Affectionate touch frequency is not always associated with well-being: A comparison of Latin American and Swiss samples

Abstract

Spanish

Affectionate touch is a consistent predictor of well-being; however, relevant studies have mostly been conducted in individualistic cultural settings, such as Switzerland and the United States. Moreover, cross-cultural studies on affectionate touch have largely failed to assess the measurement invariance of their measures. The Latin-American cultural context fosters warm exchanges in close relationships, based on “convivial collectivism” values. The present study aimed to investigate the measurement invariance of a self-report measure of affectionate touch frequency in romantic relationships to explore whether its average levels differed across cultural groups, and to assess whether the strength of the association of affectionate touch with psychological well-being differed across cultural groups. Individuals who reported being in a romantic relationship (N = 581) from Switzerland and multiple regions of Latin America (North and Central America, Spanish-speaking South America, and Brazil) reported on affectionate touch frequency with their partner, and hedonic psychological well-being (indexed by satisfaction with life). Measurement invariance for affectionate touch frequency reached configural and metric levels but not the scalar level. Consequently, it was impossible to accurately test for intergroup differences in affectionate touch frequency. However, we found a significant positive association of affectionate touch frequency with well-being that was unique to the Swiss sample. We discuss the implications of our findings for cross-cultural research on affectionate touch.

Keywords

Affectionate touch romantic relationships cross-cultural measurement invariance well-being individualism-collectivism convivial collectivism Latin America

Affectionate touch has consistently been associated with well-being (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). However, the overwhelming majority of studies on affectionate touch have been conducted in individualistic cultural contexts (see Floyd et al., 2023; Minkov & Kaasa, 2022). Additionally, to our knowledge, the rare studies that do make cross-cultural comparisons have not assessed the measurement invariance of affectionate touch measures, which can bias results (Byrne, 2008). The present study aimed to address these gaps by testing the measurement invariance of a measure of affectionate touch frequency in samples from Switzerland and Latin America and subsequently comparing the levels of affectionate touch as well as the strength of the association of affectionate touch frequency with well-being in these cultural contexts.

Affectionate touch frequency and well-being in close relationships

Numerous factors predict well-being; among them, the quantity and quality of close relationships appear as particularly important (see Beller & Wagner, 2018; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). Over the last decade, increasing research demonstrates that one important mechanism relates to affectionate touch, which is a significant predictor of relational (e.g. Carmichael et al., 2021, 2021; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2019a), physical (e.g. Ditzen et al., 2019; Triscoli et al., 2017) and psychological well-being (e.g. Debrot et al., 2021; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2019b, for a comprehensive review, see Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). The literature indicates not only a positive association of affectionate touch with psychological well-being, such as satisfaction with life and positive affect (e.g. Debrot et al., 2021; Jakubiak, 2022) but also points toward a causal path from affectionate touch to well-being (Debrot et al., 2024). For example, romantic partners assigned to a touch condition exhibit more constructive behaviors in a conflictive discussion and experience less stress than romantic partners assigned to a control condition (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2019a). Another less controlled but more ecologically valid indication of such a potential causal relationship stems from a study whereby participants were randomly assigned to an ecological momentary intervention where an application prompted them to touch their partner when their smartphone detected that they were together (Durbin et al., 2021). Intervention participants perceived higher momentary psychological intimacy than those in the control group. However, the studies cited above were all conducted in individualistic regions (see also Floyd et al., 2023). This is problematic as evidence suggests that culture shapes the association of relationship patterns with well-being (Campos & Kim, 2017).

The role of culture

Diverse individuals may interpret concepts used in psychological studies differently based on their cultural assumptions and vantage points. This might be particularly true for relationship processes, as culture shapes interpersonal relationship patterns (e.g., Pietromonaco et al., 2024; Schwartz et al., 2010), people’s expectations towards close relationships (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991), the expression of emotions (e.g., Butler et al., 2007), and social support characteristics (e.g., Kim et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2007). Consequently, the possibility that psychological factors and processes may function similarly or differently between cultural groups should be investigated.

Importantly, most research on affectionate touch appears to have been conducted either in English-speaking countries (mostly the USA) or in North-western Europe, thus in individualistic cultural contexts (Minkov & Kaasa, 2022). This is in line with the results of recent reviews demonstrating a similar pattern for the entire psychology research field (Thalmayer et al., 2021). Close relationship research shows a similar lack of geographic diversity. A study of the samples of the five top journals of the field revealed that 96% of them came from either US-America, other English-speaking countries and Europe, and less than 1% from Latin America (Williamson et al., 2022). A recent literature review reveals that 61% of the studies that examine affectionate communication (including affectionate touch) included participants from US-America (Floyd et al., 2023). These results challenge researchers to diversify study samples to ensure accurate understanding of psychological processes and outcomes, including the degree of generalizability that is appropriate (McGorray et al., 2023; Williamson et al., 2022).

Cultural differences in affectionate touch and its association with well-being

Individuals who are exposed to different regions are also exposed to different ideologies, expectations, or standards that can make up their cultural mindset (Markus & Hamedani, 2020). In particular, culture influences how people approach relationships (e.g. relationship formation, maintenance or termination; Campos et al., 2016; Hashimoto et al., 2012; Schug et al., 2010). A key distinction in cross-cultural literature is individualism vs. collectivism. Individualistic cultures, typically found in North-America and Northern-Western Europe, value personal autonomy and self-expression, as well as relational mobility (Kitayama & Salvador, 2024). Collectivistic cultures, on the other hand, regard the self as inherently interdependent with close others and value the group over the individual (Triandis, 2001). Collectivism has recently been conceptualized as branching out into two forms. “Harmony collectivism”, typically endorsed in East Asians contexts, prioritize group cohesion and the maintenance of social harmony, in particular by preventing and avoiding conflict. In the “convivial collectivism” contexts, typically found in Latin America, “interdependent relationships are actively built and maintained via open and frequent positive emotion expression, regular social gathering, and pleasant politeness” (Campos & Kim, 2017, p. 545). This form of collectivism emphasizes the expression of warmth and support through active engagement in social interactions. Hence, affectionate touch is likely a key element of social interactions in convivial collectivism contexts. Accordingly, the Latin American context is particularly relevant to studying affectionate touch in association with well-being.

Indeed, the Latin American culture shapes touch-related behaviors and attitudes. Studies from about 50 years ago already demonstrate that people from Latin America touch more in public than people from North-Western regions (Montagu & Matson, 1979; Scheflen, 1974). This is confirmed in a more recent study including 45 countries, which reports that touch with friends is more frequent in Latin America than in North-Western European countries (Sorokowska et al., 2021). Another study finds that, in the United States, mothers with a Hispanic background touch their infant more frequently compared to mothers with a North European background (Franco et al., 1996). In a study unobtrusively observing people departing at an airport, Caribbean-Latin dyads touched more than East-Asian dyads (McDaniel & Andersen, 1998). Moreover, Mexican-Americans are more comfortable with touch with acquaintances in a public setting than European-Americans (Burleson et al., 2019).

However, some nuances in affectionate touch frequency between cultural groups should be mentioned. For example, there exist differences within Latin American regions, as for example, Columbians report a lower touch frequency than Costa Ricans or Panamanians (Shuter, 1976). Moreover, Burleson et al. (2019) showed that comfort with touch was similar across Mexican Americans and European Americans when it was with close others (versus acquaintances) and in a private (versus public) setting. McDaniel and Andersen’s (1998) study, investigating touch in an airport departure context, found no difference in the frequency of touch between dyads from Latin Caribbean nations, Northern Europe and the United States (McDaniel & Andersen, 1998).

To our knowledge, however, no study has investigated whether cross-cultural differences exist in the association between affectionate touch frequency and well-being. This is relevant given that various research indicates that convivial collectivism values, particularly the one called familism, are associated with better well-being outcomes. Familism is a “culturally grounded way of valuing family that emphasizes an ideal for family relationships to be warm, close, and supportive and that family be prioritized over self” (Campos et al., 2014, p. 191). For example, familism predicts better psychological health via increased perceived social support and closeness to family members in US-Latin Americans (Campos et al., 2014). Older US-Latino immigrants have also been found to have the highest satisfaction with life compared to other groups, even with lower socio-economical resources (Calvo et al., 2017). Familism has also been associated with lower risk of psychopathological symptoms (Chavez-Korell et al., 2014; López et al., 2004). As such, we postulate that affectionate touch could represent an embodiment of the convivial collectivism values and be thus differently associated with well-being than in more individualistic cultures.

Testing for measurement invariance across cultures

To make sure that cross-cultural comparisons relying on self-report questionnaires are valid, one must examine to what extent scores in these questionnaires reflect the true underlying constructs they are supposed to measure, and that group differences are not a mere reflection of measurement bias (Karl, 2025). Testing for measurement invariance (Byrne, 2008; Milfont & Fischer, 2010) refers to examining “whether or not, under different conditions of observing studying phenomena, measurement operations yield measures of the same attribute” (Horn & McArdle, 1992, p. 117). To the best of our knowledge, the few studies that aim to compare cultural groups on scores of affectionate touch (Sorokowska et al., 2021; Willis & Rawdon, 1994) have not determined if affectionate touch instruments function similarly between these groups.

Measurement invariance can be achieved at different levels, and this has important consequences for the type of analyses that can be made without bias (Byrne, 2008; Karl, 2025). First, configural measurement invariance tests whether the overall factor structure of the measure holds across contexts. This indicates that similar latent constructs are valid in all groups but this does not allow for comparisons. Second, metric measurement invariance tests whether factor loadings for the measure are equivalent across contexts. Partial metric measurement invariance is attained when at least two indicators with equal factor loadings emerge. At this level, one can conduct reliable group comparisons of associations (i.e., correlations) between variables or constructs. Third, scalar measurement invariance—the most conservative test of invariance—tests whether item intercepts are equivalent across groups. This indicates that mean differences at the item-level result from actual differences in the means of the latent construct. When scalar measurement invariance is not met, the measure cannot be used to compare groups on the underlying construct. The absence of scalar measurement invariance prevents the comparison of latent means between groups, as observed differences may result from systematic biases in the way items are interpreted, rather than from real differences in the construct studied (Milfont & Fischer, 2010). Measurement invariance has not been tested, to our knowledge, on measures of affectionate touch frequency across cultural groups. Hence, it is important to determine it before using an affectionate touch measure to test our hypotheses.

The current study

We aimed to statistically test whether a common self-report measure of affectionate touch frequency operated similarly or differently between diverse samples by testing its measurement invariance, to test for average differences in touch frequency across cultural groups, and to evaluate its association with well-being in each cultural group. We collected cross-sectional data from three regions across Switzerland and Latin America (Central America, Spanish-speaking South America, and Brazil). Switzerland presents a high, positive score on the collectivism-individualism continuum developed by Minkov and Kaasa (2022), while all Latin American countries have negative scores (indicating a collectivistic orientation)¹. Thus, these groups represent ideal contexts to test for potential differences in touch behaviors and its association with well-being.

Aim 1: Testing measurement invariance between cultural groups

We first examined measurement invariance between cultural groups on the affectionate touch measure using three distinguished levels (Byrne, 2008): configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance.

Aim 2: Testing the average of affectionate touch frequency across cultural groups

If scalar invariance was met, we investigated whether there were differences in affectionate touch frequency in romantic relationships across these samples, using group comparisons in Structural Equation Models. We hypothesized that Latin American participants would report higher average affectionate touch relative to Swiss participants.

Aim 3: Testing the association of affectionate touch frequency with well-being

Lastly, given the shown link between convivial collectivism and psychological health (e.g. Campos et al., 2014), if at least partial metric invariance was met, we explored whether the association between affectionate touch and hedonic well-being (measured with satisfaction with life) was similar across cultural groups.

Method

Procedure and participants

The research protocol was approved by the Ethic Committee (Comité de Ética de la Investigación) of the Universidad de Chile. Participants were recruited through different means. In Switzerland, the survey link was shared through social media, and the survey was presented to first-year psychology students from a University in the French-speaking part, who received course credits for participation in 2019 and 2020 (i.e. before and mostly during the COVID-19 pandemic). For Latin America, the first author contacted researchers from the participating countries of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and the island of Puerto Rico. They shared the survey with their students² and advertised it through social media. A first round of data was gathered in 2018–2019 and a second one in 2022–2023 (i.e. before and after the COVID-19 pandemic).

The only inclusion criterion was that participants were aged 18 years or older. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) to increase the cultural homogeneity of the groups, we only retained participants who were from and were living in either a Latin American country or Switzerland. Additionally, we included participants who lived in Switzerland and originated from Switzerland or a bordering country from Switzerland; (2) we excluded participants who failed at least one of the three attention checks of the survey; (3) we focused on affectionate touch in romantic relationships and, thus excluded people who were not in a romantic relationship; (4) to increase the homogeneity of the sample, people age 38 or older were removed; (5) finally, participants who did not answer all items in at least one questionnaire were excluded because their data could not be imputed. Figure 1 shows the flowchart of the participant selection.

Figure 1.

Flow chart of participants selection.

The final sample was comprised of 581 individuals (138 men—23.8%, 427 women −73.5%, five transgender persons −0.9%, and eleven who preferred not to identify −1.9%). Participants were between 18 and 37 years old (M = 22.9, SD = 4.2). Sixty-two percent of the participants were from Latin America. The North and Central America sub-sample (n = 120) included four persons living in Costa-Rica, 52 persons living in Mexico and 64 persons living in Puerto Rico. The Spanish-speaking South American sub-sample (n = 123) included two persons living in Argentina, one person living in Bolivia, 85 persons living in Chile and 35 persons living in Colombia. The third Latin-American sub-group included 117 people living in Brazil. The Swiss subgroup included 221 people living in Switzerland. About three quarters of the participants identified as heterosexual (74.4%), 16.7% as bisexual, 3.9% as gay or lesbian, and % 4.9 as unsure, not wanting to divulge or other. Most participants (65.7%) were dating a single person, 5.5% were in a non-monogamous dating relationship, 12.1% were cohabitating, 3.5% were engaged, and 3.5% were married. Relationship length ranged from less than 1 month to 16 years (M = 2.6 years, SD = 2.7 years).

Measures

Affectionate touch frequency

We assessed affectionate touch as the frequency with which the participants indicated having given and received six affectionate touch behaviors with their romantic partner, respectively “caressing”, “cuddling”, “hugging”, “kissing”, “hand holding” and “leaning on each other”, on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 9 (four or more times per day)³. The final score was calculated by averaging all twelve items across both giving and receiving subdimensions (α = .94). Spanish-speaking, Portuguese-speaking, and French-speaking participants completed a version that was translated and back-translated by the authors and independent native speakers from English into Spanish, Portuguese, and French.

Well-being

We assessed well-being with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985), which measures individuals’ evaluations of their lives (e.g., “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal”, considered as hedonic well-being) on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree; α = .83). Spanish speaking participants completed a validated Spanish version (Bagherzadeh et al., 2018). Portuguese speaking participants completed a version that was translated and back-translated by researchers who were native Portuguese speakers (Teixeira e Silva et al., 2022). French speaking participants completed Blais et al.’s (1989) validated French translation of the 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale. This measure is widely used not only in individualistic settings, but also in Latin-American populations (Emerson et al., 2017; Jang et al., 2017).

Data analytic plan

All analyses were run using the R environment (R Core Team, 2023). Preliminary descriptive statistics using MANOVAs were computed for affectionate touch frequency and satisfaction with life in each cultural group.

Testing measurement invariance (aim 1)

To test the measurement invariance of affectionate touch frequency and satisfaction with life across all cultural groups, a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) was conducted with a robust maximum likelihood estimation. Following the process by Brown (2015), we first tested single-group CFA models in each group to identify acceptable and meaningful models in the samples. Then, in a hierarchical sequence, we tested (a) configural measurement invariance to examine the identical factor structure and the identical patterns of factor loadings across the samples, (b) metric measurement invariance to explore the equality of the factor loadings across the samples, and (c) scalar measurement invariance to determine the equality of item intercepts across the samples. Configural measurement invariance is the least stringent level of measurement invariance followed by metric and then scalar measurement invariance. Each type of model was compared to the less stringent version, and the most stringent model was retained. To assess the measurement invariance across the cultural groups, a χ² difference test and changes in CFI (ΔCFI ≤.01) were used (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

Missing values were treated with full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation. Model fit was assessed using the χ² test, the comparative fit index (CFI), the root means square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized mean squared residual (SRMR). If the χ² was not significant, the model was considered to have a good fit. If it was significant, the model was considered to fit the data if the CFI value was greater than, or equal to .95, the RMSEA value was below or equal to .06, and SRMR was under or equal to .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1998).

Comparing the mean of affectionate touch frequency between the groups (aim 2)

The comparison of the mean levels of affectionate touch frequency would be possible if scalar invariance was met (full or partial). Mean differences between groups represents group differences that are not attributed to different interpretations of the measure between the groups.

Testing the association of affectionate touch frequency with well-being (aim 3)

Next, if at least partial metric measurement invariance was attained, we constructed three nested models that compared covariance between the latent variables for affectionate touch frequency and well-being. In the first model, the covariances between the two factors of interest were free to take any value in each cultural group. In the second model, the non-significant covariances between factors in the first model were constrained to 0. In the third model, all covariances between factors were set to 0; this model assumes independence between the two factors in all cultural groups. Finally, the three models were successively compared to each other using a χ² difference test. This allowed us to determine which model fits best the data.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics for each cultural group are presented in Table 1. MANOVAs revealed a statistically significant multivariate effect of cultural group on affectionate touch frequency (Λ = .752, χ² (18) = 161.93, p < .001) and satisfaction with life (Λ = .849, χ² (15) = 92.18, p < .001). We also plotted the average frequency of each affectionate touch type (e.g., hug, kiss) by each cultural group (Figure 2). Visually, the profiles had different heights and shapes.

Table 1.

Descriptive properties (mean, standard deviation, Cronbach’s alpha, factor loadings) for all items by region.

	North and central America (NCA)			Spanish-speaking South America (SA)			Brazil (B)			Switzerland (S)			NCA	SA	B	S
	M	SD	α	M	SD	α	M	SD	α	M	SD	α	Factor loadings
Affectionate touch frequency	7.33	1.71	0.96	7.68	1.34	0.92	7.32	1.73	0.94	7.40	1.68	0.95
Caressing	7.43	1.88		7.97	1.44		7.55	1.72		7.43	1.81		0.97	096	0.95	0.88
Cuddling	7.10	1.92		7.20	1.87		6.69	2.38		7.59	1.75		0.86	0.64	0.78	0.96
Hugging	7.14	1.89		7.63	1.44		7.20	1.98		7.60	1.70		0.88	0.88	0.82	0.98
Kissing	7.73	1.87		8.14	1.41		7.65	1.69		7.89	1.67		0.95	0.94	0.86	0.92
Holding hands	7.36	1.88		7.60	1.75		7.11	2.14		6.66	2.26		0.88	0.78	0.89	0.74
Leaning	7.21	1.89		7.56	1.51		7.67	1.86		7.20	1.94		0.82	0.82	0.90	0.82
Well-being	3.28	0.80	0.84	3.43	0.80	0.85	3.15	0.75	0.78	3.63	0.82	0.84
SWLS 1 (life is close to my ideal)	3.12	0.91		3.29	0.98		2.97	0.98		3.42	1.03		0.72	0.83	0.81	0.72
SWLS 2 (excellent life conditions)	3.18	0.94		3.34	0.95		3.09	1.10		3.94	0.97		0.64	0.68	0.61	0.60
SWLS 3 (satisfied with life)	3.47	1.07		3.69	0.90		3.42	0.86		3.71	1.02		0.82	0.85	0.74	0.89
SWLS 4 (gotten important things)	3.52	0.95		3.62	0.98		3.27	1.02		3.61	1.04		0.70	0.68	0.62	0.71
SWLS 5 (would not change anything)	3.14	1.25		3.19	1.18		2.97	1.16		3.48	1.25		0.67	0.68	0.51	0.63

Figure 2.

Average profiles of affectionate touch frequency across groups.

Confirmatory factor analysis (aim 1: part 1)

We first conducted single-group CFAs (see Table 2). To improve model fit for affectionate touch frequency, one error covariance between “caressing” and “hand holding” was specified in the baseline model for the North-Central Latin American sample, one error covariance between “kissing” and “hand holding” was specified in the baseline model for the South Latin American sample, one error covariance between “cuddling” and “hugging” was specified in the baseline model for the Brazilian sample, and one error covariance between “hand holding” and “leaning on each other” was specified in the baseline model for the Swiss sample.

Table 2.

χ2 and Goodness-of-Fit-Indices for Single-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Each Latent Factor.

	North and central America			South America (Spanish)			Brazil			Switzerland
	χ ² (df)	CFI	RMSEA	χ ² (df)	CFI	RMSEA	χ ² (df)	CFI	RMSEA	χ ² (df)	CFI	RMSEA
Affectionate touch frequency	9.10 (8)	.996	.045	11.72 (8)	.990	.057	7.62 (8)	1.000	.000	11.20 (8)	.996	.063
Well-being	2.25 (4)	1.000	.000	3.20 (5)	1.000	.000	6.30 (5)	0.993	.045	4.57 (5)	1.000	.000

To improve model fit for satisfaction with life, one error covariance between item 1 (life is close to my ideal) and item 2 (excellent life conditions) was specified in the baseline model for the North-Central Latin American sample.

Affectionate touch frequency

Affectionate touch frequency was estimated as a unidimensional factor with twelve items as indicators. The model fit for all samples was acceptable (see Table 2).

Satisfaction with life

Satisfaction with life was estimated as a unidimensional factor with five items as indicators. The model fit for all four samples was acceptable (see Table 2).

Invariance testing (aim 1: part 2)

Affectionate touch frequency

We first examined multigroup measurement invariance of affectionate touch frequency (see Table 3). The configural model adequately fit the data. The metric model also adequately fit the data but was somewhat worse than the configural model. The scalar model fit the data significantly less well than the metric model. Therefore, the measure of affectionate touch frequency was determined to meet metric measurement invariance, which is more stringent than configural but less stringent thank scalar measurement invariance.

Table 3.

χ2 and Goodness-of-Fit-Indices for Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis Across Countries.

	χ ² (df)	CFI	RMSEA (90% CI)	SRMR	Model comparison	ΔSBχ²(Δdf)	ΔCFI
Affectionate touch frequency
M0 Configural	39.56 (32)	.997	.048 [.000, .100]	.018
M1 Metric	65.49 (47)*	.994	.056 [.000, .094]	.050	M1–M0	30.52 (15)*	−.003
M2 Scalar	200.53 (62)***	.952	.140 [.117, .164]	.084	M2–M1	187.80 (15)***	−.042
Satisfaction with life
M0 Configural	16.17 (19)	1.000	.000 [.000, .065]	.021
M1 Metric	29.91 (31)	1.000	.000 [.000, .063]	.047	M1–M0	13.88 (12)	.000
M2 Scalar	95.17 (43)***	.944	.097 [.071, .123]	.083	M2–M1	68.86 (12)***	−.056

Note. M0 = baseline model with no invariance imposed; M1 = invariant factor loadings; M2 = invariant factor loadings and invariant intercepts.

*p ≤ .05; ***p ≤ .001.

The attained level of invariance is bold.

Satisfaction with life

Next, we examined multigroup measurement invariance of the satisfaction with life measure (see Table 3). The configural model adequately fit the data. The metric model also adequately fit the data. However, the scalar model fit the data significantly less well than the metric model. Therefore, the measure of satisfaction with life was determined to meet metric invariance.

In sum, both CFA models were estimated to meet requirements for metric invariance i.e., factor loadings for the indicators of the respective constructs are equivalent across groups, but not item intercepts.

Mean of affectionate touch frequency between the groups (aim 2)

Due to the results of the CFA, it was not possible to reliably compare the mean levels of affectionate touch frequency between the groups, but we were able to test the association between affectionate touch frequency and satisfaction with life across groups.

Association between affectionate touch frequency and well-being (aim 3)

The first multi-group model linking affectionate touch frequency and satisfaction with life, in which all factors were free to take any value, fit the data relatively well (χ² (194) = 244.08, p = .009, CFI = .992, RMSEA = .038, SRMR = .054). Of the covariances between affectionate touch and satisfaction with life in the four groups, only the covariance for the Swiss sample was significantly different from 0 (see Table 4). The second model, in which the covariance between affectionate touch and satisfaction with life was set to 0 in the three Latino groups, fit the data as well as the first model (Δ χ² (3) = 0.95, p = .814). In contrast, the third model that assumed that the association between affectionate touch and satisfaction with life was non-existent in each cultural group (all factors set to 0) no longer described the data correctly (Δ χ² (1) = 4.45, p = .034). Thus, the models reveal a significant association between affectionate touch frequency and satisfaction with life only in the Swiss sample⁴.

Table 4.

Unstandardized (b) and standardized (β) Beta coefficients in the structural models.

	Well-being ↔ affectionate touch frequency
	β	SE	b	z
Central America	−0.045	0.148	−0.035	−0.305
South America	−0.040	0.105	−0.040	−0.382
Brazil	0.103	0.110	0.092	0.935
Switzerland	0.189	0.086	0.146	2.207*

Note. *p ≤ .05.

Discussion

This study is the first to examine the measurement invariance of a scale assessing affectionate touch frequency in romantic relationships and to compare its association with well-being across three cultural subgroups of individuals residing in Latin-American countries and Switzerland. We found that the measure of affectionate touch frequency, as well as the measure of well-being (satisfaction with life), reached metric invariance, allowing us to compare the strength of the association between affectionate touch frequency and well-being. As the questionnaires did not meet scalar invariance, we were not able to reliably compare mean levels of affectionate touch frequency across cultural groups. However, we were able to compare correlations between constructs across cultural groups, since requirements for metric invariance were met. Crucially, results indicated that the well-known association of touch and well-being emerged in the Swiss group but did not in any of the Latin-American groups.

Measurement invariance

Our analyses revealed that our measure of affectionate touch was invariant across our cultural groups on the metric, but not on the scalar level. Thus, this measure could be used to examine affectionate touch and its association with other variables across our samples, but valid cross-cultural mean comparisons could not be made, as the intercepts of the items could not be considered equal across groups. Several reasons could explain this. First, when translating the items, we realized that there were more difficulties than anticipated. For example, some concepts could refer to different behaviors (e.g. “embrasser” in French can either mean kiss or hug). Hence, future research should conduct a lexical study of affectionate touch behaviors in different cultural groups that are observed (for an example of application of this method see Thalmayer, Job, et al., 2021). This would assist with disentangling differences in the measure that are due to vocabulary from those due to true differences in the conveyed meaning. Moreover, the behaviors can hold different meanings across different contexts. For example, kissing in public can be evaluated differently in different cultural or regional contexts. Finally, because of the potentially different frequency of touch behaviors in the different groups, people may have different reference points that might affect how they respond to a scale. This is known as the reference group effect and might have influenced the present results (Heine et al., 2002). Using more objective measure of affectionate touch (e.g. by observing couples in different situations) could help mitigate the reference group effect, as has been done, for example, in research on sociability (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2009).

Metric invariance was also attained with the Satisfaction with Life Scale, which measures hedonic well-being. Previous research has demonstrated varying degrees of measurement invariance when comparing different cultural or geographical groups on measures of well-being, but most findings are similar to ours (Emerson et al., 2017; Jang et al., 2017). This underlines the importance of systematically conducting invariance analyses.

Note that, even if we could not formally test the mean difference of affectionate touch across groups, the MANOVA indicated significant intergroup differences, and the profiles illustrated in Figure 2 visually showed different heights and shapes. This indicated that individuals engaged in various types of affectionate touch across cultural groups. Future research should aim to develop measurement invariant tools to assess affectionate touch and be able to conduct valid mean comparisons.

Association between touch frequency and well-being

To date, most if not all the research linking affectionate touch to well-being has shown a significant positive association (e.g. Carmichael et al., 2021; Debrot et al., 2021; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2019b). However, the overwhelming majority of that research was conducted from samples stemming from individualistic cultures (see Floyd et al., 2023). In the present study, we only found a significant association between touch and satisfaction with life in the Swiss group (representing an individualistic society). The effect size is small, comparable to previous research using similar methods (e.g. Debrot et al., 2021). However, in all Latin-American groups, the association was not significant. This is, to our knowledge, the first study showing this specificity of Latin American samples and underlines the importance of conducting research in non-individualistic samples, as they might not be representative of the majority world. This has been demonstrated in other psychological research areas (e.g. personality structure, Thalmayer et al., 2020; parent-child interactions, Little et al., 2016; weight stigma, Rojas-Sánchez et al., 2022; or cooperation, Henrich, 2015). However, the existing literature on cross-cultural differences in social support and well-being has shown a different pattern. For example, Campos and colleagues (2014) found no difference between Latino-US-Americans and European Americans in the association of social support with psychological health. Campos et al. (2018) even found a higher buffering effect of social support in Latino-US-Americans on stress reactivity compared to European-Americans and Asian Americans.

Some hypotheses can be made to interpret the non-significant association between romantic partner touch and well-being in the Latin-American samples. First, research on cross-cultural differences in affectionate touch has shown more frequent touch in Latin-American with people other than the partner (Franco et al., 1996; Sorokowska et al., 2021). People of Latin-American origin might have more diverse sources of affectionate touch than only a romantic partner. Indeed, research indicates that, in individualistic societies, the romantic partner is usually the main source not only of affectionate touch (Suvilehto et al., 2015), but also of social and emotional support more generally (see for example the suffocation model of marriage by Finkel et al., 2015). Hence, romantic partner’s touch might not have the same importance and uniqueness in a cultural context characterized by high interconnectedness among close others, as family members and friends may engage in more frequent affectionate touch in Latin America. Indeed, the exchange of positive emotions and supportive behaviors (as captured by a set of values named “familism” and “simpatía”) is common in the Latin-American context (Acevedo et al., 2020; Campos et al., 2014; Campos & Kim, 2017). Consequently, touch might be so normative in the Latin-American cultural context that it does not hold the same signal value when provided by the romantic partner and its benefits are diluted. Given this, we might expect that a lack of touch (e.g., endorsement of any touch versus no touch) might be particularly detrimental in these high-contact cultures but variations in touch frequency may hold less predictive power. Future research could explore this by investigating couples with higher distress or long-distance relationships in Latin America. It should also investigate whether the quantity of touch outside the romantic relationship moderates the association between romantic partner’s touch and well-being.

Another explanation might lie in the nature of the affectionate touch behaviors. They might be perceived as differently affectionate or desired by the participants from the different groups. A vast international study found a high rate of domestic violence in Latin America and the Caribbean (25% point prevalence of intimate partner violence vs. 21% in Western Europe; World Health Organization, 2021). Thus, touch, even when affectionate, may have triggered negative emotions for some participants in this sample. In fact, a recent study on affectionate touch among survivors of domestic violence indicates that following experiences of touch can be quite mixed (Debrot et al., 2024). Another possibility might be that the motive behind touch behaviors differed across subgroups (Jakubiak et al., 2021). Therefore, certain behaviors may be perceived differently across cultures and across individuals. This possibility should be studied in future research by assessing the enjoyment for touch, attitudes toward touch, the potential violent or domineering nature of touch, as well as previous experiences of interpersonal violence. This highlights the importance of continuing research on romantic relationships and affectionate touch in varied cultural contexts.

Limitations and future directions

Despite being the first study to examine invariance of a measure of affectionate touch frequency comparing Latin-American groups to a representative of an individualistic society (Switzerland), the present study presents some limitations that are important to mention. First, the cultural groups were examined geographically and based on where people live rather than based on assessed cultural mindsets or values, which may vary within groups. Moreover, the sample sizes were very different for some countries, making it difficult to detect potential country-wise differences. Future research should be conducted with more homogeneous Latin American samples or with larger samples. Additionally, future study could integrate relevant control variables (e.g. attachment style, socio-economic status). Second, many participants were university students⁵, thus highly educated people of higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Hence, future research should have more diversity in socio-economic class, as well as disability status within cultural groups for generalizability. Third, we chose to focus on the self-reported frequency of affectionate touch, a measure that has been consistently associated with well-being in previous studies (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). However, there are other important ways to understand affectionate touch. Measures such as enjoyment, comfort, or attitudes toward touch or touch motives may be important to examine in a fine-grained way (e.g. through behavioral measurement or ecological momentary assessment) to understand the interpersonal affectionate dynamics of couples (Burleson et al., 2019; Debrot et al., 2021; Tavares et al., 2024). Fourth, we relied on a measure of hedonic well-being, and results might differ with other types of well-being assessment. For ex., a qualitative study found that people of Latin American origin valued high-quality relationships, especially in the family, to define well-being (Hernandez et al., 2016), which is a component of eudemonic well-being (Ryff, 1995). Finally, only one of the partners of the romantic relationship was assessed and we could thus not capture dyadic dynamics.

Conclusion

The present study underlines how crucial it is to study relational phenomena in more diverse samples than the ones usually examined in relationship science (Floyd et al., 2023; Kitayama & Salvador, 2024; Williamson et al., 2022). Despite the challenges that come with collecting data from diverse samples, and in particular samples from underrepresented regions of the world, such cross-cultural research will pave the way for a better understanding of human functioning and theory that will allow for the tailoring of potential interventions that are specific to each population.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are very thankful to Maria Remon-Ore, Argelia Arestigui, and Carmen Elvira Navia Arroyo for their support in the data collection.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The present work was supported by two grants from the Research Commission of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences of the University of Lausanne, awarded to the first 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 will be publicly posted upon publication of the present manuscript on the SwissUBase platform. The materials used in the research will be publicly posted upon publication of the present manuscript on the SwissUBase platform (see ).

ORCID iDs

Anik Debrot

Eva Heim

Belinda Campos

Juan Enrique Wilson

Vicente Cassepp-Borges

Rozzana Sánchez Aragón

Ruth Virginia Nina Estrella

Luis Diego Vega

Nicole M. Froidevaux

Notes

References

Acevedo

A. M.

Herrera

Shenhav

Yim

I. S.

Campos

(2020). Measurement of a Latino cultural value: The simpatía scale. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 26(4), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000324

Bagherzadeh

Loewe

Mouawad

R. G.

Batista-Foguet

J. M.

Araya-Castillo

Thieme

(2018). Spanish version of the satisfaction with life scale: Validation and factorial invariance analysis in Chile. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 21(1), Article E2. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.2

Beller

Wagner

(2018). Disentangling loneliness: Differential effects of subjective loneliness, network quality, network size, and living alone on physical, mental, and cognitive health. Journal of Aging and Health, 30(4), 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264316685843

Blais

M. R.

Vallerand

R. J.

Pelletier

L. G.

Brière

N. M.

(1989). L’échelle de satisfaction de vie: Validation canadienne-française du « Satisfaction with Life Scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 21(2), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079854

Brown

T. A.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (Second edition). Methodology in the social sciences. The Guilford Press.

Burleson

M. H.

Roberts

N. A.

Coon

D. W.

Soto

J. A.

(2019). Perceived cultural acceptability and comfort with affectionate touch: Differences between Mexican Americans and European Americans. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(3), 1000–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517750005

Butler

E. A.

Lee

T. L.

Gross

J. J.

(2007). Emotion regulation and culture: Are the social consequences of emotion suppression culture-specific? Emotion, 7(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.30

Byrne

B. M.

(2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20(4), 872–882.

Calvo

Carr

D. C.

Matz-Costa

(2017). Another paradox? The life satisfaction of older Hispanic immigrants in the United States. Journal of Aging and Health, 29(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264315624901

10.

Campos

Kim

H. S.

(2017). Incorporating the cultural diversity of family and close relationships into the study of health. American Psychologist, 72(6), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000122

11.

Campos

Rojas Perez

O. F.

Guardino

(2016). Familism: A cultural value with implications for romantic relationship quality in U.S. Latinos. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514562564

12.

Campos

Ullman

J. B.

Aguilera

Dunkel Schetter

(2014). Familism and psychological health: The intervening role of closeness and social support. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034094

13.

Campos

Yim

I. S.

Busse

(2018). Culture as a pathway to maximizing the stress-buffering role of social support. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 40(3), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318772490

14.

Carmichael

C. L.

Goldberg

M. H.

Coyle

M. A.

(2021). Security-based differences in touch behavior and its relational benefits. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(4), 550–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620929164

15.

Chavez-Korell

Benson-Flórez

Rendón

A. D.

Farías

(2014). Examining the relationships between physical functioning, ethnic identity, acculturation, familismo and depressive symptoms for Latino older adults. The Counseling Psychologist, 42(2), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000013477906

16.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

17.

Debrot

Rochat

del Río Carral

Gerber

Sarrasin

Brodard

(2024). Accounts of interpersonal touch in female victims of intimate partner violence: A qualitative study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(7), 1936–1958. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241231302

18.

Debrot

Stellar

J. E.

Dan-Glauser

Klumb

P. L.

(2024). Touch as a stress buffer? Gender differences in subjective and physiological responses to partner and stranger touch. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 48(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-024-00455-y

19.

Debrot

Stellar

J. E.

MacDonald

Keltner

Impett

E. A.

(2021). Is touch in romantic relationships universally beneficial for psychological well-being? The role of attachment avoidance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(10), 1495–1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220977709

20.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

21.

Ditzen

Germann

Meuwly

Bradbury

T. N.

Bodenmann

Heinrichs

(2019). Intimacy as related to cortisol reactivity and recovery in couples undergoing psychosocial stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 81(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000633

22.

Durbin

K. B.

Debrot

Karremans

van der Wal

(2021). Can we use smart-phones to increase physical affection, intimacy and security in couples? Preliminary support from an attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(3), 1035–1045. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520970278

23.

Emerson

S. D.

Guhn

Gadermann

A. M.

(2017). Measurement invariance of the satisfaction with life scale: Reviewing three decades of research. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 26(9), 2251–2264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1552-2

24.

Finkel

E. J.

Cheung

E. O.

Emery

L. F.

Carswell

K. L.

Larson

G. M.

(2015). The suffocation model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415569274

25.

Floyd

Debrot

Horan

S. M.

Hesse

Woo

N. T.

(2023). Affectionate communication, health, and relationships. Personal Relationships, 30(1), 44–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12444

26.

Franco

Fogel

Messinger

D. S.

Frazier

C. A.

(1996). Cultural differences in physical contact between Hispanic and Anglo mother–infant dyads living in the United States. Early Development and Parenting, 5(3), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0917(199609)

27.

Hashimoto

Mojaverian

Kim

H. S.

(2012). Culture, interpersonal stress, and psychological distress. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(4), 527–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022112438396

28.

Heine

S. J.

Lehman

D. R.

Peng

Greenholtz

(2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 903–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.903

29.

Henrich

(2015). Culture and social behavior. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3(1), 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.02.001

30.

Hernandez

Carnethon

Penedo

F. J.

Martinez

Boehm

Schueller

S. M.

(2016). Exploring well-being among US Hispanics/Latinos in a church-based institution: A qualitative study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1117132

31.

Holt-Lunstad

Smith

T. B.

Layton

J. B.

Brayne

(2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), Article e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316

32.

Horn

J. L.

Mcardle

J. J.

(1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3–4), 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916

33.

Bentler

P. M.

(1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989x.3.4.424

34.

Jakubiak

B. K.

(2022). Affectionate touch in satisfying and dissatisfying romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(8), 2287–2315. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221077280

35.

Jakubiak

B. K.

Debrot

Kim

Impett

E. A.

(2021). Approach and avoidance motives for touch are predicted by attachment and predict daily relationship well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(1), 256–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520961178

36.

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: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 21(3), 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316650307

37.

Jakubiak

B. K.

Feeney

B. C.

(2019a). Hand-in-hand combat: Affectionate touch promotes relational well-being and buffers stress during conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(3), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218788556

38.

Jakubiak

B. K.

Feeney

B. C.

(2019b). Interpersonal touch as a resource to facilitate positive personal and relational outcomes during stress discussions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(9), 2918–2936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518804666

39.

Jang

Kim

E. S.

Cao

Allen

T. D.

Cooper

C. L.

Lapierre

L. M.

O’Driscoll

M. P.

Sanchez

J. I.

Spector

P. E.

Poelmans

S. A. Y.

Abarca

Alexandrova

Antoniou

A.-S.

Beham

Brough

Carikci

Ferreiro

Fraile

Geurts

Woo

J.M.

(2017). Measurement invariance of the satisfaction with life scale across 26 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(4), 560–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117697844

40.

Karl

J. A.

(2025). Multigroup invariance testing for cross-cultural research. In Krägeloh

C. U.

Alyami

Medvedev

O. N.

(Eds.), International handbook of behavioral health assessment. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89738-3_7-1

41.

Kim

H. S.

Sherman

D. K.

Taylor

S. E.

(2008). Culture and social support. American Psychologist, 63(6), 518–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X

42.

Kitayama

Salvador

C. E.

(2024). Cultural psychology: Beyond east and west. Annual Review of Psychology, 75, 495–526. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-021723-063333

43.

Little

E. E.

Carver

L. J.

Legare

C. H.

(2016). Cultural variation in triadic infant-caregiver object exploration. Child Development, 87(4), 1130–1145. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12513

44.

López

S. R.

Nelson Hipke

Polo

A. J.

Jenkins

J. H.

Karno

Vaughn

Snyder

K. S.

(2004). Ethnicity, expressed emotion, attributions, and course of schizophrenia: Family warmth matters. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(3), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.113.3.428

45.

Markus

H. R.

Hamedani

M. G.

(2020). People are culturally shaped shapers: The psychological science of culture and culture change. In Cohen

Kitayama

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (2nd, pp. 11–52). The Guilford Press.

46.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

47.

McDaniel

Andersen

P. A.

(1998). International patterns of interpersonal tactile communication: A field study. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022952509743

48.

McGorray

E. L.

Emery

L. F.

Garr-Schultz

Finkel

E. J.

(2023). “Mostly white, heterosexual couples”: Examining demographic diversity and reporting practices in relationship science research samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(2), 316–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000417

49.

Milfont

T. L.

Fischer

(2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857

50.

Minkov

Kaasa

(2022). Do dimensions of culture exist objectively? A validation of the revised Minkov-hofstede model of culture with world values survey items and scores for 102 countries. Journal of International Management, 28(4), Article 100971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2022.100971

51.

Montagu

Matson

F. W.

(1979). The human connection. McGraw-Hill.

52.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Hammond

M. D.

Overall

N. C.

Zoppolat

Balzarini

R. N.

Slatcher

R. B.

(2024). Did relationship quality during the COVID-19 pandemic vary across cultural contexts? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(9), 2522–2547. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241248394

53.

Ramírez-Esparza

Mehl

M. R.

Álvarez-Bermúdez

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2009). Are Mexicans more or less sociable than Americans? Insights from a naturalistic observation study. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.09.002

54.

R Core Team . (2023). R [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

55.

Rojas-Sánchez

Sarrazin

Joët

Major

Chalabaev

(2022). Motivational processes of the relationship between weight stigma and physical activity: A comparison between France and Mexico. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(4), 1117–1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2021.1956565

56.

Ryff

C. D.

(1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(2), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772395

57.

Scheflen

A. E.

(1974). How behavior means. PERFORM. Anchor Press.

58.

Schug

Yuki

Maddux

(2010). Relational mobility explains between- and within-culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1471–1478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610382786

59.

Schwartz

S. J.

Unger

J. B.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Szapocznik

(2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019330

60.

Shuter

(1976). Proxemics and tactility in Latin America. Journal of Communication, 26(3), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01902.x

61.

Sorokowska

Saluja

Sorokowski

Frąckowiak

Karwowski

Aavik

Akello

Alm

Amjad

Anjum

Asao

Atama

C. S.

Atamtürk Duyar

Ayebare

Batres

Bendixen

Bensafia

Bizumic

Boussena

Zupančič

(2021). Affective interpersonal touch in close relationships: A cross-cultural perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(12), 1721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220988373

62.

Suvilehto

J. T.

Glerean

Dunbar

R. I. M.

Hari

Nummenmaa

(2015). Topography of social touching depends on emotional bonds between humans (p. 201519231). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519231112

63.

Tavares

I. M.

Brandelli

Y. N.

Dawson

S. J.

Impett

Debrot

Rosen

N. O.

(2024). Connecting through touch: Attitudes toward touch in pregnancy are associated with couples’ sexual and affectionate behaviors across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(8), 2070–2094. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241232704

64.

Taylor

S. E.

Welch

W. T.

Kim

H. S.

Sherman

D. K.

(2007). Cultural differences in the impact of social support on psychological and biological stress responses. Psychological Science, 18(9), 831–837. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01987.x

65.

Teixeira e Silva

Cassepp-Borges

Debrot

(2022). Toque e sua relação com bem-estar e satisfação com a vida/Touch and its relationship with well-being and satisfaction with life. Pensando Famílias, 26(1), 179–188.

66.

Thalmayer

A. G.

Job

Shino

E. N.

Robinson

S. L.

Saucier

(2021). ǂūsigu: A mixed-method lexical study of character description in Khoekhoegowab. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(6), 1258–1283. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000372

67.

Thalmayer

A. G.

Saucier

Ole-Kotikash

Payne

(2020). Personality structure in east and West Africa: Lexical studies of personality in maa and supyire-senufo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5), 1132–1152. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000264

68.

Thalmayer

A. G.

Toscanelli

Arnett

J. J.

(2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622

69.

Triandis

H. C.

(2001). Individualism and collectivism: Past, present, and future. In Matsumoto

D. R.

(Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 35–50). Oxford University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-02317-003

70.

Triscoli

Croy

Olausson

Sailer

(2017). Touch between romantic partners: Being stroked is more pleasant than stroking and decelerates heart rate. Physiology & Behavior, 177(3), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.05.006

71.

Williamson

H. C.

Bornstein

J. X.

Cantu

Ciftci

Farnish

K. A.

Schouweiler

M. T.

(2022). How diverse are the samples used to study intimate relationships? A systematic review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(4), 1087–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211053849

72.

Willis

F. N.

Rawdon

V. A.

(1994). Gender and national differences in attitudes toward same-gender touch. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78(3 Pt 1), 1027–1034. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.78.3.1027

73.

World Health Organization . (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018: Global, regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence against women. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240022256