|
| |
Haptics is the study of touching behavior. Touch is an extremely important
sense for humans; as well as providing information about surfaces and textures
it is a component of nonverbal communication in interpersonal relationships, and
vital in conveying physical intimacy. It can be both sexual (such as kissing or
oral sex) and platonic (such as hugging or tickling).
striking, pushing, pulling, pinching, kicking, strangling and hand-to-hand
fighting are forms of touch in the context of physical abuse. In a sentence like
"I never touched him/her" or "Don't you dare to touch him/her" the term touch
may be meant as euphemism for either physical abuse or sexual touching. To
'touch oneself' is a euphemism for masturbation.
The word touch has many other metaphorical uses. One can be emotionally touched,
referring to an action or object that evokes a sad or joyful feeling. To say "I
was touched by your letter" implies the reader felt joy or sadness when reading
it.
Touch is the earliest sense to develop in the fetus, and the development of
infants' haptic senses, and how that relates to the development of the other
senses such as vision, has been the target of much research. Human babies have
been observed to have enormous difficulty surviving if they do not possess a
sense of touch, even if they retain sight and hearing. Babies who can perceive
through touch, even without sight and hearing, fare much better. Touch can be
thought a basic sense in that most life forms have a response to being touched,
while only a subset have sight and hearing.
In chimpanzees the sense of touch is highly developed. As newborns they see and
hear poorly but they grasp strongly to their mothers. Harry Harlow conducted a
controversial study involving rhesus monkeys and observed that monkeys reared
with a "terry cloth mother", a wire feeding apparatus wrapped in softer terry
cloth which provided a level of tactile stimulation and comfort, were
considerably more emotionally stable as adults than those with a mere wire
mother.
Touching is treated differently from one country to another. Acceptable touch
varies by cultural group. In the Thai culture#, touching someone's head may be
thought rude. Remland and Jones (1995) studied groups of people communicating
and found that in England (8%), France (5%) and the Netherlands (4%) touching
was rare compared to their Italian (14%) and Greek (12.5%) sample.
Stoeltje (2003) wrote about how American’s are ‘losing touch’ with this
important communication skill. During a study conduced by University of Miami
School of Medicine, Touch Research Institutes, American kids were said to be
more aggressive than their French counterparts while playing at a playground. It
was noted that French women touched their children more often than the American
parents.
Haptic perception
Gibson (1966) defines the haptic system as "The sensibility of the individual to
the world adjacent to his body by use of his body". The haptic perceptual system
is unusual in that it can include the sensory receptors from the whole body and
is closely linked to the movement of the body so can have a direct effect on the
world being perceived. The concept of haptic perception is closely allied to the
concept of active touch that realizes that more information is gathered when a
motor plan (movement) is associated with the sensory system, and that of
extended physiological proprioception a realization that when using a tool such
as a stick, the perception is transparently transferred to the end of the tool.
It has been found (Robles-De-La-Torre & Hayward, 2001) that haptic perception
relies on the forces experienced during touch. This research allows the creation
of "virtual", illusory haptic shapes with different perceived qualities (see
"The Cutting edge of haptics").
The abilities of the haptic sense, and of somatic sense in general, were
traditionally underrated. In spite of expectations, loss of the sense of touch
is a catastrophic deficit. It makes it almost impossible to walk or perform
other skilled actions such as holding objects or using tools (Robles-De-La-Torre
2006), highlighting the critical and subtle abilities of touch and somatic
senses in general and the potential of haptic technology.
Haptic categories
Heslin (1974) outlines the five haptic categories:
1. Functional/professional
2. Social/polite
3. Friendship/warmth
4. Love/intimacy
5. Sexual/arousal
The intent of a touch is not always exclusive and touching can evolve to each
one of Heslin’s categories.
Functional/professional
Managers should know the effectiveness of using touch while communicating to
subordinates, but need to be cautious and understand how touch can be
misunderstood. A hand on the shoulder for one person may mean a supportive
gesture, while it could mean a sexual advance to another person. Working with
others and using touch to communicate, a manager needs to be aware of each
person’s touch tolerance.
Henley’s (1977) research found that a person in power is more likely to touch a
subordinate, but the subordinate is not free to touch in kind. Touch is a
powerful nonverbal communication tool and this different standard between a
superior and subordinate can lead to confusion whether the touch is motivated by
dominance or intimacy according to Borisoff and Victor (1989).
The initial connection to another person in a professional setting usually
starts off with a touch, specifically a handshake. Your handshake can speak
volumes about you and your personality. Chiarella (2006) wrote an article for
Esquire magazine explaining to the predominately male readership how handshakes
differ from person to person and how they send nonverbal messages. He mentioned
that holding the grip longer than two seconds will result in a stop in the
verbal conversation, thus the nonverbal will override the verbal communication.
Walton (1989) stated in his book that touching is the ultimate expression of
closeness or confidence between two people, but not seen often in business or
formal relationships. Touching stress how special the message is that is being
sent by the initiator. “If a word of praise is accompanied by a touch on the
shoulder, that’s the gold star on the ribbon,” wrote Walton.
Social/polite
Moving from one haptic category to another can become blurred by culture.
Examine the many areas in the United States where a touch on the forearm is
accepted as socially correct and polite. In the Midwest, this is not always an
acceptable behavior.
Jones (1985) explained communication with touch as the most intimate and
involving form which helps us to keep good relationships with others. His study
with Yarbrough covered touch sequences and individual touches.
Touch sequences fall into two different types, repetitive and strategic.
Repetitive is when one person touches and the other person reciprocates. The
majority of these touches are considered positive. Strategic touching is a
series of touching usually with an ulterior or hidden motive thus making them
seem to be using touch as a game to get someone to do something for you.
More common than the sequential touches are the individual or single touches.
They must be read by using the total context of what was said, the nature of the
relationship and what kind of social setting was involved when the person was
touched.
Yarbrough designed a blueprint for how to touch. She designated the different
body areas as to whether they are ‘touchable’ or not. Non-vulnerable body parts
(NVBP) are the hand, arm, shoulder and upper back, and vulnerable body parts
(VBP) are all other body regions.
Civil inattention is defined as the polite way to manage interaction with
strangers by not engaging in any interpersonal communication or needing to
respond to a stranger’s touch. Goffman (1963) uses an elevator study to explain
this phenomenon. You do not look, talk or touch to the person next to you. It
may be so crowded that you ‘touch’ another person, but you maintain an
expressionless demeanor so not to affect those around you.
Friendship/warmth
It is more acceptable for women to touch than men in social or friendship
settings, possibly because of the innate nature of the person touching have
dominance over who they are touching. Whitcher and Fisher (1979) conducted a
study to see whether therapeutic touch to reduce anxiety differed between the
sexes. A nurse was told to touch patients for one minute while the patients
looked at a pamphlet during a routine preoperative procedure. Females reacted
positively to the touch, males did not. It was surmised that males equated the
touch to being treated as inferior or dependent.
Touching among family members has been found to affect the behavior of those
involved. Various factors are at work within a family setting. As a child grows
older, the amount of touching by the parent decreases.
Boys distance themselves from their parents at an earlier age than girls. There
is more touching with the same sex parent than with cross-sex parents.
A study of nonverbal communication on how men ‘converse’ in bars shows that
women like men to touch, but it’s their touching of other men that intrigues
them. The men who are touching others are perceived as having a higher status
and social power than those that aren’t touching others.
The study found that women were more receptive to men who demanded the most
social space, and that when a women comes into a bar, men will move their drinks
far apart to signal to women that they have space in their ‘domain’ for them.
Love/intimacy
The primary nonverbal behavior that has the biggest effect on interpersonal
relationships is touch.
The amount of touching increases as a relationship moves from impersonal to
personal
Three areas of public touch between couples have been studied. The amount of
touch between a man and a woman in the initial stages of a romantic
relationship, how much touching goes on between the couple and the extent of the
touching with the amount of touch men and women displayed and who initiated the
touch and when they initiated it.
Public touch can serve as a ‘tie sign’ that shows others that your partner is
“taken” (Morris, 1977). When a couple is holding hands, putting their arms
around each other, this is a ‘tie sign’ showing others that you are together.
The use of ‘tie signs’ are used more often by couples in the dating and
courtship stages than between their married counterparts according to Burgoon,
Buller, and Woodall (l996).
Studies have also shown a difference between the sexes on who touches when. In
the initial stages of a relationship, men needed to show social control thus
following socially prescribed gender roles. Patterson (1988) indicated that men
fulfilling this social role would touch more and initial touch in casual
relationships and as the relationship became more intimate during serious dating
or marriage relationships, women would touch more. American culture still
dictates that men ‘make the first move’ in the context of a dating relationship.
Touching between married couples may help maintain good health. In a study by
University of Virginia psychologist Jim Coan, women under stress showed signs of
immediate relief by merely holding their husband’s hand. This seemed to be
effective when the woman was part of a satisfying marriage.
Sexual/arousal
According to Givens (1999), the process of nonverbal communication or
negotiation is to send and receive messages in an attempt to gain someone’s
approval or love. Courtship, which may lead to love, is defined as a nonverbal
message designed to attract sexual partners. During courtship, we exchange
nonverbal communication gestures to tell each other to come nearer and nearer
until we touch. Essential signals in the path to intimacy include facial
nuzzles, kissing and caressing each other.
Courtship has five phases which include the attention phase, recognition phase,
conversation phase, touching phase, and the love-making phase. Haptics takes
place more during the last two phases.
The touching phase:
First touch: Is likely to be more “accidental” than premeditated by touching a
neutral body part and where the recipient either accepts the touch or rejects it
through body movement.
Hugging: The embrace is the most basic way of telling someone that you love them
and possibly need them too.
Intention to touch: A nonverbal communication haptic code or cue is the
intention behind it. Reaching your hand across the table to a somewhat unknown
person is used as a way to show readiness to touch.
Kissing: Moving in concert by turning heads to allow for the lips to touch is
the final part of the fourth stage of courtship, the kiss.
The final phase, love-making, which includes tactile stimulation during foreplay
known as the light or protopathic touch. Any feelings of fear or apprehension
may be calmed through other touching like kissing, nuzzling, and a gentle
massage.
Meanings of touch
Touch research conducted by Jones and Yarbrough (1985) revealed 18 different
meanings of touch, grouped in seven types: Positive affect (emotion),
playfulness, control, ritual, hybrid (mixed), task-related, and accidental
touch.
Positive affect touches
These touches communicate positive emotions and occur mostly between persons who
have close relationships. These touches can be further classified as support,
appreciation, inclusion, sexual interest or intent, and affection.
Support: Serve to nurture, reassure, or promise protection. These touches
generally occur in situations which either virtually require or make it clearly
preferable that one person show concern for another who is experiencing
distress.
Appreciation: Express gratitude for something another person has done.
Inclusion: Draw attention to the act of being together and suggest psychological
closeness.
Sexual: Express physical attraction or sexual interest.
Affection: Express generalized positive regard beyond mere acknowledgement of
the other.
Playful touches
These touches serve to lighten an interaction. These touches communicate a
double message since they always involve a play signal, either verbal or
nonverbal, which indicates the behavior is not to be taken seriously. These
touches can be further classified as affectionate and aggressive.
Playful affection: Serve to lighten interaction. The seriousness of the positive
message is diminished by the play signal. These touches indicate teasing and are
usually mutual.
Playful aggression: Like playful affection these touches are used to serve to
lighten interaction, however, the play signal indicates aggression. These
touches are initiated, rather than mutual.
Control touches
These touches serve to direct the behavior, attitude, or feeling state of the
recipient. The key feature of these touches is that almost all of the touches
are initiated by the person who attempts influence. These touches can be further
classified as compliance, attention-getting, and announcing a response.
Compliance: Attempts to direct behavior of another person, and oftentimes, by
implication, to influence attitudes or feelings.
Attention-getting: Serve to direct the touch recipient’s perceptual focus toward
something.
Announcing a response: Call attention to and emphasize a feeling state of
initiator; implicitly requests affect response from another.
Ritualistic touches
These touches consist of greeting and departure touches. They serve no other
function than to help make transitions in and out of focused interaction.
Greeting: Serve as part of the act of acknowledging another at the opening of an
encounter.
Departure: Serve as a part of the act of closing an encounter
Hybrid touches
These touches involve two or more of the meanings described above. These touches
can be further classified as greeting/affection and departure/affection.
Greeting/affection: Express affection and acknowledgement of the initiation of
an encounter
Departure/affection: Express affection and serve to close an encounter
Task-related touches
These touches are directly associated with the performance of a task. These
touches can be further classified as reference to appearance, instrumental
ancillary, and instrumental intrinsic.
Reference to appearance: Point out or inspect a body part or artefact referred
to in a verbal comment about appearance
Instrumental ancillary: Occur as an unnecessary part of the accomplishment of a
task.
Instrumental intrinsic: Accomplish a task in and out of itself i.e., a helping
touch.
Accidental touches
These touches are perceived as unintentional and have no meaning. They consist
mainly of brushes.
Power and touch
Social psychologists French and Raven developed five categories of power,
postulating that power holders rely upon one or more types of power bases to
achieve their goals. These bases include legitimate power, referent power,
expert power, reward power, and coercive power. Although French and Raven’s
power base attributes vary significantly, they each have the common touching
characteristics.
Legitimate power
Power of an individual because of the position they hold. It is a formal power
delegated by a higher source. It is more acceptable for these power sources to
touch subordinates with a reassuring pat on the shoulder for a job well done. In
addition, one establishes legitimate power by shaking hands in a specific manner
Referent power
Holders possess a more lasting power- the ability to persuade and influence
others by simply being likable. Their power is based on charm, popularity, or
attractive features. Referent power holders can be identified because they are
often hugging friends, patting a coworkers hand for comfort, shaking hands
frequently, or flirtatiously touching someone’s arm.
Expert power
Holders gain their power in an entirely different way. They hold the key to
information and are highly sought after based on their skills or expertise.
Their power differs from other power bases because it is specific to a
profession or industry. These individuals use a lack of touch to assert
non-verbal power or may be seen using touch in a condescending manner.
Reward power
This type of power is contingent on the ability of the power holder to dispense
rewards such as raises, vacation, recognition, or promotions. Rewards can also
be dispensed with a handshake or pat on the back. Recipients seeking rewards may
engage in touch mirroring or ingratiation in an effort to elevate their chances
of being well received and, subsequently, the recipient of coveted awards.
Coercive power
Coercive power is Machiavellian in nature and is the opposite of reward power.
Individuals who hold this power can withhold rewards and control others through
fear and manipulation. They exert power through bodily insulation or lack of
touch, which according to DeVito, Guerrero, and Hecht (1990) “characteristically
takes the form of civil inattention and may be occasioned by a subordinate’s
inability to repel invasion directly” (p.182). They may use physical or violent
touching to exert their control.
Culture and touch
The amount of touching that occurs within a culture is largely based on whether
the relative high context or low context of the culture.
High context culture
A culture that assumes that its members already know the cultural rules.
Expectations do not have to be outlined or specifically verbalized. In a high
context culture, many things are left unsaid, and cues are given in a subtle
manner. High context cultures are prevalent in eastern cultures and in countries
where the cultural demographics don’t vary widely. High-context means that "most
of the information is either in the physical context or initialized in the
person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the
message." (Hall, 1976, p 79). High context cultures have a strong sense of
tradition and history, and change little over time. The unchanging culture
solidifies rules and expectations throughout time. Members know exactly when to
touch and how to touch based on a strict nonverbal commonly understood code. The
Middle East, Asia, Africa, and South America are examples of high context
cultures.
Low context culture
A culture that communicates societal expectations through words as opposed to
inferences or contexts. Low-context communication is "the mass of information is
vested in the explicit code" (Hall, 1976 p 70). People from low-context cultures
value facts, figures, and candor. Americans and Germans are typically regarded
as low context cultures who value the individual in the society.
Country references
Non-touching countries: Japan, United States, United Kingdom, Australia
Middle ground countries: France, China, India
Touching countries: Middle East, Latin Countries, Italy
Internal cultural differences
Frequency of touch also varies significantly between different cultures. Harper
refers to several studies, one of which examined touching in coffee houses.
During a one hour sitting 180 touchings were observed for Puerto Ricans, 110 for
French, none for English and 2 for Americans. (Harper, 297). In order to know if
someone was touching more frequently than normal it would be necessary to first
know what is normal in that culture. In high touch countries a kiss on the cheek
is considered a polite greeting while in Sweden it may be considered
presumptuous. Jandt relates that two men holding hands will in some countries be
a sign of friendly affection, whereas in the United States the same tactile code
would probably be interpreted as a symbol of homosexual love (85).
| |
|
