The Science of Happiness. Register Today
   
 

Gender and Touch

By Jason Marsh | October 18, 2010 | 1 comment

When it comes to touch, do men and women speak the same language?

Since we published Greater Good Executive Editor Dacher Keltner’s recent essay and video on the science of touch, we’ve had lots of readers write to thank us for calling attention to the profound and varied benefits of simple human contact.

Now here’s an interesting twist on the touch research: In a paper just published in the journal Sex Roles, Dacher and Matt Hertenstein, a former student of his who’s now a professor at DePauw University, have found revealing differences in the ways men and women communicate and understand different emotions via touch.

Valentin Casarsa

The study revisits an experiment Dacher describes in his Greater Good essay: Two strangers are placed in a room together, separated by a barrier. One of them sticks his or her arm through a hole in the barrier; the other tries to convey one of 12 emotions to that person only by touching his or her forearm. After each attempt, the touched person has to guess which emotion his or her partner was trying to communicate.

Originally, Dacher and Matt found that men and women were equally accurate in their ability to detect emotion through touch.

But in this study, they analyzed their data to determine whether there were any differences when it came to individual emotions.

They found significant gender differences for three emotions: compassion, anger, and happiness. And those differences seem to reinforce certain stereotypes about men and women.

Consider compassion. When both partners in the experiment were men, if one tried to convey compassion, the odds of the other recognizing that emotion were no better than if he’d just randomly guessed an emotion from the list of 12 choices. But when at least one of the partners was female, the odds of detecting compassion were much better than chance—62 percent, in fact. 

Similarly, participants communicated anger at greater-than-chance levels only when one of the partners was male (again at about 62 percent accuracy). Participants were most accurate at detecting anger when both members of the pair were male.

And happiness was communicated successfully only when both members of the pair were women.

The other emotions that participants could successfully communicate—fear, disgust, love, and gratitude—were understandable regardless of the gender pairing, whether it was a man touching a man, a man touching a woman, a woman touching a man, or a woman touching another woman.

So why might Dacher and Matt have seen such gender differences?

They speculate that successfully communicating compassion might be skewed toward women since, according to evolutionary theory, women throughout human history have taken on a disproportionate amount of the caretaking for their offspring; indeed, other research has found that women report experiencing more compassion than men do.

They were also unsurprised that men would be more skilled at communicating and detecting anger, as studies show that men consistently report experiencing and expressing more anger than women. And in other research, participants more accurately and more quickly detect male facial expressions of anger than female ones.

And research has also suggested that women would be more skilled at communicating happiness than men: Studies show that women report experiencing more happiness than men and smile more, share emotions more, and experience positive emotions more than men.


Of course, these corroborate prevalent stereotypes about the sexes. But Dacher and Matt also allow that those stereotypes might have helped to drive some of their results rather than the other way around.

They note that when they asked the people being touched in the experiment to guess whether the person touching them was a man or woman, they were usually correct: Depending on the gender of each participant, the touched person could identify the gender of the toucher anywhere between 70 and 96 percent of the time.

As a result, Dacher and Matt say it’s possible that the touched person’s knowledge of his or her parter’s gender may have affected the meaning he or she assigned to the touch. For example, he or she may have been more likely to interpret a gesture from a woman as a signal of compassion while interpreting the same gesture from a man as a different emotion.

In some subtle, perhaps subconscious way, these stereotypes may have been making the participants more likely to select the emotions typically associated with the gender of the person touching them.

Overall, though, the study does challenge some existing beliefs that women are simply more emotionally intelligent than men—i.e., better at detecting and interpreting others’ emotions. Instead, it seems that each gender has its own advantage, depending on the emotion.

Tracker Pixel for Entry
 
 
 
About The Author

Jason Marsh is the editor in chief of Greater Good.

  

Like this article?

Here's what you can do:

Donate
 
  
 

Interesting stuff about universal emotions.  If
expressed or inderstood differently between the
genders it seems to me unless we understand
human behavior & emotion in a cultural context,
we limit the value of these insights.  Am I correct
in guessing that the participants were exclusively
from the western hemisphere?  I have Asian Indian
friends.  It took knowing them more intimately
than those of my own culture in order to read their
body language & facial expressions as fluently as I
do another westerner with the exception of native
Americans.  I don’t know if touch qualifies in the
same way.  Simply put, the face of emotion is
more nuanced & subtle among those from a more
disciplined culture, in my experience.

Edith Rappaport | 9:55 am, October 19, 2010 | Link

 
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

Most...

  
  

Greater Good Events

Self-Compassion & the Cultivation of Happiness with Kristin Neff
International House, UC Berkeley campus
November 7, 2014


Self-Compassion & the Cultivation of Happiness with Kristin Neff

This day-long seminar led by self-compassion pioneer Kristin Neff, will offer strategies for cultivating self-compassion, boosting happiness, and reducing stress in yourself and others.


» ALL EVENTS
 
 

Take a Greater Good Quiz!

How compassionate are you? How generous, grateful, or forgiving? Find out!

» TAKE A QUIZ
 

Watch Greater Good Videos

Jon Kabat-Zinn

Talks by inspiring speakers like Jon Kabat-Zinn, Dacher Keltner, and Barbara Fredrickson.

Watch
 

Greater Good Resources

 
 
» MORE STUDIES
 
 
» MORE ORGS
 

Book of the Week

Whistling Vivaldi By Claude M. Steele Steele offers studies and stories that show how stereotypes can affect group members' lives in subtle but powerful ways, especially when it comes to academic performance.

» READ MORE
 
Is she flirting with you? Take the quiz and find out.

Sponsors

The Quality of Life Foundation logo Special thanks to

The Quality of Life Foundation for its support of the Greater Good Science Center

 
"It is a great good and a great gift, this Greater Good. I bow to you for your efforts to bring these uplifting and illuminating expressions of humanity, grounded in good science, to the attention of us all."  
Jon Kabat-Zinn

Best-selling author and founder of the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction program

thnx advertisement