Affective touch refers to gentle, slow, and pleasant touch, typically involving stroking of the skin at velocities between 1-10 cm/s.
This type of touch activates specific unmyelinated nerve fibers called C-tactile afferents, which are thought to play a role in social bonding and emotional regulation.
Affective touch is distinct from discriminative touch, which primarily conveys sensory information about the physical properties of stimuli.
An example of affective touch is a gentle, slow caress or stroke, often performed by a close friend, family member, or romantic partner. Some specific examples include:
- A mother gently stroking her baby’s back to soothe and comfort them.
- A couple cuddling on the couch, with one partner gently running their fingers along the other’s arm.
- Close friends greeting each other with a warm, gentle hug.
- A massage therapist using slow, light pressure strokes during a relaxation massage.
- A parent slowly running their fingers through their child’s hair to help them fall asleep.
Silvestri, V., Giraud, M., Macchi Cassia, V., & Nava, E. (2024). Touch me or touch me not: Emotion regulation by affective touch in human adults. Emotion, 24(4), 913–922. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001320
Key Points
- Affective touch (AT), involving slow, gentle stroking of the skin, can promote bonding, mitigate stress, and regulate emotions in humans across the lifespan.
- AT reduced the arousal and perceived unpleasantness of emotional stimuli compared to tapping (T), revealing its soothing role in emotional contexts.
- Higher sensory processing sensitivity predicted lower perceived pleasantness of AT, although this did not influence AT’s buffering effect on emotional arousal. Empathy showed no association with AT perception.
- The study provides evidence for the “stress-buffer hypothesis” of AT, showing it mitigates self-reported and physiological emotional arousal in adults.
Rationale
Previous research has shown that affective touch (AT) plays a role in social bonding and emotion regulation from infancy through adulthood (Croy et al., 2022; Crucianelli & Filippetti, 2020).
AT has been found to alleviate pain, stress, and emotional distress (Saarinen et al., 2021; Di Lernia et al., 2020).
However, most studies have focused on AT’s role in early development, with less known about its emotion regulation effects in adults (Schienle et al., 2022; Schirmer & Gunter, 2017).
Additionally, studies often used brush stroking rather than skin-to-skin contact, which may not evoke the same responses as interpersonal touch (Kress et al., 2011; Lo et al., 2021).
This study aimed to test the “stress-buffer hypothesis” of AT by examining its impact on adults’ behavioral and physiological responses to emotionally arousing images, compared to non-affective tapping (T).
It also explored individual differences in AT perception related to empathy and sensory processing sensitivity traits.
Combining explicit and implicit measures, this research sought to provide a more comprehensive account of AT’s role in emotion regulation in adults under more ecologically valid conditions.
Method
The study used a within-subjects design with female adult participants.
Behavioral (unpleasantness ratings) and physiological (skin conductance response; SCR) measures were collected during the presentation of emotional and neutral images, accompanied by AT, T, or no touch.
Individual differences in empathy and sensory processing sensitivity were assessed via questionnaires.
Procedure
Participants viewed a series of emotionally arousing and neutral images in three touch conditions (AT, T, no touch), rating the unpleasantness of each image. SCR was recorded throughout.
Baseline SCR to AT and T alone was measured prior to the main task. Participants rated the pleasantness of each touch type and completed empathy and sensitivity questionnaires.
Sample
68 right-handed female participants aged 19-35 years (M=23.5, SD=3.10) were recruited from the University of Milano-Bicocca student community.
Measures
- Unpleasantness ratings of stimulus images on a 0-3 scale
- Skin conductance response (SCR) as a measure of physiological arousal
- Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) to assess empathy
- Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) scale to measure sensory processing sensitivity
Statistical measures
Non-parametric tests (Wilcoxon, Friedman) were used to compare ratings and SCR between conditions. Linear regression tested associations of AT pleasantness with empathy and sensitivity.
The significance level was set at p<.05.
Results
- AT was rated as more pleasant than T at baseline (p < .001).
- AT reduced unpleasantness ratings (p=.006) and SCR (p = .006) to emotional images compared to T.
- Higher sensitivity predicted lower AT pleasantness ratings (p = .007), but empathy showed no association.
- AT pleasantness and sensitivity did not predict its impact on emotional arousal.
Insight
This study provides novel evidence that receiving affective touch from another person can help buffer adults’ negative emotional reactions to disturbing stimuli, both in their conscious experience and automatic physiological arousal.
Sensory processing sensitivity seems to make certain people find affective touch less pleasant in general, but does not negate its emotion-regulating effects.
The results extend previous work by demonstrating AT’s soothing role in a broader range of emotional contexts beyond social exclusion/pain specifically. Using real human touch rather than a brush also increases ecological validity.
However, testing only females limits generalizability. Future research could include males and examine other individual difference variables.
Interactive effects of AT with other emotion regulation strategies could also be explored.
Strengths
- Within-subjects design
- Inclusion of both explicit (ratings) and implicit (SCR) measures
- Measurement of baseline touch responses prior to emotion manipulation
- Use of skin-to-skin human touch for ecological validity
- Examination of individual difference variables
- Sufficient sample size determined by a priori power analysis
Limitations
- The female-only sample limits generalizability to males.
- More individual difference variables could have been examined as potential moderators.
- The specific images used may not represent the full range of emotional contexts in which AT could be soothing.
- SCR is a general arousal measure that cannot differentiate positive vs negative emotion.
Clinical Implications
The finding that affective touch from another person can dampen negative emotional reactivity has implications for clinical practice and everyday social interactions.
AT could potentially be used as an adjunct to other therapies for emotion dysregulation disorders. The results also highlight the power of social touch to provide comfort during emotional challenges.
However, individual differences in touch preferences, such as those related to sensory sensitivity, need to be considered. Awareness of these differences can help optimize the benefits of AT in various contexts.
References
Primary reference
Silvestri, V., Giraud, M., Macchi Cassia, V., & Nava, E. (2024). Touch me or touch me not: Emotion regulation by affective touch in human adults. Emotion, 24(4), 913–922. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001320
Other references
Croy, I., Fairhurst, M. T., & McGlone, F. (2022). The role of C-tactile nerve fibres in human social development. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 43, 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.06.010
Crucianelli, L., & Filippetti, M. L. (2020). Developmental perspectives on interpersonal affective touch. Topoi, 39(3), 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9565-1
Di Lernia, D., Lacerenza, M., Ainley, V., & Riva, G. (2020). Altered interoceptive perception and the effects of interoceptive analgesia in musculoskeletal, primary, and neuropathic chronic pain conditions. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 10(4), Article 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm10040201
Kress, I. U., Minati, L., Ferraro, S., & Critchley, H. D. (2011). Direct skin-to-skin vs. indirect touch modulates neural responses to stroking vs. tapping. Neuroreport, 22(13), 646–651. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e328349d166
Lo, C., Chu, S. T., Penney, T. B., & Schirmer, A. (2021). 3D hand-motion tracking and bottom-up classification sheds light on the physical properties of gentle stroking. Neuroscience, 464, 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.09.037
Saarinen, A., Harjunen, V., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Jääskeläinen, I. P., & Ravaja, N. (2021). Social touch experience in different contexts: A review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 131, 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.09.027
Schienle, A., Scheucher, J., & Zorjan, S. (2022). Affective touch during the processing of angry facial expressions: An event-related potential study. Biological Psychology, 175, Article 108433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2022.108433
Schirmer, A., & Gunter, T. C. (2017). The right touch: Stroking of CT-innervated skin promotes vocal emotion processing. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17(6), 1129–1140. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-017-0537-5
Keep Learning
- What are some everyday examples of how affective touch from others helps regulate our emotions? What factors influence whether we find touch soothing vs aversive?
- The study found sensory processing sensitivity predicted lower perceived pleasantness of affective touch. How might touch avoidance tendencies develop and impact a person’s social functioning? What strategies could help make interpersonal touch more comfortable for sensitive individuals?
- If you were to conduct a follow-up study on affective touch and emotion, what research question would you focus on and why? What methodological changes or additions would you make?
- Consider the clinical applications of these findings. For what types of mental health difficulties might receiving more affective touch be therapeutic? What ethical considerations arise when incorporating touch into therapy?
