In the opening scene of Love, Actually, Hugh Grant’s character says how, whenever he gets gloomy with the state of the world, he thinks about the arrivals gate at Heathrow airport.
The reason is on screen: we see couples kissing, old friends embracing, children smiling and laughing as they jump into the arms of their parents.
Airports are great places to really understand the importance of physical affection – hugging, kissing, cuddling, holding hands, or even just touching.
But physical affection is ubiquitous in everyday life, too – and with good reason. Science shows that non-sexual physical affection produces more than just moments of joy – it also benefits our mental and physical health.
allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen” frameborder=”0″>
Physical affection is one of the most direct and important ways that people communicate intimacy in their romantic relationships. And it seems to occur in romantic relationships all over the world, despite cross-cultural differences in ideas of love and romance.
People in romantic relationships report more intimate physical affection than singletons. They’re also more comfortable allowing their partners to touch more of their bodies than strangers or friends. For example, most people are comfortable being touched on their thighs and abdomen by their partner, but not by other people.
Even how we touch our partners is different to how we touch other people. When participants in one study were asked to stroke their partner, a friend, a stranger, or an artificial arm, they did so more slowly with their partner. Slower strokes may may be experienced as more pleasant and erotic than quicker strokes. Even just thinking about physical affection from a partner evokes pleasant and erotic sensations.
There is now strong evidence showing that physical contact is associated with better physical and mental health. One review of “touch interventions” – think massage – in 212 studies involving more than 13,000 participants found that physical touch benefited everything from sleep patterns to blood pressure to fatigue. Touch interventions were especially helpful in reducing pain, depression and anxiety.
Couple’s therapy
Before you rush off to book yourself a massage, you should know that much of the evidence suggests the strongest benefits come from physical affection with romantic partners. Several studies have found that, in couples, physical affection is associated with a range of physiological effects, including lower blood pressure and better immune responses.
In couples, physical affection is also associated with better psychological wellbeing. One study found that couples who sleep-touched – cuddling shortly before or after sleep – felt happier and calmer in the morning, which meant they were more likely to enjoy the company of their partners.
Physical affection – including kissing and affection after sex – is also associated with greater relationship and sexual satisfaction, and better ratings of one’s relationship overall, which in turn contribute to better psychological wellbeing. And even when conflicts do occur, hugging seems to reduce levels of negative mood in couples.
Cuddle up, because there’s more. Receiving physical affection from a partner makes us feel psychologically stronger. One study found that women showed less activation in parts of the brain that respond to threat when holding their husband’s hand. Even just imagining touch from a partner can increase one’s willingness to take on challenging tasks.
Another way to look at this is to examine what happens when we lose physical affection. Studies have shown that “touch deprivation” – the absence of touch – is associated with greater symptoms of depression and anxiety. Indeed, the loss of affection from others during the pandemic hit many people hard. Among couples, a lack of physical affection is associated with lower relationship satisfaction, stress, and feelings of loneliness.
allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen” frameborder=”0″>
There are several ways in which physical affection provides these benefits. Affectionate touch is known to activate reward centres of the brain, which boosts our mood and promotes feelings of wellbeing. Touch also stimulates the release of oxytocin, which can strengthen social bonds and increase feelings of trust between individuals. It’s for these reasons that oxytocin is sometimes called the “cuddle chemical”.
Physical affection also reduces levels of the stress hormone cortisol and reduces perceived pain, which suppress physiological stress systems. One study found that a ten-minute neck-and-shoulder massage from one’s partner helped lower cortisol responses, helping to regulate levels of stress.
Psychologically, physical affection in romantic relationships is an important way to keep our emotions under control. Touching one’s partner in a caring manner helps to improve their mood and makes them feel loved, secure, and safe. As feelings of connection, trust, and belonging are strengthened through non-sexual physical signs of affection, negative effect is reduced and psychological well-being is improved.
However, not everyone likes to be touched, even if it is by their romantic partners. Some people are “touch avoidant” – and some people may actually be apprehensive about being touched.
For instance, people with avoidant attachment styles – characterised by a discomfort with emotional closeness – often have very negative views about cuddling and are more hesitant to touch their partners. Conversely, people with anxious attachment styles – characterised by a fear of abandonment – may desire more touch than they receive.
But when couples have similar touch preferences, it can lead to greater attraction, closeness, and commitment to one another. And if you’re looking for a fun way to incorporate non-sexual physical affection into your relationships, consider home massage. One study found that couples who took turns massaging each other at home felt a deeper connection with each other, and felt more relaxed and less stressed.
Viren Swami, Professor of Social Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
