 2004). These possibilities should be tested experimentally.

Although the current study offers applied and theoretical contributions, these contributions should be considered in the light of the study’s limitations. Of primary importance, one cannot conclude that receiving touch caused the observed personal and relational benefits due to the correlational design of the study. It is possible that there is something about the disclosers who received touch (other than that they received touch) that explains their decreases in stress, increases in self-esteem, and positive perceptions of their stressors and their partners. Similarly, something other than the fact that helpers received touch could explain their positive perceptions of their partners after the discussions. Couples conversed during these discussions, so some other positive interpersonal behavior that covaried with receiving touch may contribute to the benefits we observed. However, considered in the context of other experimental studies demonstrating benefits of touch for personal and relational outcomes (e.g., Ditzen et al., 2007; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016a, 2016b, 2018; Kim, Feeney, & Jakubiak, 2018), it is reasonable to consider that touch could cause the observed benefits. Additionally, to reduce the likelihood of reverse causation, we controlled for relevant background variables, where possible, which mitigates (although does not eliminate) the limitation of the correlational design.

Although the correlational design limits causal inferences, investigating naturally occurring touch has its own benefits. In particular, it is noteworthy that participants chose to engage in touch during a stressor discussion of their own volition, which suggests that touch not only causes personal and relationship benefits (as shown in previous work), but that touch is actually a behavior that some individuals choose to enact. Therefore, this study provides evidence for touch’s generalizability beyond laboratory intervention settings where touch is prescribed.

A second potential limitation that should be noted is the somewhat restricted sample: Participants were relatively young and predominantly Caucasian/White. Thus, it is unclear to what extent these results would generalize to older couples or other racial groups, although there is no clear reason that the results should not generalize. Additionally, couples were newlyweds so they were likely more satisfied with their relationships than the average couple because marital satisfaction tends to decline over time (e.g., VanLaningham, Johnson, & Amoto, 2001). Indeed, participants’ self-reported background relationship quality was high in this sample (M = 6.46, SD = 0.88) on scale ranging from 1 = lowest relationship quality to 8 = highest relationship quality. Thus, it is unclear whether these results would generalize to couples in more established, perhaps less satisfying, relationships.

It is possible that couples who are less satisfied would benefit less from receiving touch during their stressor discussions, consistent with past research demonstrating a stronger benefit of receiving touch for couples with higher relationship quality (Johnson et al., 2013). However, it is also possible that couples with lower relationship quality would benefit from receiving touch during stressor discussions because it demonstrates responsiveness and communicates positive regard to reestablish a positive connection in the relationship. The current sample is also restricted to couple-members; although we expect the results to generalize to other relationships where touch is normative (e.g., close friendships), these results do not necessarily generalize to all relationships. Despite the limitations of this work, it provides an initial investigation into the consequences of receiving touch during stressor discussions, considers both partners’ outcomes, and provides a foundation upon which future research can build. Future research should explore the boundaries of touch’s effectiveness and consider individual and relational differences in individuals’ responses to receiving touch.

In conclusion, the goal of this investigation was to examine whether receiving touch may serve as a resource to facilitate positive personal and relational outcomes during discussions about individuals’ stressors. In support of a recent theoretical perspective on the benefits of touch in adult relationships (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017), receiving touch was associated with decreases in stress and positive self and partner perceptions. Receiving touch was also associated with feeling capable to overcome stressors and increased state self-esteem. The current research builds on past research and theory by linking touch receipt to novel benefits for both stress disclosers and their partners.

Supplemental material

Supplemental_material - Interpersonal touch as a resource to facilitate positive personal and relational outcomes during stress discussions

Supplemental_material for Interpersonal touch as a resource to facilitate positive personal and relational outcomes during stress discussions by Brett K. Jakubiak and Brooke C. Feeney in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Touch code	Mean (SD) for helper	1. Affectionate	2. Casual	3. Playful
Mean (SD) for discloser	—	1.56 (.98)	1.60 (.92)	1.25 (.56)
1. Affectionate	1.64 (1.02)	0.500**	0.296**	0.189**
2. Casual	1.61 (.92)	0.258**	0.548**	0.174**
3. Playful	1.24 (.57)	0.266**	0.118*	0.323**

Variable	Mean (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Discloser’s perception of capability regarding the stressor	3.84 (0.74)
2. Discloser’s stress	1.78 (0.70)	−.36**
3. Discloser’s state self-esteem	5.71 (0.96)	.44**	−.45**
4. Discloser’s positive perception of spouse	4.40 (0.46)	.53**	−.26**	.39**
5. Helper’s positive perception of spouse	4.13 (0.50)	.42**	−.26**	.27**	.40**
6. Partner touch provision	Helper: 4.71 (1.85)Discloser: 4.61 (1.81)	.11	−.08	.09	.13*	.21**
7. Discloser’s topic severity rating	3.56 (0.87)	−.13*	.36**	−.16**	−.07	−.15**	.10^†

Predictor	Discloser’s perception of capability regarding the stressor	Discloser’s stress	Discloser’s state self-esteem
Severity of stressor	−.12 [−.21, −.03]	.011*	.28 [.20, .36]	<.0005**	−.13 [−.24, .02]	.014*
Pre-discussion control variable	—	—	.55 [.37, .73]	<.0005**	.51 [.41, .61]	<.0005**
Helper touch provision	.04 [.00, .07]	.038*	−.04 [−.08, −.00]	.035*	.04 [−.00, .07]	.057^†
Partial ICC between discussions	.26	.002**	.11	.164	.07	.434

Predictor	Discloser’s positive perception of spouse	Helper’s positive perception of spouse
Severity of stressor	−.01	.714	−.09 [−.15, −.04]	.002**
Control variable: Background relationship quality	.19 [.13, .25]	<.0005**	.14 [.07 .20]	<.0005**
Partner touch provision	.02 [.00, .04]	.018*	.05 [.03, .07]	<.0005**
Partial ICC between discussions	.19	.035*	.22	.022*

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS0424579) to the second author.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing bkjakubi@syr.edu.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Barbee

A. P.

Cunningham

M. R.

(1995). An experimental approach to social support communications: Interactive coping in close relationships. Communication Yearbook, 18, 381–413.

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, 976–988.

Belcher

A. J.

Laurenceau

J. P.

Graber

E. C.

Cohen

L. H.

Dasche

K. B.

Siegel

S. D.

(2011). Daily support in couples coping with early stage breast cancer: Maintaining intimacy during adversity. Health Psychology, 30, 665–673.

Bolger

Amarel

(2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 458–475.

Bolger

Zuckerman

Kessler

R. C.

(2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 953–961.

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brantley

P. J.

Waggoner

C. D.

Jones

G. N.

Rappaport

N. B.

(1987). A daily stress inventory: Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 61–74.

Burgoon

J. K.

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

Burgoon

J. K.

Buller

D. B.

Hale

J. L.

deTurck

M. A.

(1984). Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10, 351–378.

10.

Burgoon

J. K.

Walther

J. B.

Baesler

E. J.

(1992). Interpretations, evaluations, and consequences of interpersonal touch. Human Communication Research, 19, 237–263.

11.

Coan

J. A.

Schaefer

H. S.

Davidson

R. J.

(2006). Lending a hand: Social regulation and the neural threat response to threat. Psychological Science, 17, 1032–1039.

12.

Cohen

(2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59, 676–684.

13.

Cohen

Gianaros

P. J.

Manuck

S. P.

(2016). A stage model of stress and disease. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 456–463.

14.

Cohen

Janicki-Deverts

Miller

G. E.

(2007). Psychological stress and disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, 14, 1685–1687.

15.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396.

16.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053–1073.

17.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2004a). 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.

18.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2004b). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 363–383.

19.

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.

20.

Crockett

E. E.

Neff

L. A.

(2012). When receiving help hurts: Gender differences in diurnal cortisol responses to spousal support. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 190–197.

21.

Dakof

G. A.

Taylor

S. E.

(1990). Victims’ perceptions of social support: What is helpful from whom? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 80–89.

22.

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.

23.

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.

24.

Dunbar

R. I. M.

(2010). The social role of touch in humans and primates: Behavioral function and neurobiological mechanisms. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 260–268.

25.

Feeney

B. C.

(2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 631–648.

26.

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.

27.

Field

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

28.

Fivecoat

H. C.

Tomlinson

J. M.

Aron

Caprariello

P. A.

(2014). Partner support for individual self-expansion opportunities: Effects on relationship satisfaction in long-term couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 368–385.

29.

Floyd

(2002). Human affection exchange: V. Attributes of the highly affectionate. Communication Quarterly, 50, 135–152.

30.

Floyd

(2006). Communication affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Floyd

Boren

J. P.

Hannawa

A. F.

Hesse

McEwan

Veksler

A. E.

(2009). Kissing in marital and cohabiting relationships: Effects on blood lipids, stress, and relationship satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 113–133.

32.

Floyd

Mormon

(1998). The measurement of affectionate communication. Communication Quarterly, 46, 144–162.

33.

Floyd

Riforgiate

(2008). Affectionate communication received from spouses predicts stress hormone levels in healthy adults. Communication Monographs, 75, 351–368.

34.

Gallace

Spence

(2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 246–259.

35.

Gerin

Pieper

Levy

Pickering

T. G.

(1992). Social support in social interaction: A moderator of cardiovascular reactivity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 54, 324–336.

36.

Girme

Y. U.

Overall

N. C.

Simpson

J. A.

(2013). When visibility matters: Short-term versus long-term costs and benefits of visible and invisible support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1441–1454.

37.

Gruenwald

T. L.

Kemeny

M. E.

Aziz

Fahey

J. L.

(2004). Acute threat to the social self: Shame, self-esteem, and cortisol activity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 915–924.

38.

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.

39.

Hammen

(2005). Stress and depression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 293–319.

40.

Hazan

Shaver

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.

41.

Hertenstein

M. J.

Holmes

McCullough

Keltner

(2009). The communication of emotion via touch. Emotion, 9, 566–573.

42.

Holmes

J. G.

Rempel

J. K.

(1989). Trust in close relationships. In Hendrick

(Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 187–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

43.

Howland

Simpson

J. A.

(2010). Getting in under the radar: A dyadic view of invisible support. Psychological Science, 21, 1878–1885.

44.

Jakubiak

B. K.

Feeney

B.C.

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

45.

Jakubiak

B. K.

Feeney

B. C.

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

46.

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.

47.

Jakubiak

B. K.

Feeney

B. C

. (2018). Hand-in-hand combat: Affectionate touch promotes relational well-being and buffers stress during conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218788556

48.

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.

49.

Johnson

S. M.

Moser

M. B.

Beckes

Smith

Dalgleish

Halchuk

… Coan

J. A.

(2013). Soothing the threatened brain: Leveraging contact comfort with emotionally focused therapy. PLoS ONE, 8, 1–10.

50.

Jones

S. E.

Yarbrough

(1985). A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch. Communication Monographs, 52, 19–56.

51.

Kane

H. S.

McCall

Collins

N. L.

Blascovich

(2012). Mere presence is not enough: Responsive support in a virtual world. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 37–44.

52.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.

53.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

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

54.

Kim

Feeney

B. C.

Jakubiak

B. K.

(2018). Touch reduces romantic jealousy in the anxiously attached. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 1019–1041.

55.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

56.

Leary

M. R.

Haupt

A. L.

Strausser

K. S.

Chokel

J. T.

(1998). Calibrating the sociometer: The relationship between interpersonal appraisals and state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1290–1299.

57.

Mackey

R. A.

Diemer

M. A.

O’Brien

B. A.

(2000). Psychological intimacy in the lasting relationships of heterosexual and same-gender couples. Sex Roles, 43, 201–227.

58.

Mann

Hosman

C. M. H.

Schaalma

H. P.

de Vries

N. K.

(2004). Self-esteem in a broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion. Health Education Research, 19, 357–372.

59.

McFarland

Ross

(1982). Impact of causal attributions on affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 937–946.

60.

McGraw

K. O.

Wong

S. P.

(1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46.

61.

Mikulincer

Gillath

Shaver

P. R.

(2002). Activation of the attachment system in adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 881–895.

62.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2007). Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 139–156.

63.

Muise

Giang

Impett

E. A.

(2014). Post sex affectionate exchanges promote sexual and relational satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1391–1402.

64.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Collins

N.L.

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

65.

Neff

L. A.

Karney

B. R.

(2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship experiences: How stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 435–450.

66.

Nes

L. S.

Segerstrom

S. C.

(2006). Dispositional optimism and coping: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 235–251.

67.

Pauley

P. M.

Floyd

Hesse

(2014). The stress-buffering effects of a brief dyadic interaction before an acute stressor. Health Communication, 30, 645–659.

68.

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.

69.

Saranson

I. G.

Johnson

J. H.

Siegel

J. M.

(1978). Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 46, 932–946.

70.

Schnall

Harber

K. D.

Stefanucci

J. K.

Proffitt

D. R.

(2008). Social support and the perception of geographical slant. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1246–1255.

71.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Nelligan

J. S.

(1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446.

72.

VanLaningham

Johnson

D. R.

Amato

(2001). Marital happiness, marital duration, and the U-shaped curve: Evidence from a five-wave panel study. Social Forces, 79, 1313–1341.

73.

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.

74.

Zaki

Williams

(2013). Interpersonal emotion regulation. Emotion, 13, 803–810.

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

0.34 MB