Human Development 2002;45:70–94
Touch: Its Communicative Functions
Matthew J. Hertenstein
University of California, Berkeley, Calif., USA
Emotion communication W Emotional responses W Mother child
communication W Physical contact W Tactile communication W Tactile perception W Tactile stimulation
The communicative functions that the tactile modality serves in infancy have been severely neglected by researchers. The present article highlights the importance of touch by addressing two questions. First, what is communicated to infants by touch from their caregivers? In addition to the common notion that touch regulates arousal levels, it is argued that touch is capable of communicating valenced and discrete emotions as well as specific information. Second, how does meaning come about from the touch that adults administer to infants? This question is addressed by discussing specific qualities and parameters of touch and three mechanisms by which infants gain meaning from touch. Empirical evidence is provided and hypotheses are made regarding each of these questions. Furthermore, a preliminary model of tactile communication is presented based upon the literature on touch, as well as the conceptual framework outlined in the article. Copyright © 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
Touch has been described as the most fundamental means of contact with the world [Barnett, 1972], and the simplest and most straightforward of all sensory systems [Geldard, 1960]. Many researchers have implicated the importance of touch in several domains of the infant’s life, including social, cognitive, and physical development [e.g., Field, 1988; Greenough, 1990; Hertenstein & Campos, in press; Stack, in press]. However, one crucial, but relatively neglected, area of study involves the communicative functions of touch; researchers have focused almost exclusively on the face and the
Fax + 41 61 306 12 34
© 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
Accessible online at:
Matthew J. Hertenstein
University of California, Berkeley, 3210 Tolman Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-1650 (USA)
voice in infant communication. In the present article, I discuss the communicative functions that the tactile modality serves as it relates to how adults touch infants. Two fundamental questions are addressed. First, what is communicated to infants by touch from their caregivers? In addition to the common notion that touch regulates arousal levels and behavioral state, I argue that touch is capable of communicating valenced and discrete emotions as well as specific information. Second, how does meaning come about from the touch that adults administer to infants? This question is addressed by discussing the physical dimensions of touch, as well as by discussing three mechanisms by which meaning from touch comes about. Finally, I propose a model of caregiver-infant tactile communication and suggest future directions for research. The article is meant to be a heuristic enterprise, rather than a definitive answer to the issues and challenges presented herein.
Although the present article primarily focuses on touch that is administered by adults to infants, it is readily apparent that infants use touch to communicate to their caregivers as well. Nevertheless, I do not address the latter phenomenon as it is beyond the scope of this article.1 Furthermore, I do not discuss the infant massage literature as this has been reviewed elsewhere [for a thorough review, see Field, 1998].
Definitional and Conceptual Issues
Because the present article focuses on two phenomena – touch and communication – and their relations, it is necessary to define and conceptualize these terms. The word ‘touch’ is semantically rich. In fact, the Oxford English Dictionary has dedicated hundreds of lines to define touch [Reite, 1990]. Unlike other forms of...
References: Ainsworth, M.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the
Andersen, P.A. (1991). When one cannot not communicate: A challenge to Motley’s traditional communication postulates. Communication Studies, 42, 309–325.
Anderson, J. (1986). Sensory intervention with the preterm infant in the neonatal intensive care unit. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 40, 19–26.
Anisfeld, E., Casper, V., Nozyce, M., & Cunningham, N. (1990). Does infant carrying promote attachment? An experimental study of the effects of increased physical contact on the development of attachment. Child Development,
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589–595.
Barrett, K.C., & Campos, J.J. (1987). Perspectives on emotional development. II. A functionalist approach to emotions. In J.D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed., pp. 558–578). New York: Wiley.
Barrett, K.C., & Nelson-Goens, G.C. (1997). Emotion communication and the development of the social emotions. In
Bavelas, J.B. (1990). Behaving and communicating: A reply to Motley. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54,
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, vol. 1, Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, vol. 2, Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I., Biringen, Z., Ridgeway, D., & Maslin, C. (1989). Attachment: The parental perspective. Special Issue:
Internal representations and parent-infant relationships
Brossard, L., & Decarie, T. (1968). Comparative reinforcing effects of eight stimulations on the smiling responses of
Buck, R. (1988). The perception of facial expression: Individual regulation and social coordination. In T.R. Alley (Ed.),
Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces (pp
Bushnell, E.W., & Baxt, C. (1999). Children’s haptic and cross-modal recognition with familiar and unfamiliar objects.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1867–1881.
Bushnell, E.W., & Bourdreau, J.P. (1991). The development of hepatic perception during infancy. In M.A. Heller & W.
Campos, J.J., Barrett, K.C., Lamb, M.E., Goldsmith, H.H., & Stenberg, C. (Eds.). (1983). Socio-emotional development (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.
Campos, J.J., Mumme, D.L., Kermoian, R., & Campos, R. (1994). A functionalist perspective on the nature of emotion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 284–303.
Cannon, R.B. (1977). The development of maternal touch during early mother-infant interaction. Jogn Nursing, 6,
Clynes, M. (1977). Sentics: The touch of emotions. New York: Anchor Press.
Cohn, J.F., & Tronick, E. (1989). Specificity of infants’ response to mothers’ affective behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 242–248.
Dickson, K.L., Fogel, A., & Messinger, D. (1998). The development of emotion from a social process view. In M.F.
Dickson, K.L., Walker, H., & Fogel, A. (1977). The relationship between smile type and play type during parent-infant
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human Ethology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Ekman, P. (1999). Facial expressions. In T. Dalgleish & M.J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion
Fantz, R.L. (1961). The origin of form perception. Scientific American, 204, 66–72.
Field, T., Healy, B.T., Goldstein, S., & Guthertz, M. (1990). Behavior-state matching and synchrony in mother-infant
interactions of nondepressed versus depressed dyads
Field, T.M. (1998). Massage therapy effects. American Psychologist, 53, 1270–1281.
Fogel, A., & Lyra, M.C.D.P. (1997). Dynamics of development in relationships. In F. Masterpasqua & P.A. Perna
(Eds.), The psychological meaning of chaos: Translating theory into practice (pp
Frank, L.K. (1957). Tactile communication. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 56, 209–255.
Frijda, N.H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Geldard, F.A. (1960). Some neglected possibilities of communication. Science, 131, 1583–1588.
Gibson, E.J. (1969). Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.
Gibson, J.J. (1996). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hebb, D.O. (1946). On the nature of fear. Psychological Review, 53, 259–276.
Hinde, R.A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. Hove: Psychology Press.
Izard, C.E. (1979). The maximally discriminative facial movement coding system (Max). Newark, DE: University of
Delaware, Instructional Resources Center.
Kagan, J. (1971). Change and continuity in infancy. New York: Wiley.
Knapp, M.L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Konner, M.J. (1976). Maternal care, infant behavior and development among the !Kung. In R.B. Lee & I. DeVore
(Eds.), Kalahari hunger-gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and their neighbors (pp
Levenson, R.W. (1992). Autonomic nervous system differences among emotions, Psychological Science, 3, 23–27.
Lorenz, C. (1943). Die angeborenen Formen möglicher Erfahrung. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 5, 233–409.
Main, M. (1990). Parental aversion to infant-initiated contact is correlated with the parent’s own rejection during
childhood: The effects of experience on signals of security with respect to attachment
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of
Main, M., & Stadtman, J. (1981). Infant response to rejection of physical contact by the mother. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 20, 292–307.
Major, B. (1981). Gender patterns in touching behavior. In C. Mayo & N.M. Henley (Eds.), Gender and nonverbal
Maurer, D., & Maurer, C. (1988). The world of the newborn. New York: Basic Books.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (Colin Smith, Trans.). New York: Humanities Press.
Montagu, A. (1986). Touching: The human significance of the skin. (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document