Article Critique “Physical Contact and Loneliness: Being

Touched Reduces Perceptions of Loneliness” by A. Heatley

Tejada & R. I. M. Dunbar & M. Montero 2020

Institute of Arts and Sciences

Far Eastern University

PSY1203-SEC1: Experimental Psychology

Credits to: A student from FEU

 Physical touch and its significant influence on human emotions cannot be exaggerated in a

society increasingly dominated by digital communication and virtual relationships. The natural

human desire for connection, affection, and touch remains an obvious component of our

existence as we traverse the complications of modern life. Loneliness, which is sometimes

referred to as a hidden scourge of our day, can have a significant influence on one's mental and

emotional well-being. People may experience emotional distress if their basic friendship and

intimacy needs are not met, but loneliness may also occur when people perceive a gap between

the number or quality of connections they desire and their actual social engagements. According

to some psychologists, loneliness is a natural part of the human experience that, while

unpleasant, may also give regeneration and increased self-awareness. However, new study

reveals that simply being touched may be a potent cure to loneliness, providing consolation and

connection in ways that go beyond words or computers that Touch and physical manifestations

of warmth or compassion are essential for human social connection and psychological well-

being. (Field 2010; Gallace and Spence 2010. Jakubiak and Feeney 2017).

Furthermore, the purpose of their article is to learn about the link between loneliness and

physical engagement. Touch is an important part of bonding and emotion communication,

according to evolutionary and psychological research; loneliness is also closely linked to these

aspects. Despite a largely non-tactile cultural context, they were able to study if physical touch

reduces feelings of loneliness, which may arise from evolutionarily ancient bonding systems.

They believe that this subject is important because, for loneliness to be considered an

evolutionary characteristic, it must be related to the environment, respond to it, and offer

adaptive fit. However, the evolutionary method has not yet discovered the exact environmental

signals that cause loneliness. They have also gathered participants who are exposed to physical
contact which they reported significantly lower neglect scores from their close relationships in a

short loneliness scale, they have performed to examine the effects of the two conditions on

loneliness scores and on heart rate by using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Thus, an

underlying process that endures beyond enculturation is suggested. The effects were especially

substantial among unmarried persons, suggesting that decreased loneliness among married

people may be explained in part by the regular availability of physical touch. Participants in the

experimental condition also had a quicker decrease in heart rate, which was regarded as a marker

of physiological well-being.

Considering this, the results showed that they have founded a significant difference

between their experimental and control group, that they don’t find any significant differences on

the global average score, by using the ANOVA, the mean differences in the neglect item were

significant across conditions F (1, 36) = 5.034 p =.031 and relationship status F (1, 36) = 9.274 p

=.004. Post-hoc t-tests indicated that single individuals who were exposed to physical touch

scored considerably lower than single participants who were not (p.05). To add, Participants in a

relationship scored lower than single participants (p.05), while experimental participants scored

lower than the control group (p.1) and in terms of heart rate analysis, individuals in the physical

contact condition had a significant difference (F (1, 38) = 3.759 p =.017) in overall average heart

rate compared the first 2.5 minutes. In other words, pairwise comparisons revealed that the

average HR of those who got physical touch was considerably lower than the initial reading of

the experiment (p.05). In either of the periods or on the overall average, there were no significant

differences in the control group.

In conclusion, A. Heatley Tejada & R. I. M. Dunbar & M. Montero (2020) has able to

provide the value of this study, which is to provide experimental evidence of a considerable
influence of physical touch on loneliness perception, especially among single persons. This gives

need a thorough grasp of how we should have a better understanding, which are theoretical

abstractions, interact with grounded cultural environments, which comprise the field of

individual experiences without neglecting the cultural context. However, this research has

limitations. One of these is that the participants' physical contact was brief and pragmatic, with

no clear social meaning. Touch with obvious pragmatic reasons and no social content was chosen

expressly for this study to prevent making participants feel uncomfortable when touched by a

stranger and to avoid exposing the rationale for the physical contact up front, which might bias

participant answers. To add, that there is a generalization for this study, when they only have

selected a few volunteered people. By conducting the experiment in a cultural milieu that accepts

and promotes behaviors that are contrary to the experimental condition. Although this helped to

distinguish between cultural and experimental effects, I think that further research is needed

before they should draw broad generalizations regarding the cross-cultural impacts of physical

touch on loneliness.

A suggestion for future researchers would be to look at other parts of this issue that could

give intriguing insights and to include additional participants. Methodologically, it would be

interesting to investigate if a lack of physical touch excludes loneliness, whether physical contact

buffers loneliness, or both. This would aid in clarifying the relationship's causal pathways and

establishing the potential of touch in either avoiding or treating loneliness. More study on touch

and loneliness might also help us to understand the evolutionary history of loneliness as an

adaptive mechanism and explain that triggers for the loneliness alarm and its operational

processes, which are currently unclear. It may also aid in better understanding how emotional
concerns are handled in culturally meaningful reality, which necessitates a more nuanced

qualitative investigation.

Reference

Field, T. (2010). Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: A review. Developmental

Review, 30(4), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.01.001.

Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview.

Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(2), 246–259.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.10.004.

Heatley Tejada, Ana & Dunbar, Robin & Montero, M. (2020). Physical Contact and Loneliness:

Being Touched Reduces Perceptions of Loneliness. Adaptive Human Behavior and

Physiology. 6. 10.1007/s40750-020-00138-0.

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, 21, 228252.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316650307.
Jones, J. (2018, November 16). Why Physical Touch Matters for Your Well-Being. Greater Good.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_physical_touch_matters_for_your_well

_being

Psychology Today. (2019). Loneliness | Psychology Today. Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/loneliness