Gender differences in touch: An empirical and theoretical review.

Abstract

The literature on gender differences in touch is divided into the categories of observational studies of touch frequency, people's beliefs about frequency and meaning, data on qualitative differences in touch, and studies of response to touch. The observational studies reveal: (a) no overall tendency for males to touch females more than vice versa, though two studies of specifically intentional touch with the hand did find such asymmetry; (b) a tendency for females to initiate touch more than males; (c) a questionable tendency for females to receive touch more than males; (d) a tendency for more female same-gender touch than male same-gender touch (at least for white samples); and (e) a tendency for same-gender dyads to touch more than opposite-gender dyads, especially when the dyads are unlikely to be intimate. Some of these conclusions are debatable, owing to methodologica l problems.1 Data dealing with qualitative aspects of touch are found to be too sparse and inconsistent to yield much information about gender differences in the uses or meanings of particular types of touch. The literature shows a tendency for women to respond more positively to touch than men. Henley's power hypothesis, the primary hypothesis concerning gender differences in touch, is given special scrutiny as a possible explanatory framework. Despite the psychological significance of touch as a means of communication , not a great deal is known about when and why touching occurs and what meaning it may have in same-gender and opposite-gender interaction. Studies on the topic of gender and touch have focused on observed occurrences of touch, self-reports of touch frequency, people's beliefs about the meanings of touch, observers' perceptions of interactions that involved touch, and empirically assessed response to touch. Relevant questions and methods are many and the literature smaller than we would wish, considering this variety. But the literature is actually much larger than most psychologists alluding to the topic seem to be aware of; a handful of studies at best, and usually the same ones, are generally cited. There has been only one substantial review of gender and touch, that of Major (1981), whose review differs from