The Power of "Nonsexual Touching" By Women

Early in my career, I did a bunch of studies on the expression of emotion in organizational life.  My colleague Anat Rafaeli and I studied employees 7/Eleven clerks, grocery store clerks in Israel, bill collectors and police interrogators (I blogged about our research on the good cop, bad cop methods here).  One of the findings that came from Anat's analysis is that both men and women respond positively from warmth and friendliness from women, but not necessarily from men. 

I also remember an old study of waitresses that showed both male and female customers give higher tips when they are lightly touched by a waitress.  My students always giggle when I talk about the power of non-sexual touching, and the finding that both men and women appear to like being touched by women -- but not necessarily men.  The root of all this, at least some researchers argue, all goes back to mothers, who early in life make most of us feel more secure -- and gain our compliance -- through physical warmth and affection.  Certainly, fathers play that role too, but across societies, women do most of the touching and holding of newborns.   And, of course, even the most affectionate father is incapable of breast-feeding! To return the research on waitresses, I just found it summarized in a 2010 article called called "The Science of Interpersonal Touch," which was published by Alberto Gallace and Charles Spence in the Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (34:246-259),  They report:

Crusco and Wetzel (1984) examined the effects of two types of touch in a restaurant setting. The waitresses in this study were instructed to briefly touch customers either on the hand, on the shoulder, or not to touch them at all as they were returning their change after they had received the bill. Crusco and Wetzel used the size of the tip given by the customer to the waitress as their independent variable. Surprisingly, the researchers found that the tipping rate of both male and female customers was significantly higher in both of the touching conditions than in the baseline no-touch condition (a phenomenon that has been labelled the ‘Midas touch’ effect; e.g., [Crusco and Wetzel, 1984], [Erceau and Guéguen, 2007] and [Stephen and Zweigenhaft, 1986]; see also Kaufman and Mahoney, 1999 D. Kaufman and J.M. Mahoney, The effect of waitresses’ touch on alcohol consumption in dyads, Journal of Social Psychology 139 (1999), pp. 261–267. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (11)Kaufman and Mahoney, 1999)

A brand new study follows in this tradition of research on the power of nonsexual touching by women.  A series of experiments by Jonathan Levav and Jennifer Argo just published in Psychological Science shows that both men and women who are lightly touched by a woman on the back are more likely to take bigger financial risk in an investment game than those not touched at all, or touched by a man.  Here is a nice summary of the study if you want to learn more. 

I always find such studies both instructive and amusing. I also think it is important to note that the new study in Psychological Science doesn't show that the touching by men has a negative effect, it just has no effect.  I find the explanation that this all goes back to the power of moms to be quite fascinating (and I cant think of a better one, perhaps you can).  As Levav and Argo suggest in the opening of their article, there is compelling research on both humans and animals that, when infants suffer from a lack of maternal physical contact early in life, they suffer physical and mental health problems for their rest of their lives.  The most famous studies were done by Harry Harlow on monkeys in 1950's-- which among other things-- found that a fake cloth mother seemed to be better for infant monkeys then one made of wire mesh or no mother at all (you can read Harlow's classic 1958 American Psychologist article here, I just re-read it and was frankly appalled and fascinated at the same time).

I wonder, what are some of the other practical implications of this research -- and does anything bother you about it?  Indeed, the implications I think of are pretty disturbing.  One implication I thought of is that casinos would make more money if all the dealers were women (this is unlawful, by the way)and they were trained to lightly touch all customers. Come to think of it, perhaps cocktail waitresses at casinos already perform this function, and keep customers sitting and gambling as they wait for their drinks, and, of course, the alcohol itself probably encourages customers to take bigger risks.  So they may be applying this principle already!

Comments

[Thomas]

It would be interesting to see if these experiments are just as appalling 50 years from now as those experiments on monkeys are to us today. "Appalled and fascinated" nicely summarizes my reaction, though, like many of us, I guess I have to struggle a bit to really feel truly appalled about the waitresses. It would be easier to feel one's indignation if these were experiments conducted on prisoners to test various thresholds for "enhanced interrogation". That feels a bit more like caged monkeys. But even leaving extreme cases, where the actual tests are cruel, on the side, we have to ask whether this interest in "what makes people tick" isn't a bit perverse.

It's a complaint I've always had about "normal psychology": if it ain't broke, why are doing all this research to try to fix it? The most likely effect is that we'll break whatever fundamental connection (maternal warmth, if that is what it is) we discover to be at work. One almost feels tempted to be religious about it: respect the mysteries!

[DC Jobs]

Bob, I think your point about the casinos already doing this is very telling.

I'd be curious to know how this came about. I can think of two possible models.

The first would be the idea that a pool hall hustler like "Minnesota Fats knows physics, without knowing physics". So just by being in the casino business the decision makers there know a lot about human behavior without necessarily having advanced psych degrees.

The second option is that either casinos or their consultants monitor psych research and conduct split testing to determine the effects such theories would have on their bottom line.

[Patrick]

I have been a casino dealer, albeit a male one. Touching of customers is explicitly forbidden, at least at any casino here in the U.S.

The concern on the part of the Casino is collusion and theft. Did that dealer just slip a chip to the customer? Is the dealer giving the customer signals?

If you've ever watched dealers, you'll notice that they 'clear' their hands before touching pretty much anything. Before a dealer scratches their nose they have to clear their hands to show the pit boss, the camera & the customer that they aren't trying to slip a chip (or card) off the table. Then the dealer clears their hand afterward to show they aren't sneaking a card (or dice or ball) onto the table.

I'm afraid that until some equivalent to RFIDs are put into every chip, card, die & roulette ball, touching is going to remain the province of cocktail waitresses.

[bill Ives]

I agree with the cultural context part. But in m own US experience. I find that men and women hug and women hug women - all of this as freindly non-sexual but men do not hug men - with a few exceptions.

[John]

I'll bet that this finding is heavily dependent on cultural context.

[olivier clerc]

well the conclusion of your article regarding casinos business is disappointing me a little bit. I would have rather mention charity raise-fundings activities.
Seriously, are casinos businesses needing such improvements to keep gamblers on their desk?

Nevertheless such observations should definitively conclude on improving the family education of fathers next to their child in order to solve and balance the parents relationship with kids.
Comparing those findings with the deficient relationship most of fathers have with their children might give a great highlight how shared love & care from both parents can make the revolution in daily relationship in the society.
Versus fathers, from very first days of birth, mothers spend far more time with their baby holding embracing and caressing them. Therefore fathers have seriously to catch up in their relationship with their children to match this physical proof of love.
Our modern society is transforming so deeply our social relationship, that the "nonsexual touching" might have definitively a serious affect on our daily behaviors, looking for what we got used to have from our mom during our childhood.
now fathers have just to wake up.

[Carol Murchie]

It could argue in favor of women being encouraged to take leadership roles in things like delicate M & A activities between entities. I'm just thinking about a situation where people might be wary and distrusting and a reassuring presence might clinch the best terms.