The Association of Embracing with Daily Mood and General Life Satisfaction: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study

Sadness is reduced by virtual hugging

This study investigated the possible effect of virtual interpersonal hugging on alleviating individual sad emotion. Using emotional self-assessment and skin conductance responses, we recorded subjective and objective indicators before and after sad emotion induction, and after virtual interpersonal hugging, and assessed the role of (1) the characteristics of hugging, (2) participants' familiarity with the virtual hugging target, and (3) participants' face resemblance and perspective toward the virtual me-avatar initiating the hugging. Results showed that (1) hugging a virtual target, but not the mere action of hugging, improves the regulation of sad emotion, (2) visual information dominates haptic information in the virtual hugging process, (3) facial familiarity of virtual targets of hugging and facial resemblance of the me-avatar to participants do not affect the emotion regulation effect, and (4) first-person perspective of the virtual me-avatar influences both perceived ownership of hugging action and emotion regulation. Overall, virtual interpersonal hugging contributes to the regulation of sad emotion.

A systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis of the physical and mental health benefits of touch interventions

Receiving touch is of critical importance, as many studies have shown that touch promotes mental and physical well-being. We conducted a pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022304281) systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis encompassing 137 studies in the meta-analysis and 75 additional studies in the systematic review (n = 12,966 individuals, search via Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science until 1 October 2022) to identify critical factors moderating touch intervention efficacy. Included studies always featured a touch versus no touch control intervention with diverse health outcomes as dependent variables. Risk of bias was assessed via small study, randomization, sequencing, performance and attrition bias. Touch interventions were especially effective in regulating cortisol levels (Hedges' g = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.31) and increasing weight (0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) in newborns as well as in reducing pain (0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89), feelings of depression (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78) and state (0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84) or trait anxiety (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) for adults. Comparing touch interventions involving objects or robots resulted in similar physical (0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88 versus 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.64) but lower mental health benefits (0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.49 versus 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73). Adult clinical cohorts profited more strongly in mental health domains compared with healthy individuals (0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80 versus 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55). We found no difference in health benefits in adults when comparing touch applied by a familiar person or a health care professional (0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73 versus 0.50, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.61), but parental touch was more beneficial in newborns (0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88 versus 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.61). Small but significant small study bias and the impossibility to blind experimental conditions need to be considered. Leveraging factors that influence touch intervention efficacy will help maximize the benefits of future interventions and focus research in this field.

Determinants for positive and negative experiences of interpersonal touch: context matters

The goal of the study was to determine which aspects of interpersonal touch interactions lead to a positive or negative experience. Previous research has focused primarily on physical characteristics. We suggest that this may not be sufficient to fully capture the complexity of the experience. Specifically, we examined how fulfilment of psychological needs influences touch experiences and how this relates to physical touch characteristics and situational factors.In two mixed-method studies, participants described their most positive and most negative interpersonal touch experience within a specific time frame. They reported fulfilment of nine needs, affect, intention, and reason for positivity/negativity, as well as the body part(s) touched, location, type of touch, interaction partner, and particular touch characteristics (e.g. humidity).Positive and negative touch experiences shared similar touch types, locations, and body parts touched, but differed in intended purpose and reasons. Overall, the valence of a touch experience could be predicted from fulfilment of relatedness, the interaction partner and initiator, and physical touch characteristics. Positive affect increased with need fulfilment, and negative affect decreased.The results highlight the importance of relatedness and reciprocity for the valence of touch, and emphasise the need to incorporate psychological needs in touch research.

A Comparison of Hugging Frequency and Its Association with Momentary Mood Before and During COVID-19 Using Ecological Momentary Assessment

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a drastic decrease in human social interactions including social touch. One of the most prevalent forms of touch is hugging. Hugging has been demonstrated to benefit both physical and mental well-being. In the present study, we used an ecological momentary assessment approach to assess the relationship between hugging and momentary mood in two independent cohorts sampled prior or during the pandemic. We found that the frequency of hugging was significantly reduced during the pandemic. Using multilevel modeling, we found a significant positive association between momentary mood and daily hugs. This effect was moderated by the cohort, as individuals during the pandemic showed a stronger positive association compared to the cohort sampled prior to the pandemic. While we have to stress that our results are correlational in nature, they potentially indicate that social touch is more beneficial in times of social distancing.

Out of touch? How trauma shapes the experience of social touch - Neural and endocrine pathways

Trauma can shape the way an individual experiences the world and interacts with other people. Touch is a key component of social interactions, but surprisingly little is known about how trauma exposure influences the processing of social touch. In this review, we examine possible neurobiological pathways through which trauma can influence touch processing and lead to touch aversion and avoidance in trauma-exposed individuals. Emerging evidence indicates that trauma may affect sensory touch thresholds by modulating activity in the primary sensory cortex and posterior insula. Disturbances in multisensory integration and oxytocin reactivity combined with diminished reward-related and anxiolytic responses may induce a bias towards negative appraisal of touch contexts. Furthermore, hippocampus deactivation during social touch may reflect a dissociative state. These changes depend not only on the type and severity of the trauma but also on the features of the touch. We hypothesise that disrupted touch processing may impair social interactions and confer elevated risk for future stress-related disorders.

An investigation of simulated and real touch on feelings of loneliness

As a social species, humans deprived of contact find loneliness a potentially distressing condition. Recent research emphasises the influence of touch on alleviating loneliness. This research found that touch reduces feelings of neglect, a subscale of loneliness. Affectionate touch, which demonstrates care or affection, has been previously linked to well-being in couples. Here, we investigated whether the effect of simulated touch during a video conversation might be sufficient to influence feelings of loneliness. Sixty participants answered a survey about their home life and relationships, including items that assessed the frequency of touch and feelings of loneliness. Following this, they participated in an online video call with three conditions: audio only, audio and video, or audio, video with simulated touch (a virtual 'high-five'). Finally, immediately after the call, they repeated the loneliness questionnaire. We found that loneliness scores were reduced following the call, but there was no difference among conditions and no effect of a virtual touch. However, we did find a significant association between the frequency of touch in a relationship and the expression of loneliness, with individuals in low-touch relationships having loneliness scores more comparable to single participants than to those in high-touch relationships. Additionally, extraversion played a major role in moderating the effect of touch in relationships. These results emphasise the importance of physical contact in lowering feelings of loneliness within relationships and the ability of calls to lower feelings of loneliness, regardless of whether they include video or simulated touch.

Assessing individual differences in attitudes towards touch in treatment settings: Introducing the touch & health scale

Individuals commonly receive touch in treatment settings, but there is limited research on how they perceive it. The current project sought to address this gap by: 1) developing the Touch & Health Scale (THS) - a novel instrument to measure attitudes to touch in treatment settings 2) assessing inter-individual differences in THS scores, and 3) examining the association between individuals’ THS scores and wellbeing. Data of a large U.K. adults sample ( N > 12,000) were used. THS showed Cronbach’s α between 0.636 and 0.816 and significant correlations ( p < 0.001) with day-to-day attitudes to touch. THS scores differed as a function of extraversion and avoidant attachment style. Participants with more positive attitudes to touch in treatment settings showed greater wellbeing. Overall, the study highlights the importance of a personalised approach to touch in treatment settings and provides a new scale that may act as a screening tool for this purpose.