INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP

PROCESSES

More "Touching" Observations:

New Insights on Men, Women, and Interpersonal Touch
Judith A. Hall and Ellen M. Veccia
Northeastern University

To describe sex differences in interpersonal touch, observation was made of 4,500 dyads in their
teens and older in public places. The principal analyses addressed the issue of asymmetry in the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

initiation of touch in mixed-sex dyads. Over all ages and initiating body parts, males touched
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

females (MF touch) with the same frequency that females touched males (FM touch). However,
among younger dyads, MF touch prevailed, whereas the reverse was true for older dyads. Though
there was a tendency for MF touch with the hand to exceed FM touch with the hand, significant sex
differences appeared only for "arm around," in which MF touch prevailed, and "arms linked," in
which FM touch was more common. Analyses also addressed main effects of toucher sex and
recipient sex, male-male versus female-female touch, and same- versus opposite-sex touch.

One of the cornerstones of the study of nonverbal sex differ-
ences is Henley's (1973) article reporting an asymmetry in the
touches exchanged between the sexes. Henley found that men
touched women more than women touched men in public
places. The significance of this study lay not in its size or com-
prehensiveness, but in the provision of a coherent theoretical
account for this asymmetry as well as for many other differ-
ences in the nonverbal behavior of men and women. This ac-
count gave central importance to male-female differences in
status, dominance, and power and how these differences shape
nonverbal behavior (Henley, 1973,1977).
Attention to nonverbal sex differences has grown steadily
since then; reviews have been conducted involving hundreds of
descriptive studies (eg., Hall, 1979, 1984; Vrugt & Kerkstra,
1984). The theoretical perspective provided by Henley has been
a unifying framework for many writers. Ironically, however, in-
terpersonal touch—the behavior studied in Henley's seminal
article—has been relatively neglected. This neglect is likely due
in part to the difficulties inherent in studying a behavior that is
both infrequent and ambiguous in meaning. An additional fac-
tor may be premature confidence in our understanding of these
sex differences; Henley's study is often cited in such a way that
one might easily assume that the asymmetrical touching she
found between the sexes is both confirmed and unqualified
(e.g., Baron & Byrne, 1987; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi, Linds-
kold, & Rosenfeld, 1985; Worchel, Cooper, & Goethals, 1988).
We are grateful to Norman Belanger, Monica Scully, and Cindy
Morin for their help as observers, to Paul Andreasen for helpful sugges-
tions regarding analysis, and to Stephen G. Harkins and Marylee C.
Taylor for their critical reading of the article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ju-
dith A. Hall, Department of Psychology, 125 NI, Northeastern Univer-
sity, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1990, m 59, ho. 6,1155-1162
Copyright 1990 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-35 H/90/S00.75
Two reviews of sex differences in touch have appeared (Ma-
jor, 1981; Stier & Hall, 1984). The literature is not very consis-
tent, and these reviewers did not always concur on their conclu-
sions. Also, the literature contains little objective data on the
kinds of touches used by the sexes; exceptions are two studies of
airport greetings and departures (Greenbaum & Rosenfeld,
1980; Heslin & Boss, 1980). Most investigators in observational
studies have limited their reporting to gross frequencies; Stier
and Hall concentrated on these studies in their meta-analysis.
As far as asymmetry in mixed-sex touching is concerned,
Stier and Hall (1984) found the literature to be inconclusive
because in 14 studies of adults there was, on average, little dif-
ference between the sexes. \et it is this question that has
sparked the greatest interest. At the time of the Stier and Hall
review, the literature yielded three statistically significant re-
sults, two showing more touching of females by males than of
males by females (Henley, 1973; Major, Schmidlin, & Williams,
1990 [first described in Major, 1981]), and one showing the
reverse (Willis, Rinck, & Dean, 1978). Since that review, Jones
(1986) in a participant-observation study also found more op-
posite-sex touching by women than by men for a category of
touches called controlling.
Other comparisons by sex are also of interest and have been
commented on in both earlier reviews (Major, 1981; Stier &
Hall, 1984): main effects of initiator and recipient sex, male-
male versus female-female touch, and same- versus mixed-sex
touching. Stier and Hall observed that a firm conclusion for
these comparisons was problematic because some investigators
(e.g., Henley, 1973; Major et al., 1990) compared raw numbers of
touches rather than touches as a proportion of the number of
people observed. Applying a chi-square test to raw frequencies
without taking into account non-occurrences is inappropriate
(Delucchi, 1983; Lewis & Burke, 1949). Such a chi-square test
(comparing overall male versus female touch, for example)

1155
 1156 JUDITH A. HALL AND ELLEN M. VECCIA
must use arbitrarily chosen expected values; one might assume
that the same number of males and females were observed, and
therefore one could expect equal frequencies of touch by males
and females under the null hypothesis. We consider it inadvis-
able to make such assumptions. The sampling method used in
the present study was chosen to avoid this problem.
In our study, observers sampled 4,500 dyads in public places
and made on-line dictation of any touches they engaged in.
Because our chief interest was in the asymmetry question, we
included three variables—age, intention, and the body parts
involved—that had been implicated by previous studies as rele-
vant to the asymmetry question. Regarding age, the strongest
asymmetry favoring males in the literature was found in adult
dyads under age 30 (Henley, 1973), which raised the possibility
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
that older age groups might show a different pattern. No other
study examining asymmetry has looked at age within the adult
range. In our study, we classified subjects' ages by decades. Re-
garding intention, the only two significant findings of asym-
metry favoring males (Henley, 1973; Major et al., 1990) were
based exclusively on intentional touches; other studies did not
take account of this variable. We recorded both intentional and
unintentional touches but limited our analyses to the inten-
tional ones. Finally, regarding body parts, both the Henley and
Major et al. studies recorded only touches with the hand; this
leaves open the question of whether touch is asymmetrical
when other body parts are involved. We consequently took close
note of which body parts were involved in a touch.
Method
Subjects
The subjects in this study were 4,500 pairs of individuals judged to
be together and to be at least 14 years of age. Although subjects' race
was not recorded, the majority of subjects were White. People carrying
children were excluded from the study. Subjects were observed in pub-
lic places in the greater Boston area. Observers took special care to
conduct their observations in an unobtrusive manner.
Apparatus
A small timing device that produced a beep every 10 s was used to
time the observation interval and to select dyads for the sample. The
beep was audible only through an accompanying earplug. Because the
timing device was small, it was easily hidden from view with only the
earplug showing. The data were recorded on a microcassette tape re-
corder (Olympus Pearlcorder L200).
Procedure
General. Observations were conducted in a total of 20 different
locations (both indoors and outdoors); multiple observation sessions
were conducted at some of the locations. Overall, there were 38 obser-
vation sessions distributed as follows. Indoor observation sites were
shopping malls (4 locations on 6 occasions), movie lines (2 locations on
3 occasions), subway station (1 occasion), hotel lobby (1 occasion), and
the airport (1 occasion). Outdoor sites were shopping areas (e.g., down-
town Boston, 5 locations on 17 occasions), movie line (1 location on 2
occasions), park (1 location on 2 occasions), parade line (1 occasion),
outside of subway stations (2 locations on 2 occasions), and on the
campus of Northeastern University (1 location on 2 occasions).
The data reported here were collected over a 16-month period by five
observers, four women and one man. Observers recorded the data in
an on-line fashion using a hand-held compact tape recorder. The tapes
were subsequently transcribed onto codesheets.
To ensure that observers used the same sampling and recording
methods, each observer completed at least two training sessions as well
as a session for determining the reliability of age judgments. Reliability
checks are described later.
Once training was completed, observers conducted their sessions
independently. At the beginning of each observation session, the loca-
tion, date, and time of day were noted. During each observation ses-
sion, male-male, female-female, and mixed-sex dyads were observed
for a 10-s period. If more than one touch occurred during the 10-s
interval, only the first touch was included in the analysis. People who
were already engaged in physical contact at the start of the observation
interval were also observed for 10 s, in case they engaged in a new
touch. In-progress touches without a new touch during the observation
period were later analyzed separately. If a new touch occurred in a dyad
that was already touching, only the new touch was analyzed (and was
designated as a new touch). These procedures ensured that only one
touch was analyzed per dyad.
Sampling. When observations were conducted in locations where
people were in motion (e.g., walking through shopping areas), selection
of dyads for observation was accomplished by a time-sampling tech-
nique so that biases in the sample would be minimized. At the onset of
each observation session, the observer positioned herself or himself so
that a dyad could be in view for the full 10-s observation period. Once
in position, the observer picked a landmark corresponding to the loca-
tion where dyads should have been at the start of the observation inter-
val. The timing device produced a beep every 10 s, which indicated
when the observation period would begin and end and also served as a
sampling cue. That is, once the observation of a dyad was completed,
the next beep signaled the observer to begin a new observation by
selecting the dyad that was now nearest to the landmark. If the dyad
being observed was blocked from view for any length of time, that dyad
was discarded from the sample. If a group of more than 2 individuals
was nearest to the landmark when a beep occurred, the observer se-
lected 2 adjacent individuals from the group and observed those indi-
viduals for the 10-s period. If no dyads were present at the landmark
when the beep occurred, the observer waited for the next beep.
When observations were conducted where people were more or less
stationary (e.g., movie lines), the observer selected persons who ap-
peared to be together, observed the dyad for 10 s, and then selected the
next dyad that appeared to be together. In this manner, all dyads pres-
ent in the observer's field of vision were observed. As was the case with
dyads in motion, if for any reason a dyad was obscured from view
during the 10-s interval, that dyad was eliminated from the sample.
Variables
Dyad descriptor variables. The first variable recorded for each dyad
was sex composition (male-male, female-female, or mixed), followed
by age estimated by decade (teens, 20s, 30s, etc.). The activity that the
dyad was currently engaged in was recorded as walking, standing, or
sitting.
Touch in progress. Pilot observations indicated that an appreciable
number of sampled dyads were already touching. Observers noted this
fact so that it could be accounted for in later analyses. Even if the dyad
was already touching, it was observed for the full 10-s interval. If a new
touch occurred during this interval, it became the touch of record.
Other variables recorded for touches in progress were toucher's sex
(male, female, or unknown), whether the touch appeared to be inten-
tional or unintentional, whether the touch was less or more than 3 s in
duration, the description of the touch (e.g., female's arm around male's
shoulders), and the apparent function of the touch (affectionate, con-
 INTERPERSONAL TOUCH 1157

Table 1 ing field observations. In addition to these touches, each dyad was
•Sex and Age Composition of Dyads Observed instructed to perform an unspecified number of near misses inter-
spersed with the touches. Each dyad performed the touches and near
Sex Total misses during a single taping session during which the persons con-
versed, stood, sat, and walked around in a casual manner in a large
Age Male-male Female-female Mixed sex No. % laboratory room.
Each of the five observers was required to score the videotape by
Teens 229 235 149 613 14
376 559 873 1,808 40 providing all the information that was normally recorded during field
20s
30s 168 213 476 857 19 observations, using the on-line dictation procedure described earlier.
40s 61 77 167 305 7 Because only three different dyads were taped, the dyads' gender and
50s 27 66 98 191 4 age were eliminated from reliability analysis. Percentage agreement
60+ 9 71 76 156 3 between each of the 10 possible observer pairs was determined for the
Mixedage* 134 194 233 561 12 remaining variables as follows. For activity and touch (i.e., touch versus
Total no touch), percentage agreement was calculated across all possible
No. 1,004 1,415 2,072 4,491" observations. For toucher, duration, intention, and function, percent-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

% 22 32 46 age agreement was calculated only for those observations on which

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

both observers in the pair agreed that a touch had occurred.

* Mixed age refers to dyads whose ages differed by decade (e.g., 20s and
30s). b Total does not equal 4,500 because of instances in which age
was unrecorded. The remaining dyads were 2 female-female and 7
mixed sex.
trolling, attention getting, other). No special instructions were given to
observers regarding intention because it was generally very evident
whether a touch was intentional or not (as also reported by Major et al.,
1990). The duration variable was not informative in later analyses and
is not discussed further.
For touches in progress at the onset of observation, it was not always
possible to determine which person was the toucher. For example, if a
mixed-sex dyad was observed holding hands, either member could
have performed the touch or touching could have been mutual (i.e.,
simultaneous). The toucher-sex variable was coded as unknown when
the toucher was unclear (this occurred very often when the dyad was
holding hands). However, other forms of touch in progress allowed
identification of the toucher. In some cases, the observer witnessed the
touch while it was occurring but before the beginning of the 10-s obser-
vation period (thus the touch would be called in progress). In other
cases, the form of the touch itself was a guide. For example, male's arm
around female's shoulders suggests that the male had performed the
touch. Observers did not identify a toucher if there was uncertainty in
their mind.
New touches. New touches were defined as touches that occurred
during the 10-s observation interval. For these touches, the same data
were dictated, with the addition of a mutual category for the toucher
variable.
The average percentage agreement was above 80% for all variables
except function. When function was eliminated, the average percent-
age agreement across variables was 91%. Because reliability for func-
tion was lower than that of other variables (probably because it re-
quired more speculation than the other variables), it was eliminated
from further analysis.
Results
Sample Characteristics and Preliminary Analyses
Table 1 contains a breakdown of the sample by age and sex
composition. The modal age was 20s; 40% of the dyads fell in
this category. Twelve percent of the dyads had members whose
ages spanned different decades. Forty-six percent of dyads were
mixed sex; smaller numbers were female-female and male-
male. The predominant activity was walking (79% of dyads);
the other activities were standing (20%) or sitting (1%).
Eighty-five percent (3,818) of the 4,500 dyads never touched.
Table 2 reveals that of the 681 dyads that did touch, 41% (278)
did so during the 10-s observation period and the remaining
were already touching when observation began. Fourteen per-
Table 2
Touches Observed

Reliability Temporal
occurrence Intention Total
To determine reliability of judging subjects' age, one observer con- and
ducted an observation session in the field with each of the other four toucher's sex Intentional Unintentional No. %•
observers in turn. In this session, they judged the age, by decade, of 100
New
persons (divided into four sets of 25). The average Pearson product- Known 164 57 221 32
moment correlation between observers was .91. Unknown1" 16 41 57 8
The observed frequency of touching in the field was too low to allow In progress
efficient assessment of reliability for the other coded variables. There- Known 153 0 153 22
fore, reliability was assessed using a staged videotape (an approach to Unknown0 249 1 250 37
assessing reliability similar to that used by Jones and Yarbrough,
1985). The videotape showed two different mixed-sex dyads and one Total
No. 582 99 681
female-female dyad. The persons on the tape were psychology depart- % 86 14
ment faculty and graduate students.
The videotape was constructed by providing each dyad with a list of * Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. b Mutual or
10 touches that they were required to perform in an unspecified order. unrecorded. c Touch was of a form that precluded assignment of
The descriptions of these touches were taken from data obtained dur- toucher sex (e.g., holding hands).
 1158 JUDITH A. HALL AND ELLEN M. VECCIA
Table3
Touch Asymmetry in Mixed- Sex Dyads
MF FM
Temporal occurrence
of touch No. % No. % x2
New 67 60 44 40 4.76*
In progress 53 41 76 59 4.10*
Total 120 50 120 50
Note. MF = male-to-female touch; FM = female-to-male touch. For x2
tests, df= 1. All tests were two-tailed.
* p < .05.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cent (99) of the touches were coded as unintentional. For 55%
(374) of the touches, it was impossible to ascertain which per-
son was the toucher. Touching showed no linear (or other evi-
dent) trend with respect to age; the percentages of dyads touch-
ing in each decade varied from 11 % in the 40s to 18% in the 30s.
All subsequent analyses are limited to intentional touches.
Furthermore, because the issue of interest is sex differences,
only those touches for which the toucher could be identified are
included. As shown in Table 2, this represents 164 new and 153
in-progress touches, for a total of 317 touches.
Asymmetry in Mixed-Sex Touch
Although at the time of data collection, there seemed no
theoretical significance to the distinction between in-progress
and new touches, data analysis revealed that opposite touch
asymmetries occurred for these two kinds of touch. Table 3
presents these results. Differences in this table, and other analo-
gous differences throughout this article, were tested for statisti-
cal significance using x2 with expected values set at 50% of the
total number of mixed-sex touches involved. The figure of 50%
was chosen because under the null hypothesis of no asymmetry,
one would expect to see equal frequencies of male-to-female
(MF) and female-to-male (FM) touching.
Table 3 shows that for new touches, 60% of the mixed-sex
touches were initiated by males and 40% by females, a signifi-
cant difference. In contrast, when the touches were already in
progress at the time of observation, only 41% of the mixed-sex
touches were initiated by males, and 59% were initiated by fe-
males, also a significant difference. Note that when new and
in-progress touches are combined, as in the bottom row of Ta-
ble 3, there is no asymmetry between the sexes.
Table 4 presents results separately for touches with the hand
versus other body parts (which were, in fact, mainly the arm).
Though the samples are relatively small, the percentages reveal
that the asymmetry favoring males as touchers in Table 3 for
new touches is apparent for both hand and nonhand touches;
for both kinds of touch, males performed about 60% of the
touches. On the other hand, the asymmetry favoring females
for in-progress touches is apparent only for nonhand touches;
females initiated 62% of these touches. There is no asymmetry
evident for in-progress touches with the hand (MF = 52%;
FM = 48%).
Table 4 also compares MF and FM touching for hand and
nonhand touches, collapsing over new and in-progress touches.
MF touch was more common for touches with the hand (57%
MF to 43% FM); FM touch was more common for touches
with other body parts (56% FM to 44% MF). As the table
shows, neither of these differences achieved statistical signifi-
cance. However, an additional 2 X 2 x2 analysis asked whether
the MF-FM difference was significantly different for hand ver-
sus nonhand touches; data were the four frequencies listed as
totals in Table 4. This test statistic was significant, x2^, N =
236) = 3.86, p < .05, indicating a significant sex difference for
the body part that performed the touch.
Table 5, last four columns, provides a more detailed descrip-
tion of the kinds of touches used in mixed-sex dyads. This table
collapses over new and in-progress touches. Of all the touches
described in Table 5, only two showed striking and significant
sex differences. Males preferred the "arm-around" gesture; the
comparison between MF and FM frequencies is highly signifi-
cant, x2(l, N= 51) = 21.35, p < .001. Females engaged much
more often in the "arms-linked" gesture than males did, x20,
N= 62)= 37.16, /x.OOl.1
To look at age as a possible moderator of these sex differ-
ences, we pooled new and in-progress touches and stratified
them by age of dyad. The first analysis involving age paralleled
Henley's (1973) cutoffs of "under 30" and "30 and over." For
dyads under 30, MF touch prevailed (74 out of 126 touches or
59%), x20, N = 126) = 3.84, p < .05. For dyads of age 30 and over,
FM touch was more common (55 out of 90 touches or 61%),
X 2 (l,A r =90)=4.44,/?<.05.
The second analysis involving age was based on a finer age
breakdown, as shown in Table 6. The middle columns reveal
that the percentage of mixed-sex touches performed by males
decreased dramatically with age, mirrored (necessarily) by a
symmetrical increase in female touching of males. The MF
1
Observers were not supplied with any hypotheses concerning sex
differences. However, they might have held self-induced expectancies
that biased their judgments. Because 89% (55 out of 62) of the arms-
linked gestures were already in progress (meaning that observers had
to infer which person performed the touch), we performed an addi-
tional analysis to assess the likelihood of bias. Ten photographs were
taken of same- and mixed-sex dyads walking or standing with their
arms linked, per request of the investigator. One of the original ob-
servers plus a convenience sample of 12 naive persons guessed which
person was the toucher for each photo. These subjects' accuracy signifi-
cantly exceeded chance, t(12) = 4.17, p < .002. Moreover, for the 8
mixed-sex photos (half showing MF touch, half showing FM touch),
there was no tendency whatsoever for subjects to attribute touch more
to the female than to the male. Finally, the original observer had an
accuracy score of 100%. Altogether the form of the arms-linked ges-
ture apparently is such that an observer can accurately judge which
person performed the touch, even if the moment of touch was not
witnessed. Two other touches, hand to hand and holding hands, were
also of potential concern when the observers were in the position of
inferring who the toucher was for an in-progress touch. As mentioned
earlier, most of these touches were excluded because observers could
not make such an inference with confidence. As a result, relatively few
such touches were included in the analyses; only 12% of the analyzed
hand-to-hand and holding-hands touches were in-progress. Therefore,
no additional analysis was undertaken with regard to these two
touches.
 INTERPERSONAL TOUCH 1159

Table 4 hand and nonhand touches. For both kinds of touch, the pro-
Touch Asymmetry in Mixed- Sex Dyads by Body Part Used portion of touches performed by males decreased as age in-
creased, but the trend was significant only for nonhand
MF FM touches. For hand touches, the MF percentages were 62,60,52,
Body part and temporal
occurrence of touch No. % No. % x2 P and 35 for teens, 20s, 30s, and 40+, respectively, Z (linear con-
trast) = 1.42, .10 < p < .16. For nonhand touches, the MF
Hand percentages were 79, 52,47, and 6 for the corresponding four
New 42 60 28 40 2.80 <.10 age groups, Z (linear contrast) = 5.73, p < .001.
In progress 17 52 16 48 0.03 >.50
Total 59 57 44 43 2.18 <.15 These analyses demonstrated that the sex more likely to
Nonhand touch the other changes dramatically with age. This shift could
New 23 59 16 41 1.26 <.30 come about in more than one way. The relative decrease in
In progress 36 38 58 62 5.15 <.05 males' touching of females over age could be due to the males'
Total 59 44 74 56 1.69 <.20
decreasing their absolute rates of touching females, or to males
touching females at a constant rate over age but females greatly
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Note. MF = male-to-female touch; FM = female-to-male touch. For x2

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tests, df= 1. All tests were two-tailed. Excludes 4 touches for which
initiating body pan was unrecorded.
percentages for teens, 20s, 30s, and 40+ form a highly signifi-
cant linear trend as a function of age, as determined by a linear
contrast in proportions, Z = 4.49, p < .001 (Rosenthal & Ros-
now, 1984; performing this contrast for the FM percentages
would yield the identical result, because the FM percentage is
simply 100 minus the MF percentage). Inspection of the middle
two columns of Table 6 shows very clearly that though males are
the main touchers among teens—accounting for 73% of all
mixed-sex touches in this age group, x2(l, N=22)= 4.54, p <
.05—females are the main touchers among people over 40—ac-
counting for 79% of touches in this age group, \\l, N=33) =
10.94, p < .001. The two intermediate age groups showed essen-
tially no asymmetry (both x2 < 1.38).
Analogous linear contrasts were performed separately for
increasing their likelihood of touching males. To examine this,
we calculated the rates of male and female touch in mixed-sex
dyads by dividing the frequency of male and female touches in
each age group by the number of mixed-sex dyads observed in
each age group taken from Table 1 (see last two columns of
Table 6). These percentages differ from those in the middle two
columns of Table 6 in that the denominator is dyads observed,
not touches observed; because of this, the new percentages for
MF and FM touching are free to vary instead of having to add
to 100. These results show that the males' tendency to touch
females declined with age (linear contrast in proportions, p <
.001) and that the females' tendency to touch males increased
(linear contrast in proportions, p < .05). Thus, clearly, older
women touch men more than younger women do, and older
men touch women less than younger men do. Analyses compa-
rable to these were performed for touch rates in male-male and
female-female dyads. These showed no linear age trends—that
is, for neither males touching males nor for females touching

Table 5
frequencies and Percentages of Specific Kinds of Intentional Touch
Female- Male- Female-
Male-Male Female Female Male
Kind of
touch No. % No. % No. % No. %
Hand
Hand to back* 1 5 6 10 11 9 6 5
Hand to head/neck 0 0 5 4 0
Hand to shoulder 4 21 2 3 8 7 8 7
Hand to handb 2 10 2 3 10 8 3 2
Hand to arm 2 10 19 33 15 12 21 18
Hold hands 1 5 4 7 8 7 5 4
Miscellaneous hand 0 3 5 2 2 1 1
Nonhand
Arm around0 5 26 4 7 42 35 9 8
Arms linked 0 10 17 7 6 55 46
Bump/brush" 1 5 1 2 2 2 2 2
Hug 1 5 3 5 2 2 2 2
Kiss 0 1 2 4 3 2 2
Miscellaneous nonhand 1 5 2 3 2 2 4 3
Unclassified 1 5 1 2 2 2 2 2
Total 19 58 120 120
Note. Percentages are per column. Because of rounding, percentages do not add to 100.
* Includes hand to rear end, waist. b Excludes hand holding. c Includes arm on back, around waist,
around shoulder. d Includes upper arm to upper arm.
 1160 JUDITH A. HALL AND ELLEN M. VECCIA
Table 6
Frequencies and Percentages of Intentional Touch in Mixed- Sex Dyads
Frequency
Age of dyad MF FM
Teens 16 6 73
20s 58 46
30s 28 29
40+ 7 26
Note. MF = male-to-female touch; FM = female-to-male touch. Excludes mixed-age touches and touches
for which age was unrecorded.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
females were there systematic changes across ages in the likeli-
hood of touching. This means that the trends noted in the final
two columns of Table 6 are unique to the mixed-sex context and
do not reflect changes in the sexes' general tendencies to touch
others across ages.
Because observation was done in a variety of different loca-
tions, we performed an additional set of analyses to test
whether the distribution of dyads' ages was different across
various types of locations. If age and location are related, then
an alternative interpretation of our age effects would be that the
sex asymmetry varies with the location in which people are
observed. This seemed especially interesting because Major et
al. (1990) found an asymmetry favoring males in "public, non-
intimate" locations (e.g., shopping malls) and in "recreational"
locations (e.g., parks) but not in "greeting and leave-taking" set-
tings (e.g, airports).2
We classified our 20 locations using the same criteria. Unfor-
tunately, we had only one greeting and leave-taking setting—an
airport—and it produced only five mixed-sex touches, not
enough for a meaningful analysis. The other two types of setting
had age distributions (30 and under versus 40 and over) that
were significantly different (p< .001), but in fact the difference
was extremely small, corresponding to a Pearson correlation of
.06 between age and setting. In the public, nonintimate settings,
83% of the sample was in the younger group, compared with
87% in the recreational settings. Moreover, the pattern shown
in Table 6, wherein the proportion of touches performed by
males decreased linearly with increasing age, was strongly evi-
dent in both kinds of setting. Thus setting apparently was not a
confounding factor with regard to our age findings.
Other Sex Effects
Sex of initiator. In their review of the literature, Stier and
Hall (1984) concluded that females touch others more than
males do, disregarding recipient sex, but Major (1981) con-
cluded that this was true only when the recipient was female. In
the present study, males initiated 139 intentional touches; fe-
males initiated 178. To translate these to percentages, we de-
fined the total number of males observed as the number of
males observed in mixed-sex dyads plus the total number of
male-male dyads (2,079 +1,004 = 3,083); an analogous calcu-
lation was made for females. By this method, 4% of the males
touched, and 5% of the females touched. This difference was
% of mixed-sex % of mixed-sex
touches dyads
MF FM MF FM
27 11 4
56 44 7 5
49 51 6 6
21 79 2 8
tested by chi-square and was not statistically significant, x2(l,
Ar=6,579) = 1.21,p>.20.3
Note that if the raw frequencies of 139 male and 178 female
touches had been compared directly, females would have ap-
peared to touch more than males.
Sex of recipient. In her review, Major (1981) concluded that
females received more touch overall. Stier and Hall (1984)
noted a trend toward more receipt of touch by females but were
concerned about the problem of comparing raw frequencies
directly. In their review, when studies using this approach were
excluded, there was no evidence of a sex difference in receipt of
touch. Because in the present study the number of MF and FM
touches happened to be equal (120 in each case), the results for
receipt of touch were identical to those reported for initiation of
touch. Therefore, females received more intentional touch over-
all than males, but not to a statistically significant degree. As in
the last paragraph, if we had compared the raw frequencies
directly, we would have concluded that females receive more
touch than males.
Male-male versus female-female touch. Both earlier re-
views concluded that female-female touch exceeded male-
male touch. In the present study, 2% (19 out of 1,004) of male-
male dyads engaged in touch, compared with 4% (58 out of
1,417) of female-female dyads. This was a significant differ-
ence, x20, N= 2,421) = 9.24 p < .002.
Same-sex versus mixed-sex touch. Major (1981) concluded
that among adults, mixed-sex touching predominated, but Stier
and Hall (1984) found the opposite. However, Stier and Hall
offered a number of qualifications to that conclusion. In the
present study, 3% (77 out of 2,421) of same-sex dyads touched,
compared with 12% (240 out of 2,079) of mixed-sex dyads. This
was a significant difference, x20, N = 4,500) = 119.49, p < .001.
Qualitative differences. The particular kinds of touch seen in
dyads of different sex composition appear in Table 5. As noted
2
This analysis was suggested by an anonymous reviewer.
3
As an alternative procedure, we also denned the total number of
males observed as the number of males in mixed-sex dyads plus twice
the number of male-male dyads (2,079 +1,004 +1,004 = 4,087); dou-
bling the number of male-male dyads allows that each member had a
chance to touch (though, as explained in the Method section, only the
first touch was recorded for a given dyad). Again, an analogous calcu-
lation was made for females. By this method, 3% of the males touched,
and 4% of the females touched.
 INTERPERSONAL TOUCH
earlier, in mixed-sex dyads, arm around was predominantly
initiated by males and arms linked was predominantly initiated
by females. Table 5 reveals that males seemed to prefer arm
around even with each other: This gesture was seen 26% of the
time in male-male dyads. In male-male dyads, hand to
shoulder was of almost equal frequency (21% of touches). Simi-
larly, females engagedrelativelyoften in the arms linked gesture
even with other females (17% of female-female touches).
Among female-female dyads, only hand to arm was more popu-
lar (33%).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the generality of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
asymmetry between the sexes in the use of intentional touch.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Different ages of dyads (teens through 60s) and different initiat-
ing body parts received special attention. Though highly mixed,
previous research had indicated that males may touch females
more than vice versa when the dyad is composed of younger
adults and when the touch is intentional and with the hand.
We found that overall, each sex touched the other intention-
ally with equal frequency. This result is consistent with Stier and
Hall's (1984) overall conclusion regarding touch asymmetry in
their review of the literature. However, there were dramatic
differences when age and initiating body part were considered.
For touches with the hand, males touched females more than
vice versa. Though not statistically significant, the MF-touch
figure of 57% is similar to the significant figure of 60% found by
Major et al. (1990) for touches among adult mixed-sex dyads.
For touches not initiated by the hand, females in our study
tended to touch more (56%). Analyzing these two sets of fre-
quencies together yielded the conclusion that the asymmetry
differs significantly depending on whether hand or nonhand
touches are analyzed. These data therefore lend support to
Henley's (1973) and Major et al.'s (1990) studies, which found
MF touches to exceed FM touches for intentional touches with
the hand.
Analysis of particular kinds of touch revealed that two ges-
tures showed significant sex differences in mixed-sex dyads,
but neither involved the hand. Males were more likely to put
their arm around a female companion, whereas females were
more likely to put their arm through their male compan-
ion's arm.
We found a sex difference between new and in-progress
touches, so that MF touch predominated for new touches and
FM touch predominated for in-progress touches. Though un-
expected, this result may be due to the kinds of touches that
occurred during the 10-s observation period versus those al-
ready in progress. In-progress touches were overwhelmingly
long-lasting touches—specifically, arm around, arms linked,
and holding hands (few instances of holding hands were in-
cluded in the sex difference analyses, however, because the sex
of toucher for hand holding could usually not be determined for
in-progress touches). The arms-linked gesture, in which female
touch was so pronounced, was particularly evident among
touches in progress. It may not be surprising, therefore, that
in-progress and new touches showed different sex difference
patterns.
Age effects were notable. Males touched females signifi-
1161
cantly more than vice versa in the under-30 group, paralleling
Henley (1973). In dyads over 30, the reverse was true. Linear
contrasts revealed that the MF asymmetry decreased steadily
over decades. This trend was highly significant for all mixed-sex
touches and for nonhand touches and was marginally signifi-
cant for touches with the hand.
As is nearly always the case where age differences are con-
cerned, alternative interpretations of the age variable are possi-
ble. Because ours was a cross-sectional study we cannot know
whether the age differences were maturational or cohort based.
Moreover, there is undoubtedly a confounding of age with
various life-stage phenomena. Because younger people (espe-
cially teenagers) are far less likely to be married or in enduring
relationships than older people, our age effects may actually
reflect sex differences that vary with the nature of the relation-
ship between the people observed, not their age per se. Sex roles
may permit (even require) visible gestures of possession or be-
ing in charge by males in less developed relationships; or per-
haps females in such relationships touch less in an effort to
appear noncommittal or not too forward. On the other hand,
sex roles may permit (or require) more assertive gestures, or
gestures indicating possession, by females in more developed
relationships.
In summary, our analysis of touch asymmetry revealed com-
plexities that preclude a simplistic understanding of this issue.
Contrary to the message often taken away from Henley's (1973)
seminal study, males' tendency to touch females more than vice
versa is not a general phenomenon, at least not in public set-
tings of the sort we studied and among pairs of people who have
selected to be together in those settings. We cannot comment,
of course, on sex asymmetries in touch in other settings and
among people with different kinds of relationship (for example,
work settings, or superior-subordinate dyads). As far as we
know, there are no observational studies to address this issue.
Thus, interpretational issues remain complex. An analysis of
the asymmetry in terms of differential dominance or status
between the sexes (Henley 1973,1977) cannot be straightfor-
wardly applied, considering that the asymmetry progressively
favored women as the dyads' ages increased. One could argue
that only touches with the hand are likely to reflect dominance
or status (indeed, this is most likely why Henley's study concen-
trated on this kind of touch) and, given this, that the tendency
for males to touch more with the hand confirms the domi-
nance/status interpretation of the difference.
We would differ with this logic, however. A touch with the
hand can as easily be tentative or placating as dominating, but a
touch with some other body part can be quite controlling or
dominating, especially if it has a relatively long duration, as
nonhand touches tend to have. It is interesting that each sex has
a distinctive way of holding onto the other: Males put their arm
around the female; females put their arm through the male's
arm. The difference in morphology may stem from average
height differences or may reflect different connotations of the
touches in terms of affiliation or dominance. In any case, with-
out better data on the functions of specific touches, we believe
one cannot argue that hand touches are deductively more domi-
nating than other kinds.
Thus, it is not clear what different touches mean to the sexes
and whether dominance/status can explain the sex effects.
 1162 JUDITH A. HALL AND ELLEN M. VECCIA
Firm data on the relation of status to touch, irrespective of sex,
would be helpful. Unfortunately, this is lacking. Hall (1984,
1987) noted that when invoking dominance/status as an expla-
nation for nonverbal sex differences (including touch), investi-
gators have often failed to produce unequivocal (or in some
cases, any) evidence of a relation of dominance/status to the
nonverbal behavior in question, independent of sex. In the case
of touch, self-report studies indicate that people believe that
higher status people touch more than vice versa (see Stier and
Hall, 1984, for a review), but studies involving actual status and
touch have not been highly supportive (Goldstein & Jeffords,
1981; Juni & Brannon, 1981). Evidence does indicate that the
initiation of touch increases one's relative status vis-a-vis the
person touched (Major & Heslin, 1982; Summerhayes &
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Suchner, 1978). This finding, however, yields no clear predic-
tion about sex differences: One could predict either that men
(the higher status) would touch women more to assert their
position or that women (the lower status) would touch men
more to enhance theirs.
Other sex differences were addressed besides the asymmetry
question. Females were nonsignincantly more likely to touch
others than were males. In its direction, this is consistent with
the conclusion of Stier and Hall (1984). Jones's (1986) later
study also found females to touch more overall. That and other
studies finding significant results for this question may have
used more sensitive measures than we did. Observing for a
longer period of time would yield more touches and increase
statistical power for testing sex differences.
Females were also nonsignincantly more likely to receive
touch from others than males were. Stier and Hall's (1984) re-
view found weaker evidence for this trend than was the case for
touch initiation, especially when studies that compared raw
frequencies were excluded. Jones (1986) also found only weak
evidence for such a trend.
In our study, male-male dyads touched at a significantly
lower rate than did female-female dyads, consistent with Stier
and Hall's (1984) review, though the difference was small in
absolute terms. In her review, Major (1981) concluded that such
a difference was small, and Jones (1986) did not find any such
difference.
Finally, we found that mixed-sex dyads were much more
likely to touch than same-sex dyads were, consistent with Ma-
jor's (1981) review and Jones's (1986) study. This result is sensi-
ble considering that dyads had self-selected each other, and
many of the mixed-sex dyads were undoubtedly dating or
married. In less familiar dyads, one could expect to see less
mixed-sex touch (Stier & Hall, 1984).
In conclusion, explanations for sex differences in touch are
still obscure. Nevertheless, the present study has considerably
expanded our understanding of the phenomenon and has
added new questions for study. We find Stier and Hall's closing
comment as appropriate now as it was in 1984: "Gender differ-
ences in touch appear to be somewhat different and theoreti-
cally more complex than has been previously stated" (p. 457).
References
Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (1987). Social psychology: Understanding
human interaction (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Delucchi, K. L. (1983). The use and misuse of chi-square: Lewis and
Burke revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 94,166-176.
Goldstein, A. G, & Jeffords, J. (1981). Status and touching behavior.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 79-81.
Greenbaum, P. E., & Rosenfeld, H. M. (1980). Varieties of touching in
greetings: Sequential structure and sex-related differences. Journal
of Nonverbal Behavior, 5,13-25,135.
Hall, J. A. (1979). Gender, gender roles, and nonverbal communication
skills. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Skill in nonverbal communication: Indi-
vidual differences (pp. 32-67). Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager,
Gunn & Hain.
Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy
and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hall, J. A. (1987). On explaining gender differences: The case of non-
verbal communication. In P. Shaver and C. Hendrick (Eds.), Review
of personality and social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 177-200). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Henley, N. M. (1973). Status and sex: Some touching observations.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 91-93.
Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal commu-
nication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Heslin, R, & Boss, D. (1980). Nonverbal intimacy in airport arrival and
departure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 248-252.
Jones, S. E. (1986). Sex differences in touch communication. Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 50, 227-241.
Jones, S. E., & Yarbrough, E. (1985). A naturalistic study of the mean-
ings of touch. Communication Monographs, 52,19-56.
Juni, S., & Brannon, R. (1981). Interpersonal touching as a function of
status and sex. Journal of Social Psychology, 114,135-136.
Lewis, D., & Burke, C. J. (1949). The use and misuse of the chi-square
test. Psychological Bulletin, 46, 433-489.
Major, B. (1981). Gender patterns in touching behavior. In C. Mayo &
N. M. Henley (Eds.), Gender and nonverbal behavior. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Major, B., & Heslin, R. (1982). Perceptions of cross-sex and same-sex
nonreciprocal touch: It is better to give than to receive. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 6,148-162.
Major, B., Schmidlin, A. M., & Williams, L. (1990). Gender patterns in
social touch: The impact of setting and age. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58, 634-643.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral re-
search: Methods and data analysis. New \fork: McGraw-Hill.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, so-
cial identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Stier, D. S., & Hall, J. A. (1984). Gender differences in touch: An empiri-
cal and theoretical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 47, 440-459.
Summerhayes, D. L, & Suchner, R. W (1978). Power implications of
touch in male-female relationships. Sex Roles, 4,103-110.
Tedeschi, J. T, Lindskold, S., & Rosenfeld, P. (1985). Introduction to
social psychology. St. Paul: West.
Vrugt, A., & Kerkstra, A. (1984). Sex differences in nonverbal commu-
nication. Semiotica, 50,1-41.
Willis, E N., Rinck, C. M., & Dean, L. M. (1978). Interpersonal touch
among adults in cafeteria lines. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47,
1147-1152.
Worchel, S., Cooper, J., & Goethals, G. R. (1988). Understanding social
psychology (4th ed.). Chicago: Dorsey Press.
Received August 11,1989
Revision received August 9,1990
Accepted August 13,1990 •