Abstract:
The purpose of this exploratory study was to characterize college student beliefs about where it is acceptable to touch and be touched by other students in casual social interactions. Undergraduate students at a residential university (N = 242) and at a local community college (N = 200) completed the Touch Survey. The survey measures beliefs about touching in social interactions. Hierarchical cluster analyses were used to form touch zones (Public, Discretionary, and Private) by gender and direction of touch. The results of the study showed distinct same- and opposite-gender touch zone patterns, and there were touch zone differences between the two campuses. There were reciprocal touch zones for residential university male/male public touch zones and female/female private touch zones. There were no reciprocal touch zones for the community college sample. Implications for college health educators are discussed.
What is Social Touching?
First, social touch is usually bi-directional and not unidirectional. Second, the classification systems used to differentiate touching on various body parts have either been too cumbersome for use in health promotion programs (Hutchinson and Davidson, 1990; Jourard, 1966; Nguyen, Heslin, and Nguyen, 1975; Rosenfeld, Kartus, and Ray, 1976) or the method of categorizing touch by body areas were not well defined (Willis and Rinck, 1983). Third, most touch studies have involved field observations of dyads (DiBiase and Gunnoe, 2004; Guerrero & Andersen, 1991; Hall and Veccia, 1990; McDaniel & Andersen, 1998; Regan, Jerry, Narvaez, Johnson, 1999), including studies of athletes (Kneidinger, Maple, Tross, 2001). Other studies are based on self- reports of actual touching by more intimate interactions (family members, partners, or close personal friends), and not touching in casual social interactions. The type of touching that occurs in casual social interactions are not the same as those in more intimate interactions. Fourth, although constructs such as body accessibility (Jourard, 1966) are useful in sexual harassment prevention programming, it does not provide a broader theoretical framework to explain why some touches may be misunderstood as sexually harassing. The studies below are discussed within the context of these four issues.
Results:
The results of the study revealed that touch zones varied according to the gender of both parties. Same-gender touch beliefs differed markedly between males and females. Male student beliefs about touching other males resulted in the largest private touch zone with the smallest discretionary touch zone (Public 17%, Discretionary 6%, Private 71%). T omita and colleagues suggested that the small male/male discretionary touch zone indicated well-defined and more rigid cultural beliefs about where males should touch other males. In other words, males, regardless of culture, know where it is acceptable and unacceptable to touch other males, and that there are very few shades of gray. The female/female touch beliefs were more evenly distributed than male/male (Public 29%, Discretionary 26%, Private 46%), but the large private touch zone was an unexpected finding since women traditionally are believed to use more touch when interacting socially. Opposite-gender touch beliefs also differed markedly. Male student beliefs about touching females (Public 11%, Discretionary 69%, Private 20%) revealed a large discretionary touch zone (belief that the body part may be touched under certain circumstances). T omita et al. (2000) speculated that the large male/female discretionary touch zone may indicate a situation where there may be misunderstandings if, based on culture, a woman may not agree that the body parts are touchable, even in certain situations. An alternate interpretation of the touch zone findings is that men are cautious about touching women in casual relationships because their touches may be misinterpreted as sexually harassing behavior. Note that the public touch zone is very small (11%), indicating that men considered very few body parts to be public, and the discretionary touch zone is very large, indicating that two thirds of body parts are believed to be touchable only in certain circumstances and with caution. The female/male beliefs (Public 23%, Discretionary 40%, Private 37%) differed from the male/female beliefs where the touch zones were more evenly distributed. The public touch zone was more than twice the size of the male/female public touch zone.
A significant finding in this study was the residential university female beliefs about touching males and being touched by males. Female research participants believed it was acceptable to touch nearly twice the number of body parts (ratio 1.78) in the public touch zone on a male than it was acceptable for a male to touch her (Appendix C Figure 1A). In the private touch zone, nearly four times the number of body parts was off limits to males touching her than her touching males (private touch zone ratio .26). This public and private touch zone patterns were contrary to what was found with the community college sample, and from any male/female touch zones (see Appendix C). The community college female/male public touch zone was .59 and private touch zone ratio was 2.87, indicating more openness to touch in the public touch zone and more guarded touch beliefs about touching men in body parts that could be interpreted as private. The residential university female/male findings will need further study because it was the only opposite-gender finding that went counter to all other groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment