Assessing individual differences in the need for interpersonal touch and need for touch by Irakli Kavtaradze

M. Nuszbaum SocialP et al.:sychology Need©for 2013 2014; Interperson Hogrefe Vol. 45(1):31–40 Publishing al Touch

Original Article

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Assessing Individual Differences in the Need for Interpersonal Touch and Need for Touch Mandy Nuszbaum, Andreas Voss, and Karl Christoph Klauer Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg, Germany

Abstract. The present study investigates individual differences in the automatic use of haptic information from interpersonal touch. We present a questionnaire assessing individual differences in the need for interpersonal touch (NFIPT), which was validated within an unrelated product-evaluation task. Before entering the laboratory, participants were briefly touched on the shoulder or received no touch. Assessing confidence and frustration within the following product-evaluation task, we examined moderating effects of NFIPT and additionally effects of need for touch (NFT). Results showed that higher NFIPT participants were more confident when they were briefly touched. Effects on frustration were only found for NFT. Results show that frustration was greater for individuals with higher NFT, when they could not touch the product during the evaluation task. Keywords: need for interpersonal touch, need for touch, individual differences, haptic information

Even if touch underlies most daily activities and is used as common as the other sensory modalities in everyday life, research on touch is much less developed than research on vision (Klatzky & Lederman, 2003). Given that the sense of touch is one of the first to develop in the womb (Montagu, 1986) and the most developed sensory modality at birth (Hertenstein, Keltner, App, Bulleit, & Jaskolka, 2006), the importance of the sense of touch becomes evident. Touch is also of high importance in early childhood development (Jones & Yarbrough, 1985; Reite, 1990; Rose, 1990). Touch can be considered the earliest form of communication in social interaction (see Gallace & Spence, 2010; Reite, 1990) and thus plays a crucial role in intellectual, emotional, and social growth (Field, 2002; Fisher, Rytting, & Heslin, 1976). In addition, touch is connected to well-being (Field, 2002; Gallace & Spence, 2010; Reite, 1990; Rose, 1990). Touch as a form of communication is influenced by cultural background (e.g., Field, 2002), age (see Gallace & Spence, 2010), gender (e.g., Crusco & Wetzel, 1984; Fisher et al., 1976; Guéguen, 2002a; Guéguen & Jacob, 2005; Hornik, 1992b; Hornik & Ellis, 1988; Williams & Willis, 1978) as well as situational context (e.g., Burgoon, Walther, & Baesler, 1992; Hornik, 1992a, 1992b). Furthermore, touch relates to individual differences, the focus of the present paper. Before we look in more detail at individual differences in interpersonal contact, we first review the literature on interpersonal touch and then turn to different approaches explaining these effects. © 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

Review of the Interpersonal Touch Literature In the last three decades, the consequences of interpersonal touch have been demonstrated in multiple settings. For example, Fisher et al. (1976) arranged an incidental touch situation in a library with the library clerk, which they then compared to a no-touch condition. Dependent measures were an evaluation of affective state, an evaluation of the library clerk, and the library environment. These were measured with a postexperimental questionnaire given to both groups. Fisher et al. found a main effect of touch, indicating a more positive response of participants in the touch condition vs. those in the no-touch condition. Another question investigated by several researchers is how interpersonal touch effects tipping rates (e.g., Crusco & Wetzel, 1984; Guéguen & Jacob, 2005; Hornik, 1992b; Lynn, Le, & Sherwyn, 1998; Stephen & Zweigenhaft, 1986). Tipping rates were significantly higher when waitresses touched the customer on the hand, shoulder (Crusco & Wetzel, 1984; Lynn et al., 1998; Stephen & Zweigenhaft, 1986), or arm (Guéguen & Jacob, 2005; Hornik, 1992b) compared to no physical contact. In these studies gender effects were also assessed, leading to various results: Whereas Crusco and Wetzel (1984) found higher tipping rates for male customers, Hornik (1992b) found higher tipping rates for female customers, especially when the server was highly attractive. Further evidence affirming positive effects of interpersonal touch were found for ratings of persons as touching source Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):31–40 DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000157

M. Nuszbaum et al.: Need for Interpersonal Touch

and/or ratings of ambience (e.g., Erceau & Guéguen, 2007; Fisher et al., 1976; Hornik, 1992a, 1992b), interview requests (e.g., Guéguen, 2002b; Hornik, 1987; Hornik & Ellis, 1988; Willis & Hamm, 1980), a romantic request (e.g., Guéguen, 2007), marketing requests and/or shopping behavior (e.g., Guéguen & Jacob, 2005; Hornik, 1992a, 1992b; Smith, Gier, & Willis, 1982), other special requests (e.g., restaurant context: Guéguen, Jacob, & Boulbry, 2007; cigarette request: Joule & Guéguen, 2007), encouragement of human behavior and health behavior (e.g., Whitcher & Fisher, 1979), and helping behavior (e.g., Guéguen, 2002a; Guéguen & FischerLokou, 2003a, 2003b; Kleinke, 1977; Patterson, Powell, & Lenihan, 1986). However, compliance in helping behavior depends on the size of request. For example, interpersonal touching had no influence on the highly demanding request of blood donation (Guéguen et al., 2011). Furthermore, Fisher et al. (1976), Guéguen (2002b), and Joule and Guéguen (2007) reported that compliance was higher for participants who were unaware of touch compared to those participants who had noticed the tactile contact.

Approaches Explaining the Effects of Interpersonal Touch How can the manifold results of these studies be explained? Several researchers claim that reactions to touch are formed during childhood (e.g., Field, 2002; Jones & Yarbrough, 1985). Touching behavior of parents leads to stress reduction in early childhood and forms positive associations with touch (Reite, 1990). Furthermore, touch could tell us about the external world, by means of passive and active touch (Rose, 1990). Touch as a nonverbal signal is thought to be less controllable than words and is commonly perceived to be a more genuine form of communication and able to increase compliance. Which mechanisms underlie the relationship between touch and recipients’ response, however, is not yet entirely understood (see Gallace & Spence, 2010; Hornik, 1992b). Likewise, pleasantness of touch and positive effects on interpersonal behavior might be related to skin receptors that code for pleasant touch (e.g., erogenous zones) and lead to positive responses (see Gallace & Spence, 2010). This in turn comes with linkages to specific areas of the brain, representing pleasant touch. Pleasant touch is represented by different areas of the human brain than pain and is clearly dissociable (Francis et al., 1999; Rolls et al., 2003). And these neural systems are related to the functioning of the neural systems responsible for our memory in tactile sensation (Gallace & Spence, 2010). Accordingly, in line with the mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968), preference is higher for stimuli already presented compared to new stimuli, and lead to higher compliance (Gallace & Spence, 2010). 1

Approach of Individual Differences in the Need for Interpersonal Touch Even if there are several explanations for the consequences of interpersonal touch (Francis et al., 1999; Gallace & Spence, 2009, 2010; Hornik, 1992b; Reite, 1990; Rolls et al., 2003; Rose, 1990), there has as yet been no assessment of the role of individual differences in interpersonal touch. Individual differences in the need for haptic information (outside the interpersonal context) and automatic effects on behavior1 were explored several times by Peck and colleagues as well as other researchers (e.g., Peck & Childers, 2003a, 2003b; Peck & Childers, 2006; Peck & Wiggins, 2006; see also Citrin, Stem, Spangenberg, & Clark, 2003; Nuszbaum, Voss, Klauer, & Betsch, 2010). The present paper focuses on individual differences in touching behavior according to Peck and Childers (2003a, 2003b). Here, we aim to extend the results of Peck and Childers with respect to interpersonal touch by introducing a questionnaire assessing individual differences in the need for interpersonal touch (NFIPT). Like the need for touch (NFT) construct, established by Peck and Childers (2003a, 2003b), NFIPT is thought to be grounded in implicit motives. Peck and Childers postulated that these implicit motives develop in early childhood through prelingual affective experiences. The implicit motives animate children to explore their environment and to use touch in interaction with other persons. We suppose that insights learned from recurring experience with interpersonal touch information are later used for both an improvement of communication and for giving or receiving social support. By recurrently using haptic information, the processing becomes more and more automatic. The automaticity of extraction of haptic information and integration in decision-making processes was illustrated in different studies (e.g., Nuszbaum et al., 2010; Peck & Childers, 2006; Peck & Wiggins, 2006). For example, a study of Nuszbaum et al. (2010) explored the automatic influence of autotelic NFT on judgment and decision making. For this purpose, participants had to touch an unstained (pleasant) or stained (unpleasant) cotton bag prior to choosing a gamble alternative. Results showed that individuals with higher NFT more often chose gambling alternatives accompanied by a positive feeling of touch, while decision of lower NFT individuals were not influenced by the feeling of touch. Thus, research from Nuszbaum et al. showed that the motivation to use haptic information can impact decisions, even when haptic information is not relevant. Applied to individual differences in the NFIPT, we hypothesized that interpersonal touch information might automatically affect ongoing behavior that is not directly related to the preceding interpersonal touch. To infer differences in the use of haptic information within the

In the present study, the term automatic refers to an autonomous processing of information due to learning from recurring experience, which once started runs to completion with no need for conscious guiding and which is triggered here by haptic information (see Moors & De Houwer, 2006).

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):31–40

M. Nuszbaum et al.: Need for Interpersonal Touch

present study, we lean on confidence and frustration in judgment, which was the way Peck and Childers (2003a, 2003b) showed differences in the NFT. Higher NFIPT individuals are expected to be more sensitive to interpersonal touch information than lower NFIPT individuals and are thus more likely to integrate the feeling from interpersonal touch when they are forced to make a decision, even if the haptic information is not relevant to the task. In contrast, we hypothesized that persons lower in NFIPT do not rely on haptic information and thus expected that lower NFIPT individuals were not guided by feelings of touch. For individuals lower in NFIPT, assessment of confidence and frustration during a product-evaluation task should not depend on touch experience and should be unrelated to touch experience (see Peck & Childers, 2003a, 2003b with regard to NFT).

Overview The aim of the present study was to uncover individual differences in the use of haptic information originating from interpersonal touch. For this purpose, a pool of 27 items was generated from different psychologists. Out of this item pool, the authors of the present paper selected 20 items with high face validity. The validity of the NFIPT questionnaire was assessed by scorings on a confidence questionnaire and a frustration questionnaire within a product-evaluation task. Members of one group of participants were softly touched on the shoulder by the investigator before entering the laboratory, members of a second group were not touched. In the following product-evaluation task participants had to evaluate a computer mouse, which could not be touched. Individuals with higher NFIPT are expected to be more confident and less frustrated if they are touched by the investigator prior to the task than if they are not touched. No differences are expected for lower NFIPT individuals (see Nuszbaum et al., 2010; Peck & Childers, 2003a). Because NFIPT was proposed to relate to NFT, we assumed that confidence and frustration are moderated by NFIPT and NFT. As NFT more strongly relates to an active exploration of haptic information, while NFIPT relates to the touching behavior of strangers, we assumed that NFT is not necessarily influenced by the touch experience of the investigator, but rather by the fact that participants were restrained from exploring the product through touch. Previous results showed that individuals higher in NFT felt more confident when they were able to integrate haptic information in the process of product evaluation (Nuszbaum et al., 2010; Peck & Childers, 2003a, 2003b). Thus, for higher NFT individuals, confidence should be lower and frustration higher than for lower NFT individuals because participants were not able touch the product and explore the haptic product properties.

Method Participants A sample of 80 participants took part in the study. They were predominantly students of the University of Freiburg. The data of 2 participants were discarded because of missing data, so that analyses based on the data of 78 participants (63 female; age M = 22.00, SD = 4.21). Participants were compensated with 3.50 EUR or credit for their research participation requirement.

Design The design of the study comprised three between-subject factors. The first factor was Interpersonal touch (touch interaction vs. no-touch interaction). The second factor was NFIPT (higher vs. lower NFIPT), assessed using 20 items (see Materials for details). As a third factor, we integrated NFT (higher vs. lower NFT) into the design, which was measured with the German version of the 12-item NFT scale (Nuszbaum et al., 2010).

Materials Product The stimulus for the product-evaluation task was a computer mouse with relevant haptic properties (i.e., ergonomic attributes). The computer mouse was selected from Schifferstein’s (2006) object list, according to which the haptic sense was of major importance for a computer mouse. The same computer mouse was also used in the study by Nuszbaum et al. (2010), which explored the importance of the possibility to use haptic information for higher NFT individuals and lower NFT individuals. A short written description was used to inform the participants of relevant characteristics of the computer mouse. The information was gathered from the official website of the respective manufacturer.

Plexiglas Boxes We used plexiglas boxes (approximately 20 × 40 × 20 cm) to inhibit the touch (see Nuszbaum et al., 2010; Peck & Childers, 2003a, 2003b). The computer mouse was placed inside the plexiglas box so that it was completely visible but could not be touched.

NFIPT Scale For the identification of an individual preference for haptic information relating to interpersonal touch, different psy-

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):31–40

M. Nuszbaum et al.: Need for Interpersonal Touch

Table 1. Items of the Need for Interpersonal Touch Questionnaire with means, standard deviations, and corrected item-scale correlations (r) Item

(SD)

1. Berührungen können in bestimmten Si- 2.21 (0.95) .301 tuationen aussagekräftiger als Sprache sein. (In some situations, touch can be more meaningful than language.) 2. Zu einer Gratulation zum Geburtstag gehört eine Umarmung einfach dazu. (Birthday congratulations just have to include a hug.)

1.04 (1.61) .309

3. Zwischenmenschliche Berührungen stärken das Vertrauen. (Interpersonal touches strengthen trust.)

1.79 (1.11) .439

4. Ich nutze den körperlichen Kontakt –0.64 (1.50) .508 häufig im Gespräch mit gegengeschlechtlichen Gesprächspartnern. (I frequently use physical contact in conversations with members of the opposite sex.) 0.51 (1.65) .553 5. Im Gespräch kommt es schon einmal vor, dass ich meinen Gesprächspartner z. B. am Arm berühre. (During a conversation it may well happen that I touch the arm of my conversational partner.) 6. Ich finde es wichtig, dass man sich mit –0.34 einem Händedruck verabschiedet. (It is important to me to shake hands when saying goodbye.) 7. Generell meide ich den körperlichen Kontakt zu anderen Menschen.* (In general, I avoid having physical contact with other people.*)

(1.70) .295

1.61 (1.45) .445

8. Ich finde es schade, dass heute so viel –0.07 (1.53) .334 übers Internet kommuniziert wird, da mir hierbei der körperliche Kontakt fehlt. (It is a pity that people depend so much on the internet for communication, because it allows no physical contact.) 9. Eine Umarmung zur Begrüßung ist für –0.69 (1.58) .434 mich ganz selbstverständlich, auch wenn ich die Person nicht so gut kenne. (For me, greeting someone with a hug is normal, even if I do not know the person that well.) 10. Wenn mir jemand zur Begrüßung die Hand gibt, fällt es mir leichter, diesen Menschen einzuschätzen. (Shaking hands helps me to appraise the personality of a foreign person.)

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):31–40

0.24 (1.57) .365

Item

(SD)

11. In einer Diskussion unter Freunden kommt es vor, dass ich mein Gegenüber berühre, um eine Aussage zu unterstreichen. (During a discussion among friends it happens that I touch my opponent to emphasize a statement.)

0.05 (1.72) .473

12. Ich habe kein Problem damit, wenn mich jemand leicht am Arm berührt, um meine Aufmerksamkeit zu gewinnen. (I don’t mind if someone touches me on my arm to get my attention.)

1.42 (1.57) .337

13. Berührungen bei einer Unterhaltung unter Freunden sind eine wichtige Kommunikationsform. (In conversations with friends, touches are an important form of communication.)

0.98 (1.44) .659

14. Umarmungen zur Begrüßung sind mir unangenehm.* (Hugs as greetings make me uncomfortable.*)

1.97 (1.28) .453

15. Körperkontakt ist wichtig, wenn man einen Freund/eine Freundin trösten will. (Physical contact is important when you want to console a friend.)

2.22 (0.95) .277

16. Ich nutze den körperlichen Kontakt häufig im Gespräch mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Gesprächspartnern. (I frequently use physical contact in conversation with members of the same sex.)

–0.16 (1.44) .584

17. Durch körperlichen Kontakt kann ich meinem Gegenüber meine Zuneigung vermitteln. (By physical contact I can convey my affection for someone.)

1.48 (1.18) .430

18. Wenn mich mein Gesprächspartner während eines Gesprächs leicht berührt, stört mich das nicht. (If my conversational partner softly touches me during a conversation, that doesn’t bother me).

1.46 (1.45) .550

19. Bei Kommunikationen über das Inter- –0.21 (1.68) .326 net oder Handy fehlt mir die körperliche Nähe. (When communication via the internet or cell phone I miss physical closeness.) 20. Ich mag es nicht, wenn mich fremde Personen im Gespräch berühren.* (I don’t like when strangers touch me in a conversation.*)

–0.91 (1.56) .093

Notes. Translations are presented in parentheses. Answers were scored on a 7-point scale and ranged from –3 (= not at all true) to +3 (= exactly true). *Values of these items were reversed before all analyses. © 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

M. Nuszbaum et al.: Need for Interpersonal Touch

chologists generated a set of new items, which were pretested in a student sample. Originally 27 items were generated, which after pretesting were reduced to a 20-item scale (α = .78).2 Seven items were excluded from the scale because of low face validity and with regard to content. The remaining 20 items are presented in Table 1.

NFT Scale The individual preference for haptic information was assessed using the translated German version of Peck and Childers’ (2003a) NFT scale. This 12-item NFT scale measures the two dimensions autotelic NFT (6 items, α = .93) and instrumental NFT (6 items, α = .89). The correlation between autotelic and instrumental NFT was r = .66, p < .001. Similar to NFIPT, NFT assess individual differences in the use of haptic information. Whereas NFIPT measures individual differences in the NFIPT, NFT explores the need for seeking haptic information. Both scales are expected to overlap.

NFCC and NTE Scale To assess discriminant validity, we included two additional measures: first, a German version of the Need for Cognitive Closure (NFCC) scale (Collani, 2007b; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), which consists of two subscales (total 25 items, α = .84), denoted as personal need for structure and predictability (PNSP; 18 items, α = .86) and decisiveness (7 items, α = .86). The second scale used to evaluate discriminant validity was the Need to Evaluate (NTE) scale (Collani, 2007a). The reliability of this one-dimensional3 16-item NTE scale was α = .79. NFCC and NTE both tap into motives related to information acquisition (Collani, 2007a, 2007b; Peck & Childers, 2003a), which is also the case for NFIPT. In contrast to NFIPT, NFCC represents the need to get a clear and definite answer through information processing and judgment in a social context (Collani, 2007b). NTE represents a need to evaluate attitude objects (Collani, 2007a). Thus, both measures are clearly different from NFIPT, which relates to the acquisition of haptic information from interpersonal touch. Therefore, we expected low correlations of NFIPT with NFCC and NTE.

Measures of Confidence and Frustration Following Peck and Childers (2003a, 2003b), we assessed confidence in judgments with two items (“How confident are you in your product evaluation?” and “How certain do 2 3

you feel regarding your product evaluation?”). Frustration while evaluating was assessed with one item (“How frustrated did you feel during the product evaluation?”). Items were measured on 7-point rating scales (7 = not at all to 1 = very). Additionally, we assessed product evaluations with 8 items (e.g., “The product appeals to me,” “From my perspective, the product is very wieldy,” “I would buy this product”) using 7-point rating scales (7 = not at all true to 1 = exactly true). The reliability for the product-evaluation scale was α = .90.

Procedure Participants agreed to participate in two ostensibly unrelated studies. For the first study, they filled out the NFIPT, NFCC, NFT, and NTE scales. Thereafter, participants worked on a short version of Raven’s Progressive Matrices test (Raven, Raven, & Court, 2003), which was used as a filler task and lasted 2 min. Then participants were told that the first study was finished, and they were brought to another room for a product-evaluation study. In the touch condition the investigator touched the participant softly on the shoulder before entering the room. In the no-touch condition participants were not touched. The situation was standardized for both conditions, so that the participants always entered the room first. The product-evaluation task was guided by instructions on the computer screen. The product was arranged on a nearby table, inside a clear plexiglas box, so that the product could not be touched. Participants could explore the product visually as long as they desired. However, at least 30 s had to pass before the evaluation procedure on the computer could be started. For this procedure, the eight evaluation items, the two confidence items, and the frustration item were presented on the computer screen, and ratings were entered using the number keys.

Results Moderator Regression Analysis The effect of individual differences in interpersonal touch on confidence and frustration during product evaluation was analyzed with separate moderator analyses. For these analyses, the z-standardized values of NFIPT, NFT, and for interpersonal touch (0 = no-touch interaction; 1 = touch interaction) and two interaction terms (NFIPT × Interpersonal touch, and NFT × Interpersonal touch) were computed. These values were entered as predictors in stepwise multiple regression analyses (see Baron & Kenny, 1986,

Ninety-seven subjects participated in the pretest. The results displayed for NFIPT include data from the pretest. Because we were not able to replicate the factor structure postulated by Collani (2007a), we stuck to the one-dimensional structure originally assumed by Jarvis and Petty (1996).

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):31–40

M. Nuszbaum et al.: Need for Interpersonal Touch

Figure 1. Confidence in product evaluation as a function of need for interpersonal touch (NFIPT) and touch interaction. Lower and higher NFIPT correspond to values ±1 standard deviation above the mean NFIPT. Error bars show ±1 standard error.

Figure 2. Frustration while evaluating a product as a function of need for touch (NFT) and touch interaction (Study 1). Lower and higher NFT correspond to values to ±1 standard deviation above the mean NFT. Error bars show ±1 standard error.

for an introduction to moderator analyses). Multivariate outliers indicated by standardized residuals > 2.5 were removed from further analyses. This criterion led to the exclusion of 2 participants for the confidence analysis and 2 different participants for the frustration analysis. For the first moderator analysis, we used mean confidence in judgment as the dependent variable. The regression model accounted for a significant amount of variance in the ratings, F(2, 75) = 6.89, p = .002, R² = .16. The beta weights of the included predictors showed a significant influence of interpersonal touch (β = .22, p = .047) and a significant influence of the product term NFIPT × interpersonal touch (β = .34, p = .002). The other dependent variables did not account for significant amounts of variance in the model (NFIPT β = –.08, ns; NFT β = –.08, ns; NFT × interpersonal touch β = .03, ns). Thus, the interpersonal touch interacted with NFIPT in determining confidence ratings as shown in Figure 1. The positive beta weights indicate that confidence in judgment increased with the experience of a soft touch on the participant’s shoulder, and that the effect of this experience was stronger for higher NFIPT participants. In a second analysis, we examined the effect of the predictors on frustration. Again, the regression model accounted for a significant amount of variance, F(1, 74) = 8.55, p = .005, R² = .10. Unlike the first analysis, frustration was predicted only by NFT (β = .32, p = .005), while the other variables did not reach significance (interpersonal touch β = –.01, ns; NFT × interpersonal touch β = –.01, ns; NFIPT β = .18, ns; NFIPT × interpersonal touch β = .002, ns). Thus, frustration while evaluating was stronger for higher NFT participants (see Nuszbaum et al., 2010; Peck

& Childers, 2003a, 2003b) because participants were not allowed to touch the computer mouse (see Figure 2). Additionally, we computed a moderator regression analysis for product evaluation of the computer mouse. As predictors we entered the z-transformed values of NFIPT, NFT, interpersonal touch, and the interaction terms NFIPT × Interpersonal touch and NFT × Interpersonal touch. With F(1, 74) = 10.24, p = .002, R² = .12 a significant amount variance was predicted by the variable interpersonal touch β = .35, p = .002, indicating that the product was rated higher, when participants were softly touched. The other variables did not contribute significantly to the model (NFT β = –.07, ns; NFT × interpersonal touch β = –.10, ns; NFIPT β = –.09, ns; NFIPT × interpersonal touch β = .11, ns).

Convergent Validity Correlations of NFIPT and NFT supported convergent validity (r = .34; p < .001; see Table 2), while at the same time underscoring the distinction in terms of differences in the source of haptic information.

Discriminant Validity Discriminant validity was tested by comparing the NFIPT scale with the NFCC and NTE scales. Correlations were overall low (r ≤ .13; ns; see Table 2). Thus, the scales have different contents, and the constructs are clearly separable.4

The stricter Fornell-Larcker ratio (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) also confirmed discriminant validity, with every Fornell-Larcker ratio not exceeding the critical value of 1. Because the data base for CFA was low (N = 78), the results of this test are only exploratory and limited and should be investigated within a larger sample.

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):31–40

M. Nuszbaum et al.: Need for Interpersonal Touch

Table 2. Correlations of Need for Interpersonal Touch (NFIPT) with Need for Touch (NFT), Need for Cognitive Closure (NFCC), and Need to Evaluate (NTE) NFIPT NFTautotelic

.248*

NFTinstrumental

.392**

NFT

.342**

NFCCPNSP NFCCdecisiveness This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

NFCC

–.059 .129 –.050

NTE .076 Notes. PNSP = personal need for structure and predictability. *p < .05; **p < .01.

Discussion The present study assessed individual differences in the NFIPT. We therefore introduced and validated a 20-item NFIPT scale. NFIPT is regarded as tapping the automatic use of haptic information originating from interpersonal touch. Results of moderator analyses confirmed the construct validity of NFIPT scale. As expected, a moderation effect of NFIPT and interpersonal touch on confidence in product evaluation was found. In line with Peck and Childers’ (2003a, 2003b) results, frustration during product evaluation was mainly influenced by NFT. Independent of NFIPT and interpersonal touch, higher NFT individuals, who could not touch the object, were more frustrated during the evaluation process. Results of a third moderator analysis using product evaluation as dependent variable suggest that evaluation depends on interpersonal touch. Participants who were briefly touched on the shoulder gave more positive evaluations than participants who were not touched by the investigator. One might argue that the investigator could not be kept in the dark about the experimental manipulation, and that the investigator might have sent subtle signals to the participant, leading to compliance (Gallace & Spence, 2010). On the one hand, our results revealed that confidence was higher only for those participants who were touched and scored high on the NFIPT scale and not for the lower NFIPT participants with a touch interaction. In addition, we used a standardized procedure to ensure that results could not be attributed to social behavior, voice, and/or facial expression of the confederates. On the other hand, we cannot completely exclude the possibility that the results were somewhat affected by the experimenters’ behavior, facial expression, voice, tonality, perfume, or body odor despite efforts at standardization. It is generally difficult to study the influence of interpersonal touch on participants’ behavior in complete isolation, and “. . . it should be noted that most of the studies that have investigated interpersonal touch are not immune from possible important confounds” (Gallace & Spence, 2010, p. 250). Lewis, Derlega, Shan© 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

kar, Cochard, and Finkel (1997) assessed nonverbal behavior other than touch, which was assumed to be confounded with touch. As expected, Lewis et al. found that participants in the touch condition perceived higher social report compared to participants in the no-touch condition. Besides, more nervous gestures were used in addition to touch compared to a no-touch condition. Nonetheless, they also showed that the differences between touch and no-touch interaction were robust findings supported by a supplementary covariance analysis that controlled for nonverbal behavior other than touch. An approach to overcoming difficulties of confounds within studies of interpersonal touch was introduced by Haans, IJsselsteijn, Graus, and Salminen (2008), who examined virtual, computer-mediated interactions. Contrary to their predictions, Haans et al. failed to replicate the effect of the Midas touch, showing that people do not respond in the same manner to virtual touch as they do to real touch. Hence, further research should focus more on possible confounds and obtain insights into people’s regular behavior in research of interpersonal touch by manipulating experimental situations. Our results furthermore confirmed the relationship of NFT and NFIPT by testing the convergent validity. Correlation analyses suggest that instrumental NFT might be slightly more associated with the NFIPT. However, it remains an object of future studies with larger samples to investigate whether this is a reliable finding. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing correlations of the German versions of the NFIPT, NFCC, and NTE scales (Collani, 2007a, 2007b). The results support the idea that the NFIPT scale is distinct from other motives related to cognitive and evaluative styles. However, further research is needed to examine the psychometric quality of the NFIPT scale in larger samples. Nevertheless, the present study does highlight the importance of interpersonal touch information and shows that incidental touches can influence confidence on unrelated tasks for higher NFIPT individuals and affect overall product evaluations. The results of the present study go beyond prior research, showing that there are individual differences in the sensitivity to interpersonal touch with an impact on ongoing judgments. These results are also important in the case of consumer psychology, showing that interpersonal touch is not able to prevent frustration when the product cannot be touched. A brief touch might increase product evaluation and thus possibly leads to higher sales rates (e.g., Hornik, 1992a). Furthermore, interpersonal touch might also increase length of stay in retail environments, which is attributed to higher confidence as a consequence of interpersonal touch (see Hornik, 1992a). Both issues could be integrated in further research. The power of interpersonal touch affected by background, culture, age and gender has been shown in many different ways over the last decades (Gallace & Spence, 2010; Remland & Jones, 1988). Recently published research by Hertenstein and Keltner (2011), for example, Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):31–40

M. Nuszbaum et al.: Need for Interpersonal Touch

showed that males and females differ in their communication of distinct emotions via touch. Communication of anger, for instance, was more likely when at least one of the communication partners was a male, whereas accurate decoding and encoding of happiness was found only in female dyads. The present study does not focus on gender differences because we initially attempted to find common effects of interpersonal touch before getting deeper insights. Thus, the sex of the confederate and participant was not a factor in our design. Reflecting a naturalistic setting, interaction partners could be of both sexes (although the large majority of participants was female). In light of the already existing research on gender differences in interpersonal touch (e.g., Crusco & Wetzel, 1984; Hertenstein & Keltner, 2011; Hornik, 1992b), examination of the interaction of individual differences in the NFIPT with sex as well as other aspects like cultural differences might be very interesting for further research. Furthermore, NFIPT might provide important insights into the clinical context. For example, NFIPT could be useful in the assessment of social anxiety (Wilhelm, Kochar, Roth, & Gross, 2001). In this regard, it might be interesting for ongoing research to explore positively and negatively valenced interpersonal touch and connections to NFIPT (see Gallace & Space, 2010). Another important aspect would be to obtain deeper insights into the neuronal and physiological mechanisms underlying interpersonal touch as well as individual differences in the NFIPT (see Francis et al., 1999; Lindgren et al., 2012). Taken together, we believe that the present paper provides useful tools and a number of suggestions for further research on individual differences in the NFIPT, a line of research that is still in its infancy.

Acknowledgment The research reported in this paper was supported by grant Kl 614/31-1 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to Karl Christoph Klauer.

References Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Burgoon, J. K., Walther, J. B., & Baesler, E. J. (1992). Interpretations, evaluations, and consequences of interpersonal touch. Human Communication Research, 19, 237–263. doi 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00301.x Citrin, A. V., Stem, D. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Clark, M. J. (2003). Consumer need for tactile input. An internet retailing challenge. Journal of Business Research, 56, 915–922. doi 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00278-8 Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):31–40

Collani, G. (2007a). Eine deutsche Skala zum Bedürfnis nach Bewertung (Need to Evaluate) [A German scale to the Need to Evaluate). In A. Glöckner-Rist (Ed.), ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente (Acceptance of documentation: ZIS 7.00, 2003). ZIS Version 11.00. Bonn: GESIS. Collani, G. (2007b). Eine deutsche Skala zum Konstrukt “Bedürfnis nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit (NFCC)/Persönliches Strukturbedürfnis (PNS)” [A German scale of the construct “Need for Cognitive Closure/Personal Need for Structure”]. In A. Glöckner-Rist (Ed.), ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente (Acceptance of documentation: ZIS 7.00, 2003). ZIS Version 11.00. Bonn: GESIS. Crusco, A. H., & Wetzel, C. G. (1984). The Midas touch: The effects of interpersonal touch on restaurant tipping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 512–517. doi 10.1177/ 0146167284104003 Erceau, D., & Guéguen, N. (2007). Tactile contact and evaluation of the toucher. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 441–444. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. doi 10.2307/3151312 Field, T. (2002). Infants’ need for touch. Human Development, 45, 100–103. doi 10.1159/000048156 Fisher, J. D., Rytting, M., & Heslin, R. (1976). Hands touching hands: Affective and evaluative effects of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry, 39, 416–421. doi 10.2307/3033506 Francis, S., Rolls, E. T., Bowtell, R., McGlone, F., O’Doherty, J., Browning, A., . . . Smith, E. (1999). The representation of pleasant touch in the brain and its relationship with taste and olfactory areas. NeuroReport, 10, 453–459. doi 10.1097/00001756-199902250-00003 Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2009). The cognitive and neural correlates of tactile memory. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 380–406. doi 10.1037/a0015325 Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 246–259. doi 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.10.004 Guéguen, N. (2002a). Kinds of touch, gender, and compliance with a request. Studia Psychologica, 44, 167–172. Guéguen, N. (2002b). Touch, awareness of touch, and compliance with a request. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 355–360. doi 10.2466/pms.2002.95.2.355 Guéguen, N. (2007). Courtship compliance: The effect of touch on women’s behavior. Social Influence, 2, 81–97. doi 10.1080/ 15534510701316177 Guéguen, N., Afifi, F., Brault, S., Charles-Sire, V., Leforestier, P.-M., Morzedec, A., & Piron, E. (2011). Failure of tactile contact to increase request compliance: The case of blood donation behavior. Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 8, 2–8. Guéguen, N., & Fischer-Lokou, J. (2003a). Another evaluation of touch and helping behavior. Psychological Reports, 92, 62–64. Guéguen, N., & Fischer-Lokou, J. (2003b). Tactile contact and spontaneous help: An evaluation in a natural setting. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 785–787. doi 10.1080/ 00224540309600431 Guéguen, N., & Jacob, C. (2005). The effect of touch on tipping: © 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

M. Nuszbaum et al.: Need for Interpersonal Touch

An evaluation in a French bar. Hospitality Management, 24, 295–299. doi 10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.06.004 Guéguen, N., Jacob, C., & Boulbry, G. (2007). The effect of touch on compliance with a restaurant’s employee suggestion. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 1019–1023. doi 10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.12.004 Haans, A., IJsselsteijn, W. A., Graus, M. P., & Salminen, J. A. (2008). The virtual Midas touch: Helping behavior after a mediated social touch. In Extended abstracts of CHI 2008 (pp. 3507–3512). New York: ACM Press. doi 10.1145/ 1358628.1358882 Hertenstein, M. J., & Keltner, D. (2011). Gender and the communication of emotion via touch. Sex Roles, 64, 70–80. doi 10.1007/s11199-010-9842-y Hertenstein, M. J., Keltner, D., App, B., Bulleit, B. A., & Jaskolka, A. R. (2006). Touch communicates distinct emotions. Emotion, 6, 528–533. doi 10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.528 Hornik, J. (1987). The effect of touch and gaze upon compliance and interest of interviewees. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 681–683. Hornik, J. (1992a). Effects of physical contact on customers’ shopping time and behavior. Marketing Letters, 3, 49–55. doi 10.1007/BF00994080 Hornik, J. (1992b). Tactile stimulation and consumer response. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 449–458. doi 10.1086/ 209314 Hornik, J., & Ellis, S. (1988). Strategies to secure compliance for mall intercept interview. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 539–551. doi 10.1086/269129 Jarvis, W. B. G., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 172–194. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.172 Jones, S. E., & Yarbrough, A. E. (1985). A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch. Communication Monographs. Communication Monographs, 52, 19–56. doi 10.1080/03637758509376094 Joule, R.-V., & Guéguen, N. (2007). Touch, compliance, and awareness of tactile contact. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 581–588. doi 10.2466/pms.104.2.581-588 Klatzky, R. J., & Lederman, S. J. (2003). Touch. In A. F. Healy & R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 147–176). New York: Wiley. Kleinke, C. L. (1977). Compliance to requests made by gazing and touching experimenters in field settings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 218–223. doi 10.1016/00221031(77)90044-0 Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Shankar, A., Cochard, E., & Finkel, L. (1997). Nonverbal correlates of confederates’ touch: Confounds in touch research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 821–830. Lindgren, L., Westling, G., Brulin, C., Lehtipalo, S., Andersson, M., & Nyberg, L. (2012). Pleasant human touch is represented in pregenual anterior cingulate cortex. NeuroImage, 59, 3427–3432. doi 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.013 Lynn, M., Le, J.-M., & Sherwyn, D. (1998). Reach out and touch your customers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39, 60–65. doi 10.1177/001088049803900312 Montagu, A. (1986). Touching: The human significance of the skin (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 297–326. doi 10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297 © 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

Nuszbaum, M., Voss, A., Klauer, C. K., & Betsch, T. (2010). Assessing individual differences in the use of haptic information using a German translation of the Need for Touch Scale. Social Psychology, 41, 263–274. Patterson, M. L., Powell, J. L., & Lenihan, M. G. (1986). Touch compliance and interpersonal affect. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10, 41–50. doi 10.1007/BF00987204 Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003a). Individual differences in haptic information processing: The “Need for Touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 430–442. Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003b). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67, 35–48. Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2006). If I touch it I have to have it: Individual and environmental influences on impulse purchasing. Journal of Business Research, 59, 765–769. doi 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.014 Peck, J., & Wiggins, J. (2006). It just feels good: Customers’ affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing, 70, 56–69. doi 10.1509/jmkg.70.4.56 Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2003). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 1: General overview. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. Reite, M. (1990). Touch, attachment, and health: Is there a relationship? In K. E. Barnard & T. B. Brazelton (Eds.), Touch: The foundation of experience (pp. 195–228). Madison, WI: International Universities Press. Remland, M. S., & Jones, T. S. (1988). Cultural and sex differences in touch avoidance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 544–546. doi 10.2466/pms.1988.67.2.544 Rolls, E. T., O’Doherty, J., Kringelbach, M. L., Francis, S., Bowtell, R., & McGlone, F. (2003). Representations of pleasant and painful touch in the human orbitofrontal and cingulate cortices. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 308–317. doi 10.1093/cercor/13.3.308 Rose, S. A. (1990). The sense of touch. In K. E. Barnard & T. B. Brazelton (Eds.), Touch: The foundation of experience (pp. 299–324). Madison, WI: International Universities Press. Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2006). The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product usage: A study of self-reports. Acta Psychologica, 121, 41–64. doi 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.06.004 Smith, D. E., Gier, J. A., & Willis, F. N. (1982). Interpersonal touch and compliance with a marketing request. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 35–38. doi 10.1207/ s15324834basp0301_3 Stephen, R., & Zweigenhaft, R. L. (1986). The effect on tipping of a waitress touching male and female customers. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 141–142. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062. doi 10.1037/00223514.67.6.1049 Whitcher, S. J., & Fisher, J. D. (1979). Multidimensional reaction to therapeutic touch in a hospital setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 87–96. doi 10.1037/00223514.37.1.87 Wilhelm, F. H., Kochar, A. S., Roth, W. T., & Gross, J. J. (2001). Social anxiety and response to touch: Incongruence between self-evaluative and physiological reactions. Biological Psychology, 58, 181–202. doi 10.1016/S0301-0511(01)00113-2 Williams, S. J., & Willis, F. N. (1978). Interpersonal touch among preschool children at play. Psychological Record, 28, 501–508. Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):31–40

M. Nuszbaum et al.: Need for Interpersonal Touch

Willis, F. N., & Hamm, H. K. (1980). The use of interpersonal touch in securing compliance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 49–55. doi 10.1007/BF00987054 Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27. doi 10.1037/ h0025848

Mandy Nuszbaum Consumer Experiences, GfK SE Nordwestring 101 90089 Nuremberg Germany E-mail mandy.nuszbaum@gfk.com

Received May 8, 2012 Final revision received November 27, 2012 Accepted February 1, 2013 Published online April 22, 2013

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):31–40