Skip to main content
Log in

Touch, status, and gender at professional meetings

  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Observers unobtrusively recorded instances of interpersonal touch at three large academic meetings (two of psychologists, one of philosophers). The names and affiliations of the individuals involved in these touches were later referred to published sources in order to develop codes reflecting the relative personal and institutional statuses of these individuals. There was mixed but on balance no overall evidence that higher-status individuals touched lower-status individuals more than vice versa. However, higher- and lower-status individuals initiated different kinds of touch. Higher-status individuals initiated touch that was judged more often to be affectionate and that was more often directed to the arm or shoulder, whereas lower-status individuals initiated more formal touches and handshakes. Gender asymmetry in touch was very weak overall, but favored male-to-female over female-to-male touch when the two individuals had equal professional status.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Psychological Association. (1989).Directory of the American Psychological Association, 1989 edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (1993).Directory of the American Psychological Association, 1993 edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1985). Status organizing processes.Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K. (1991). Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 233–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., & Walther, J. B. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations.Human Communication Research, 17, 232–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • De la Croix de Lafayette, J. M. (1984).National register of social prestige and academic ratings of American colleges and universities. Washington, DC: NASACU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, J. F., Brown, C. E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S. L., & Keating, C. F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked topics: A multichannel study.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 580–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, J. F., Ellyson, S. L., Keating, C. F., Heltman, K., & Brown, C. (1988). The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 233–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior: Basic concepts and issues. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.),Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–27). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler, N. S., Rushton, J. P., & Roediger, H. L., III. (1978). Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. departments of psychology (1975).American Psychologist, 33, 1064–1082.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, A. G., & Jeffords, J. (1981). Status and touching behavior.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 79–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourman, J. (1993).The Gourman Report: A rating of undergraduate programs in American & international universities (8th ed., rev.). Los Angeles: National Education Standards.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1994). Patterns of matching and initiation: Touch behavior and touch avoidance across romantic relationship stages.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 137–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., & Veccia, E. M. (1990). More "touching" observations: New insights on men, women, and interpersonal touch.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1155–1162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., & Veccia, E. M. (1992). Touch asymmetry between the sexes. In C. L. Ridgeway (Ed.),Gender, interaction, and inequality (pp. 81–96). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, R. G. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior: An overview. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.),Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 2948). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henley, N. M. (1973). Status and sex: Some touching observations.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 91–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henley, N. M. (1977).Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henley, N. M., & LaFrance, M. (1984). Gender as culture: Difference and dominance in nonverbal behavior. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.),Nonverbal behavior: Perspectives, applications, intercultural insights (pp. 351–371). Lewiston, NY: C. J. Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, G. S., Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (1987). Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association.American Psychologist, 42, 975–986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. E. (1994).The right touch: Understanding and using the language of physical contact. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L. V., Lindsay, G., & Coggeshall, P. E. (1982).An assessment of research-doctorate programs in the U.S. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. E. (1986). Sex differences in touch communication.Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50, 227–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. E., & Yarbrough, A. E. (1985). A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch.Communication Monographs, 52, 19–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juni, S., & Brannon, R. (1981). Interpersonal touching as a function of status and sex.Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 135–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Major, B. (1981). Gender patterns in touching behavior. In C. Mayo & N. M. Henley (Eds.),Gender and nonverbal behavior (pp. 15–37). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, C., & Henley, N. M. (Eds.) (1981).Gender and nonverbal behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press, J. C. (Ed.). (1982).Directory of American scholars, 8th ed., Volume IV: Philosophy, religion, and law. New York: R. R. Bowker Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (Ed.) (1992).Gender, interaction, and inequality. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuter, R. (1977). A field study of nonverbal communication in Germany, Italy, and the United States.Communication Monographs, 44, 298–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuter, B. (1979). A study of nonverbal communication among Jews and Protestants.Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stier, D. S., & Hall, J. A. (1984). Gender differences in touch: An empirical and theoretical review.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 440–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summerhayes, D. L., & Suchner, R. W. (1978). Power implications of touch in male-female relationships.Sex Roles, 4, 103–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • The philosopher's index, 1993 cumulative edition (Vol. 27). Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.

  • Willis, F. N. Jr., & Briggs, L. F. (1992). Relationship and touch in public settings.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, F. N., & Rinck, C. M. (1983). A personal log method for investigating interpersonal touch.Journal of Psychology, 113, 119–122.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Judee K. Burgoon served as Action Editor for this article.

This research was supported by grant #RR07143 (Biomedical Research Support Grant, Department of Health and Human Services) to Northeastern University and by National Science Foundation grant # SBR-9311544. Thanks are extended to Ellen M. Veccia, who collaborated on the study design; Sabrina Herman, Treniece Lewis, Vanessa Roberts, Garry Germaine, Voravut Ratanakommon, and Alex Zelenchuk, who served as observers; and Denise Marcoux, Curtney Jacobs, Christopher O'Brien, and Alex Zelenchuk, who helped code the status indicators and prepare the touch data for analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hall, J.A. Touch, status, and gender at professional meetings. J Nonverbal Behav 20, 23–44 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02248713

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02248713

Keywords

Navigation