The Journal of Social Psychology, 2004, 144(1), 49-62 Gender and Culture Differences in Touching Behavior ROSEMARIE DIBIASE JAIME GUNNOE Education and Human Services Department Suffolk University Boston, MA ABSTRACT. The authors used gender and culture to examine the theory that touching behavior is an expression of dominance. Participants were 120 men and women from Italy, the Czech Republic, and the United States. The authors examined both hand touches and nonhand touches. For hand touches, there was a significant gendet-by-culture interaction in that Czech men as a group touched more than any of the other groups. For nonhand touches, Czech and Italian women and Ttalian men as groups touched significantly more than any of the other groups. Taken in cultural context, these results seem to support the dominance theory for touches with the hand but not for nonhand touches. The authors dis- cussed implications and future directions. Key words: culture differences, gender differences, touching behavior ‘TOUCH IS A UNIVERSAL ASPECT OF HUMAN INTERACTION. Alll peo- ple touch and are touched by others, but there are vast differences in the amount of touching that people do. For example, touching appears to vary by gender, cul- ture, and even age. Although these particular differences in touching behavior are not well understood, historically investigators have thought of touch as express- ing control and dominance (Henley, 1973; Summerhayes & Suchner, 1978). This conception of touch was primarily based on early research by Henley (1973, 1977, 2001) that has shown that men touched women more than women touched men. Since Henley’s original work, her ideas have been a driving force in research n interpersonal touch. However, a number of more recent reviews have revealed a complex relation between gender and touching behavior that seems to detract from rather than directly support Henley’s work (Hall & Friedman, 1999; Hall & The authors thank Patrice M. Miller and Gina DeLeo for their help with this project. Address correspondence to Rosemarie DiBiase, Suffolk University, Education and Human Services Department, 41 Temple Street, Boston, MA 02114-4280; or send e-mail 1 rdibiase @ atthi.com. 4950_ The Journal of Social Psychology Veccia, 1990; Jones, 1986; Major, 1981; Major, Schmidlin, & Williams, 1990; Stier & Hall, 1984; Willis & Dodds, 1998), Furthermore, in addition to gender differences, there also seem to be large cultural differences in touching behavior, That is, the amount of touching that people accept and expect is determined by each particular society and varies from culture to culture (Frank, 1957). In the present study, we propose that using gen- der and culture together to reexamine existing theory will further investigators’ understanding of touching behavior. Gender, Status, and Touching Behavior Early research on individual differences in touching behavior in the United States showed that men touched women more than women touched men. Thus, Henley (1973) conjectured that high-status individuals have a touching privilege that they exercise to maintain their high-status advantage. Therefore, because people considered men to be of higher status than women, men expressed their high-status advantage through such touching of women. For example, male boss- es were more likely to touch the female secretaries than vice versa, underscoring the status difference in the relationship. Early researchers postulated that this power differential could be used to explain gender differences in touching (Henley, 1973, 1977). Later researchers, looking at hand-holding patterns in men and women and at peoples’ perceptions of dominance who were touching others compared to people who were being touched, seemed to find data that supported this notion (Chapell, Basso, et al., 1998; Chapell, Beltran, et al., 1999; Henley, 2001; Summerhayes & Suchner, 1978). Further evidence for the idea that power and status moderate touch came from research on social class, professional status, and cultural differences in touching. Henley (1977) found that high-status individuals in Western countries were more likely to touch others than to be touched by others, whereas low-status individu- als were more likely to be touched by their superiors than to touch them. How- ver, this pattern occurred only when the power roles were disparate. Thayer (1988) found that when roles were in power, slightly lower status people tried to establish connections with their more powerful and higher status col- leagues through physical contact. In addition, although people of high status and those of low status touch each other with approximately equal frequency, they use different types of touches. That is, people of lower status initiate more formal touches like handshakes while people of higher status initiate more intimate touches such as placing one’s hand on the other's shoulder (Hall, 1996). Recently Hall and Veccia (1990) and Major et al. (1990) and less recently Stier and Hall (1984) have scrutinized Henley’s work by examining different types of touching and the meaning of these touches. These studies have demon- strated that among other things, type of touch, age, and relationship also areDiBiase & Gunnoe SI significant factors in gender differences in touching. In contrast with Henley's data, Hall and Veccia (1990) found that overall, men and women touched each other with equal frequency. However, there was a tendency for men to use their hands to touch women more than women used their hands to touch men and for women to use other parts of their bodies to touch men more than men used other parts of their bodies to touch women, Thus, contrary to Henley’s findings, while men tend to use more hand touch than do women, men do not use more of other types of touches than do women. One explanation for this apparent equity in touching among men and women in the United States may be that in that coun- try, only hand touching expresses dominance. Alternatively, gender roles may be becoming less well defined, and men may not be as clearly dominant as they were 25 years ago. The differential pattern of touching in men and women was more striking when investigators considered age (Hall & Veccia, 1990; Willis & Dodds, 1998). Hall and Veecia (1990) reported that in people under 30 years of age, men touched women significantly more than women touched men. Hall and Veccia speculat- ed that this pattern might occur because young adults’ relationships are typically less well established than those of older adults, compelling young men to behave possessively and women to behave submissively. It may be that traditional gen- der roles and perceptions of power are more germane to young adults trying to attract one another. This is in line with the findings of Willis and his colleagues (Willis & Briggs, 1992; Willis & Dodds, 1998) that men in dating relationships touch women more than vice versa but that this pattern does not persist in mar- ried people. Willis and his colleagues have suggested that the differential pattern of touching behavior between men and women at different ages and stages of rela- tionships is a function of gender differences in evolutionary reproductive strate- gies. That is, men, who seek to reproduce quickly, initiate touch to obtain sex, whereas women, who wish to preserve male parental involvement, use it to main- tain relationships with the men, Culture and Touching Behavior There also seem to be large cultural differences in touching behavior that are determined by the particular society (Frank, 1957). The most well known research is in the area of proxemics. A typical finding in this area is that people in colder climates use relatively large physical distances when they communicate, where- as people in warmer climates prefer closer distances (Lustig & Koester, 1996; Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982). For example, the range of distances that Germans, Scandinavians, and English find to be intimate for conversations overlaps with the range of distances regarded as normal for conversation in France and the Mediterranean countries of Italy, Greece, and Spain. In the same way, Hall (1966) found that Latin Americans are comfortable at a closer range (have smaller per- sonal space zones) than Northern Americans,52_The Journal of Social Psychology Furthermore, researchers have suggested that some cultures, such as the Mid- dle Eastern, Latin American, and southem European ones, could be considered high-contact cultures (Hall, 1966; Lustig & Koester, 1996). People in these coun- tries seem to interact at closer distances and touch each other much more in social conversations than people from noncontact cultures. Interpersonal touching is infre- quent in noncontact cultures, such as those of northern Europe, the United States, and Asia (Mazur, 1977; Thayer, 1988). Also, Southern Europeans are reported to be more affectionate than Northern Europeans (LaFrance & Mayo, 1978). This characteristic too is likely to influence their touching behavior. Typically, these dif- ferences in touching translate to greeting behaviors such that in high-contact cul- tures, hugging or kissing is commonly used in greetings, whereas in noncontact cul- tures, people often greet with a handshake but no hugging or kissing. The few studies that have examined touching behavior by culture support the idea that there are cultural differences in touching in the expected directions. For example, Jourard (1966) reported that people in Paris and Puerto Rico touched more than people in London, England, and the United States. In addition, Rem- land, Jones, and Brinkman (1995) found that Greek and Italian dyads used touch during their interactions more than English, French, and Dutch dyads. Lastly, Regan, Jerry, Darell, Narvaez, and Johnson (1999) found that college age Latino couples touched more in public than their Asian counterparts. What defines specific touching norms may be clarified by examining culture and gender together. There appear to be large differences in status among men and women depending on the country being examined. In many European coun- tries, men are still in clearly dominant positions, and women are expected to adhere to the traditional gender role stereotypes (¢.g., those of keeping house; raising children; and being loving, nurturing, and warm companions). If touch were a noninverse function of dominance, men in these cultures would be likely to touch more than women. However, the overall amount of touching would depend on the normative amount of touching in the particular culture that was being examined. Italy One country with historically well-delineated gender roles is Italy. Italian society is built on deep division of gender roles. In the past, women in Italy were seen as inferior to men and responsible for running the household and caring for others. Their most accepted roles have been (a) self-sacrificing wife and mother, (b) nun, and (c) spinster schoolteacher (Merenda & Mattioni, 1995). Women were not granted the vote until 1946, and it was not until 1975 that a law, in this case the Family Rights Reform Law, established a standard of complete legal equali- ty between husband and wife. However, over the past 25 years, there has been tremendous progress in the area of gender equality. For example, in 1991 a spe- cial equal opportunity law abolished all forms of gender inequality regardingDiBiase & Gunnoe 53 schooling, job training, and access to jobs. It even attempted to level out inequal- ity in the area of domestic duties. Along with other legal, social, and religious policies, this law has led to a much more liberated attitude in Italian women, espe- cially those living in urban areas. On the other hand, in Italian men the law has Jed to confusion and loss of self-esteem (Merenda & Mattioni). Despite these dra- matic changes, women are still primarily responsible for running the home and caring for the children. But overall, gender roles in Italy today appear to be in transition and clearly moving toward equality. Investigators might consider the Italian culture, which is southern European, tobe a high-contact culture (Lustig & Koester, 1996), seeing Italians as more like- ly to be comfortable with touching than people in low-contact cultures, includ- ing Americans. Also, Italians are known for their expressive communication, and touching appears to be an important aspect of their social behavior. Thus, greet- ing behavior includes not only kisses but kisses on both cheeks. The United States In the United States, there is a history of both equality for and subordination ‘of women (Denmark, Nielson, & Scholl, 1995). At particular times in their his- tory, such as the colonial times of the late 1700s, American women have been valued and afforded many of the same opportunities as men. In other periods, like the industrial period of the mid 1800s, women’s status was lowered as they filled lower factory positions with lower pay and lower mobility than did men. It was not until the 1920s that women were allowed to vote. In spite of the vote, the sta- tus differential continued up until the late 1960s when the modern women’s lib- eration movement was founded. At that time, women’s status was reexamined, and women were allowed expanded employment opportunities. However, an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has never been passed, and the majority of women in the United States, even those employed outside of the home, continue to be primarily responsible for domestic tasks. Thus, while there has been a definite trend toward gender equality, vestiges of traditional gender roles remain (Denmark, Nielson, & Scholl). American culture has been depicted as a noncontact culture (Lustig & Koester, 1996). Americans’ interpersonal space is more akin to that of Northern Europeans than to that of Souther Europeans, and greeting behavior includes only a handshake, ‘The Czech Republic Highly traditional gender roles exist in the Czech Republic. A communist country until 1989, Czechoslovakia was split up into the Czech Republic and Slo- vakia in 1993. In the Czech Republic, men and women appear to have even more polarized roles in society than do Italians or Americans because this country is$4__ The Journal of Social Psychology highly stratified along gender lines (Wolchik, 1991). Although during the Com- munist period, women in the Czech Republic had access to education and par- ticipated in the labor force, there then were and still are substantial inequalities. Typically, women bear the sole responsibility for the home and children regard- less of whether they participate in the labor force. Evidence even suggests that since the fall of Communism, there has been a backlash against equality and a rejection of the goal of gender equality in favor of more traditional gender roles (Wolchik). In general, since there has been no recent effort to change women’s status, men in the Czech Republic appear to be more dominant than are men in Italy and the United States. Like Italians, Czechs are emotionally expressive people. Women in particu- lar are reported to be highly affectionate (Kuras, 1996). Unfortunately, there is a paucity of information in the literature on their actual touching behavior, and even though their greeting behavior involves hugging and kissing, the central Euro- pean location of the Czech Republic would not typically be considered a high- contact area, ‘The Present Study ‘The purpose of the present study was to examine concurrently gender and cultural influences in touching. While previous studies have examined touching behaviors in relation to gender and culture separately, none have examined these variables together. Doing so will allow us to examine the dominance issue from a cultural context, In general, if Henley’s theory of dominance is to be support- ed, we should see men in traditional, male-dominated cultures doing more of cer- tain types of touching than women do. However, that touching will be relative to the particular culture being examined such that men and women in high-contact cultures will do more overall touching than people in low-contact cultures do. Previous studies have suggested that age, setting, and relationship all influ- ence the amount of touching that men and women do (e.g., Major, Schmidlin, & Williams, 1990; Willis & Dodds, 1998). To level these variables, our observations were conducted in recreational settings frequented by young unmarried people. We observed these young adults in Italy, the Czech Republic, and the United States, These countries have different cultural standards regarding touching in general. For example, Italians are typically portrayed as a high-contact culture, whereas the United States is typically considered a low-contact culture. Little research on touching behavior has included the Czechs, but their greeting behav- ior suggests that they are a high-contact culture. Thus, our first hypothesis, relat- ed exclusively to culture, proposes that Italians will do the most touching and that ‘Americans will do the least touching. Czechs will likely be more like Italians than Americans, This trend should hold for all types of touching. These countries also have different expectations about gender roles and appear to have different commitments to legislating equality for men and women,DiBiase & Gunnoe 55 Specifically, the Czechs appear to have highly traditional gender role expectations relative to both Italy and the United States. To explore how these culturally derived differences in gender role may be related to touching behavior, two types of touch, hand touch and nonhand touch, were examined separately. Previous studies (¢.2., Hall & Veccia, 1990) established that there is typically asymmetry in hand touch- ing such that in general men do more hand touching than women, Our second hypothesis, which is related to hand touching and gender, pro- poses that our findings will be in line with those of Hall and Veccia and Major, Schmidlin, and Williams (1990) so that men will touch more with their hands than women, If hand touch is a function of dominance, as Henley’s (1977, 2001) work suggests, these findings should be magnified when examining gender and culture together, Here, we expect hand touch to be a function of both dominance and culture such that men in high-contact, highly traditional male-dominant cul- tures will touch women more with their hands than men in low-contact, nontra- ditional cultures. Specifically, our third hypothesis, which is concerned with both gender and culture, is that in the Czech Republic, where there continues to be substantial gen- der stratification and perceived male dominance, men will hand-touch women more than women will hand-touch men, In the United States and Italy, where changing gender roles and societal striving for equality seem to be occurring, there should be fewer gender-related differences with respect to hand-touch. However, as predicted in our first hypothesis, while gender differences in hand touching between Italian men and women are not expected to be as great as those ‘of Czechs, Italian men (high-contact culture) should do more hand touching than ‘American men (low-contact culture). Fewer gender differences in nonhand touching have been found, and in fact women tend to nonhand touch men more than vice versa (Hall & Veccia, 1990), ‘This suggests that nonhand touch may not be related to the expression of domi- nance. If this is the case, we would expect women in all cultures to engage in more nonhand touching than men. Thus, our fourth hypothesis, which is related to gender and nonhand touching, is that, overall, women will do more nonhand touching than men and that as predicted in our first hypothesis, women in Italy and the Czech Republic (high-contact cultures) will do more nonhand touching than will Americans (low-contact culture). Method Participants Participants were 120 people whom we visually judged to be in their early- to-mid 20s of age. There were 40 Italians (20 men and 20 women), 40 Czechs (20 men and 20 women), and 40 Americans (20 men and 20 women). All were observed early in the evening in dance clubs in their respective countries in the56 __The Journal of Social Psychology cities of Rome, Prague, or Boston. All of these clubs were in neighborhoods that were frequented primarily by locals as opposed to tourists, and the clubs primar- ily attracted white patrons of mid-to-high socioeconomic status, We made obser- vations as unobtrusively as possible so that the participants would not know that they were being observed. Procedure ‘The procedure and measures were modified versions of those that Hall (1996) used. We made observations over a 6-month period, visiting each location two or three times. In each city, raters entered dance clubs early in the evening and sat in a central location. To assure that the participants were of the expected nationality, raters got close enough to hear that they were speaking the native lan- guage before doing the observations. All male-female dyads within the rater’s field of vision were observed. After a rater evaluated all the couples in one loca- tion, the rater moved to a new location within the dance elub. Raters brought with them magazines containing precoded sheets on which to record their observa- tions. These sheets contained space for gender of participant, number of hand touches, number of nonhand touches, and rater comments. Interrater reliability, Two female raters collected the data. Prior to data collec- tion, a senior investigator trained raters on coding of touch and judgment of age (within 5 years). Raters then went into a dance club and rated 10 randomly select- ed men and women on frequency of touching behavior and age. Interrater relia- bility for frequency of touching was established using a standard procedure: the number of agreements divided by the sum of the number of agreements and the number of disagreements, all times 100. Given the straightforward nature of the ‘observations, the mean percentage of agreement was better than 95%. To examine reliability for age agreement, we used a Pearson correlation, As with the touching, there was a high level of agreement, r= .90. Reliability was reestablished after every 15 participants were rated. Sampling. Raters flipped a coin to select the gender of the first participant to be observed. After this selection, subsequent selections alternated by gender. The rater observed and recorded touching behavior for 5 min. Two types of touching, hand touch and nonhand touch, were used as our dependant variables. Examples of hand touches included touches from hand to body, touches from hand to hand, touches from hand to face, touches from hand to leg, and touches from hand to shoulder. Examples of nonhand touches included touches from body to body, hug- ging, and kissing. Raters recorded only touches initiated after the rating began (in- progress touches were not recorded), because in-progress touches have been con- troversial in previous research (Willis & Dodds, 1998). For each participant, the {otal number of new hand touches and the total number of new nonhand touchesDiBiase & Gunnoe _57 for a 5-min period were recorded and used in the analyses. If any participants left the area before the 5 min were up, they were eliminated from the sample. Results We analyzed hand touching first. To test the first hypothesis, that high-contact cultures would do more hand touching than low-contact cultures, and the second hypothesis, that men would do more hand touching than women, a 2 (gender) x 3 (Culture) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. There was a significant main effect for gender, F(1, 114) = 4.46, p <.01, such that men engaged in more hand touches than any of the other groups (see Table 1). There also was a significant main effect for culture, F(2, 114) = 22,90, p <.01. Here, Scheffé post hoc tests demonstrated that Czechs engaged in significantly more hand touches than any of the other groups (p < 01; see Table 1). These main effects were qualified by a sig- nificant gender-by-culture interaction, F(2, 114) = 10.87, p<.01. ‘To examine which group or groups were doing the most touching, we used Scheffé post hoc tests again to specifically test our third hypothesis, that the more gender stratified the country was, the more likely were there to be gender differ- ences in hand touching. Results demonstrated that, as expected, Czech men initi- ated significantly more hand touches than any other group (p <.01; see Table 1). For the nonhand touch data, we used a 2 (gender) x 3 (culture) ANOVA to test our fourth hypothesis, which predicted that there would be no gender differences ‘TABLE 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Hand Touches and Nonhand ‘Touches by Gender and Culture Gender ‘Male Total Culture M ~~ SD M M SD Hand touch United States 325 2.29 280 1.90 3.02 2.09 Italian 290 197 425 231 357 2.22 Czech 845 3.56 465 2.62 655 3.63 Total 4.86 390 239 Nonhand touch United States 220 1.82 226 1.66 222 1.70 Halian 7150 2.50 955 2.23 852 256 Czech 5.00 3.02 820 3.86 660 3.78 ‘Total 490 3.55 667 © 40158__ The Journal of Social Peychology in nonhand touching related to dominance, and to reexamine our first hypothesis, which predicted that there would be overall cultural differences in touching. There were significant main effects for both gender, F(1, 114) = 13.61, p <.01, and cul ture, F(2, 114) = 60.61, p< .01. As expected, women nonhand touched signifi- cantly more than men (see Table 1). However, as shown in Table 1, the means for the male and female Americans are nearly identical. Therefore, it appears that this ‘main effect was primarily influenced by the touching behavior of the other groups (see Table 1). To reexamine the first hypothesis that high-contact cultures would engage in more nonhand touching than low-contact cultures, we used Sheffé post hoc tests. Results revealed that as expected, Italians touched significantly more than Czechs, who touched more than Americans (p < .01; see Table 1). However, as with the hand touch data, these main effects were qualified by a significant gen- der-by-culture interaction, F(2, 114) = 3.69, p <.028. Post hoc analyses using the Scheffé method indicated that Italian and Czech women initiated signifi- cantly more nonhand touches than any of the other groups, except Italian men. Italian men initiated significantly more nonhand touches than either the Amer- ican men or the American women (p < .01; see Table 1). Discussion We designed the present study to examine gender and cultural influences on touching behavior. Earlier research and theory had suggested that people in high-contact cultures would do more of all kinds of touching than those in low- contact cultures. Thus, we first predicted that people in Italy and the Czech Republic would do more overall touching than those in the United States would. As expected, for both hand touch and nonhand touch, Americans initiate touch less frequently than both Italians and Czechs. This difference is most pro- nounced for nonhand touch, with Italians touching the most and Czechs touch- ing second-to-most. ‘These findings support the work of Jourard (1966) and Remland, Jones, and Brinkman (1995), indicating the possibility that there are cultural differences in touching behavior and that these behaviors are likely to be the product of social- ization. This is the first study in English to empirically demonstrate that Czechs" touching behavior is more like that of people in high-contact cultures than it is like that of people in low-contact cultures, We also were interested in the question of whether there were gender dif- ferences in touching that paralleled cultural norms of gender roles. Earlier research had demonstrated that such differences are likely to be more apparent when hand touch as opposed to nonhand touch is observed (e.g., Hall & Vec- cia, 1990). Thus, in an extension of Henley’s (1973) work on dominance and touch, our second hypothesis predicted that men would do more hand touching than women. We extended this idea further with our third hypothesis, whichDiBiase & Gunnoe _59 predicted that in cultures with the most traditional gender roles, in this case the Czech Republic, men would be more likely to initiate touch with their hands than men in currently less traditional cultures, such as Italy and the United States. As expected, there was a tendency across cultures for men to touch women with their hands more frequently than women touched men with th hands. However, only in the Czech Republic did men touch women with their hands significantly more than women touched men with their hands. While this finding does not demonstrate with certainty that hand touching is more indica- tive of dominance than are other types of touches, as noted earlier the Czech Republic appears to have more traditional gender role delineation than the Unit- ed States and Italy. In addition, if an absence of legislative efforts toward equal- ity can be taken as evidence, working toward gender equality does not appear to be a current priority for the Czech Republic. The fact that only Czechs demonstrate this distinctive difference in touching supports (a) the idea that hand touch is associated with dominance or at least power and (b) Henley’s the- ory suggesting that men in dominant positions touch women more than women touch men. In keeping with Thayer (1988), it follows that in societies where gender roles are less well defined, this touching differential is similarly less well defined. These findings are only applicable to young men and women and may not hold for people of other ages. Earlier studies have shown that touching patterns among men and women of different ages vary greatly (Hall & Veccia, 1990; Major, Schmidlin, & Williams, 1990; Willis 8& Dodds, 1998). The present authors’ work is generally consistent with others’ findings that men in their twen- ties touch women in general more than women in their twenties touch men. How- ever, in keeping with Hall’s work (Hall & Veccia), this finding is only relevant for hand touching. For the nonhand touch data, the present authors expected to see women doing more touching than men did, and in all 3 groups there was a tendency for women todo more nonhand touching than men did, which was quite the opposite of what we found for hand touching. However, there were not significant differences between men and women living in the United States, and there were only trends toward differences in Italy. There were significant differences between Czech ‘men and women such that women touched men more than men touched women. ‘Thus, as with the hand touch data, there was a striking asymmetry in touching behavior in the most traditional society examined but not in those societies where gender roles are less traditionally defined or in transition. The meaning is unclear and forces this question: Do hand touches reflect dominance or something like it, whereas other touches express something else? The present research suggests that this may be the case and further suggests that there may be gender-related moti- vations for nonhand touch as well as for hand touch. Certainly, along with the research of Hall and her colleagues, it demonstrates that not all types of touches are the same. In fact, over the past few decades of research on this topic, it has©The Journal of Social Psychology. become quite clear that touch is a complex behavior with many different origins, meanings, and functions. Treating all touch as one unit is no longer an effective research strategy. Because we examined different cultural groups, our study is unique. One seemingly unambiguous finding is that male and female touching patterns are not universal and as such are unlikely to be the result of biological predispositions only. In fact, quite different patterns of gender-related touch are evident in the three cultures that we examined. Thus, although Willis and his colleagues have suggested that the gender-related asymmetry in touching behavior reflects dif- ferential evolutionary reproductive strategies, that hypothesis is not entirely sup- ported by the present data, Although it is conceivable that touch, like other human behaviors, has some survival function (from an evolutionary perspective), there are other factors in play here as well. In fact, the present results suggest that touch- ing behavior has at least some culturally infused learning components. One aspect of the present study that investigators should carefully consider is that the present investigators conducted our research in only one type of set- ting and that this setting was unarguably a social setting where there may have been intimate relationships among participants, Previous studies have demon- strated that setting is a potent mediator of touching behavior. It is not certain whether our findings would hold in other settings with formal relationships. Some research in nonprofessional settings has demonstrated that touch is often used for purposes other than dominance and that there is less gender asymmetry in casu- al settings than in public, nonintimate settings (Major, Schmidlin, & Williams, 1990). In fact, a number of studies have suggested that touch in casual settings may be used to show affection, nurturing, warmth, sexual interest, and intimacy rather than dominance (Burgoon, 1991; Jourard & Rubin, 1968; Major, 1981; Major, Schmidlin, & Williams; Mehrabian, 1972; Nguyen, Heslin, & Nguyen, 1976; Willis & Briggs, 1992; Willis & Dodds, 1998). Thus, we concur with Major, Schmidlin, and Williams (1990) in asserting that the relationship between the toucher and the recipient is extremely important yet has been much neglect- ed in the research in this area. Future investigators should examine this issue more carefully in studies akin to that of Willis and Dodds in which they asked partici- pants about their relationships after touching behaviors had been observed. Look- ing at what types of touching people do in different types of relationships. and how this changes over time could further extend this research. In fact, going beyond anonymous observations and gathering more personal data will further elucidate our understanding of many aspects of the relation between touching behavior and power. For example, one could make a direct exam- ination of some of the intermediary variables, like men and women's perceptions of their own dominance and power and their impressions of the power of their gen- der in the greater society, as they are related to how men and women touch, Sim- ilarly, investigators should examine gender role also in the context of touching behavior. If touch is an expression of dominance, it could be hypothesized thatDiBisse & Gunnoe 61 those men with a more masculine gender role would touch women more frequently, especially with their hands, than those with a more neutral gender role. Future stud- ies should extend the current work by measuring both gender and gender role, as well as observing touching patterns, Lastly, while the present investigators have undertaken a study of three cul- turally diverse groups, there are clearly more groups to be examined, In the pre- sent study, all of the groups that we examined were of the European tradition in which there are many underlying similarities, It also would be of great interest to examine more diverse cultures such as those of the Middle East, Asia, and the developing world. The more culturally diverse the groups that we examine are, the more likely we are to uncover patterns of associations that will augment and extend understanding of touching behavior. REFERENCES Burgoon, J. K. (1991, Winter). Relational message interpretations of touch, conversation distance, and posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15(4), 233-259, ‘Chapell, M. S., Basso, E., DeCola, A., Hossack, J., Keebler, J. J., Marm, J., et al. (1998). Men and women holding hands: Whose hand is uppermost? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 127-130. Chapell, M. S., Beltran, W., Santanello, M., Takahashi, M., Bantom, S. R., Donovan, J.S., etal. (1999). Men and women holding hands: Il. Whose hand is uppermost? Perceptu- al and Motor Skills, 89, 537-549, Denmark, F. L., Nielson, K. A., & Scholl, K. (1995). United States of America. In L. L. Adler (Ed.), International handbook on gender roles (pp. 159-173). Westport, CT Greenwood Press. Frank, L. K. (1957). Tactile communication. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 56, 209-255. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension (2nd ed.). Gardner City, NY: Anchor Books/Dou- bleday. Hall, J. A. (1996), Touch, status, and gender at professional meetings. Journal of Nonver- bal Behavior, 20(1), 23-44. Hall, J. A., & Friedman, G. B., (1999), Status, gender and nonverbal behavior: A study of structured interactions between employees of a company. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 25(9), 1082-1091 Hall, J. A., & Veccia, E.M. (1990). More “touching” observations: New insights on men, ‘women, and interpersonal touch. Journal of Personality and Sacial Psychology, 596), 1155-1162. Henley, N. M. (1973). Status and sex: Some touching observations. Bulletin of the Psy- chonomie Society, 2. 91-93, Henley, N. M, (1977). Body polities: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Henley, N. M. (2001). Body polities. In A. Branaman (Bd.), Self and society: Blackwell readers in sociology (pp. 288-297). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Jones, S. E. (1986). Sex differences in touch communication. Western Journal of Speech ‘Communication, 50, 227-241. Jourard, S. M. (1966). An exploratory study on body-accessibility. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 221-231. Jourard, S. M,, & Rubin, JE, (1968). Self disclosure and touching: A study of two modes62 _ The Journal of Social Psychology of interpersonal encounter and their inter-relation, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 8(1), 39-48. Kuras, B. (1996). Czechs and balances: A nation’s survival kit, Praha, Czech Republic: Baronet. LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1978). Cultural aspects of nonverbal communication: A review essay. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 71-89. Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (1996). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communi- cation across cultures (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. ‘Major, B. (1981). Gender patterns in touching behavior. In C. Mayo & N, M, Henley (Eds.), Gender and nonverbal behavior (pp. 15-37). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. ‘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(4), 634-643. Mazur, A, (1977), Interpersonal spacing on public benches in contact vs. noncontact cul- tures. The Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 53-38. Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Merenda, R.. & Mattioni, M (1995). Italy. In L. L, Adler (Ed.), International handbook on gender roles (pp. 159-173). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Neuyen, T., Heslin, R., & Nguyen, M. L. (1976). The meanings of touch: Sex and mari- tal status differences. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 7, 13-18. Regan, P. C., Darell, J., Narvaez, M., Johnson, D. (1999). Public displays of affection ‘among Asian and Latino heterosexual couples. Psychological Report, 84, 1201-1202. Remland, M. S., Jones, T. S., & Brinkman, H. (1995). Interpersonal distance, body orien- tation, and touch: Effects of culture, gender, and age. The Journal of Social Psycholo- gy, 135, 281-297, Stier, D. S., & Hall, J. A. (1984). Gender differences in touching; An empirical and theo- retical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 47(2), 440-459. Summerhayes, D. L., & Suchner, R. W. (1978). Power implications of touch in male- female relationships. Sex Roles, 4, 103-110. ‘Sussman, N. M., & Rosenfeld, H. M. (1982). Influence of culture, language, and sex on conversation distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 66-74. ‘Thayer, S. (1988, March). Close encounters. Psychology Today, 22, 31-36. Willis, F. N., Jr, & Briggs, L. F. (1992). Relationship and touch in public settings. Jour- nal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 55-63. Willis, F. N., Jn, & Dodds, R. A. (1998). Age, relationship and touch initiation. The Jour- nal of Social Psychology, 138, 115-124, Wolchik, S. L. (1991). Czechoslovakia in transition: Politics, economics, and society. Lon- don, England: Printers Publishers Limited. Received June 25, 2001 Accepted December 16, 2002Copyright of Journal of Social Psychology is the property of Heldref Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.