The nature of nonverbal communication has been investigated carefully and has led to a complex and more detailed understanding of interpersonal communication as a whole. People are able to use many channels when they decide to take part in nonverbal communication with others. One of the most important senses that has a great significant within interpersonal communication is touch. According to Chippy Susan Bobby, an Assistant Professor of English at the Smt. MMK College of Commerce and Economics in Mumbai, “Although a very important form of nonverbal communication, the significance of touch in our lives often goes unnoticed and is very often taken for granted” (2014, p.546). Originally, this literature review was going to be written on touch behavior in nonverbal communication, specifically focusing on the multiple, larger concepts within the subject. However, a large amount of academic research and writings done in the communication field concentrate on gender and how it impacts nonverbal communication. Specifically, research answers how males and females communicate with other individuals through opposite and same-sex interactions. This literature review will focus on gender and touch behaviors in interpersonal communication.
According to Stanley E. Jones, studies that focus on gender and touch behaviors are usually implemented in one of the three following ways: the use of surveys that require participants to remember where they have been/have touched individuals of each gender, observations of participants participating in touch behaviors, and theoretical scenarios where participants provide verbal or written feedback (1986). Because participants could misrepresent themselves on a survey or in a hypothetical scenario, observational methods of communication research are preferred. One facet of life where haptic communication differences can be observed between men and women is in sports. While there has not been many studies pertaining to gender and nonverbal communication in sports, the academic writings support a difference between males and females when it comes to making physical contact with members of the same gender. After examining the nonverbal communication of both male (baseball) and female (softball) collegiate athletes, Linda M. Kneidinger, Terry L. Maple, and Stuart A. Tross determined that, at least in a sports setting, the females athletes engaged in touching behaviors to a greater extent than their male counterparts. In addition to this, the female softball players were more likely to respond to unfavorable circumstances by touching their teammates (Kneidinger, Maple, & Tross, 2001). These results are backed up by Danielle J. Dolin and Melanie Booth-Butterfield, who used systematic induction techniques to determine that males engage in fewer comforting mechanisms with the same gender compared to their counterparts (1993). These studies elucidate the impression that females tend to be more emotionally supportive of other females.
The female tenacity to engage in touch behaviors does not end there. Jones’ research on touch behaviors led to the discovery that females are two times as likely to purposefully make physical contact with more males than females (1986). This finding was upheld by Lawrence B. Rosenfeld, Sallie Kartus, and Chett Ray’s duplication of Sydney Jourard’s 1963-1964 study where both male and female surveys suggested that both genders are engaged in more touch behaviors with acquaintances of the opposite gender (1976). According to Rosenfeld, Kartus, and Ray, “Female friends of males touch the chest and stomach and hip region with greater frequency, and male friends of females touch the entire torso, from the chest down to the knees, with greater frequency” (1976, p. 29).
Even though males and females are more likely to engage in physical contact with members of the opposite sex, Rosenfeld, Kartus, and Ray’s publication has not stopped the status quo from developing a narrative that men are more likely to initiate touch with members of the opposite sex. While a number of studies may suggest that men touch women more than vice versa (Henley, 1971; Major & Williams, 1990), some findings developed in the communication discipline suggest the exact opposite. Specifically, Jones’ study found that the participating females were recipients of the same number of touches as they received from the opposite gender. In comparison, the male participants were given slightly more touches in both public and private environments from females than the participants instigated (Jones, 1986). While Jones’ work on gender touch behaviors in communication has not received as much support compared to Henley and Major & Williams, the disagreeing results make a case that more research should be done on the matter before the status quo maintains their narrative.
Another way that males and females can use touch is to exert power and control over the person they are communicating with. Not only did Jones’ journal article find that women initiated more contact with men, but that the females from the experiment were more likely to use the contact made to attempt influence or control over the receiving male. In Jones’ view, females are more likely to implement power and control touches since touch is considered to be a more fitting behavior for a woman to take part in, meaning men are more likely to refrain from the behavior (1986). Bobby agrees with Jones when he writes:
“Although it is acceptable for women to touch in public, many believe it is not 'proper' for men to do so. Sadly, even in the privacy of the home, a son may be embarrassed when he is embraced by his father. And so, many are a little surprised when we see pictures of men in other countries embracing or walking arm in arm” (2014, p.553).
Further impacts of a female’s touch on the opposite gender can be found in Nicolas Guéguen’s article published in Social Behavior and Personality. Guéguen’s study consisted of a cooperating female that would either make slight or no contact with a male when trying to get him to assist her. This study found the males that the woman make physical contact with were more likely to provide assistance compared to if no physical contact was made (Guéguen, 2010). While many could argue that this impact is an isolated incident, other studies have come to the conclusion that small touch behaviors can increase the message receiver’s obedience to the sender (Brockner, Pressman, Cabitt, & Moran, 1982; Hornik, 1987). Guéguen also completed a similar study on power/control touch where a cooperating man had more success getting female obedience if he engaged them in a slight touch (2007). This study is successful at proving that women are just as susceptible to power/control touch as men.
The purpose of this literature review was to evaluate what past and present experts in the communication have to say about touch behaviors in nonverbal communication. While many communication scholars have written about using the sense of touch to exchange information with others, much of the haptic writing has taken into consideration how gender impacts messages sent through touch. Males and females communicate with each other through opposite and same-sex interactions. This paper has mainly been focused on power and control touch since much of the writing in the discipline pertains to exerting power over another person’s behavior (usually of the opposite gender). While the communication field has provided a strong understanding of gender in power and control touch, scholars have not provided equal representation of research to the four touch behaviors. In order for the world’s understanding of haptics and nonverbal communication to improve, communication experts must make an effort to increase their knowledge of all five touch behaviors.