Touch as an Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Process in Couples' Daily Lives: The Mediating Role of Psychological Intimacy

Abstract

Interpersonal touch seems to promote physical health through its effects on stress-sensitive parameters. However, less is known about the psychological effects of touch. The present study investigates associations between touch and romantic partners' affective state in daily life. We hypothesized that this association is established by promoting the recipient's experience of intimacy. Both partners of 102 dating couples completed an electronic diary 4 times a day during 1 week. Multilevel analyses revealed that touch was associated with enhanced affect in the partner. This association was mediated by the partner's psychological intimacy. Touch was also associated with intimacy and positive affect in the actor. Finally, participants who were touched more often during the diary study week reported better psychological well-being 6 months later. This study provides evidence that intimate partners benefit from touch on a psychological level, conveying a sense of strengthened bonds between them that enhances affect and well-being.

Full text

http://psp.sagepub.com/
Bulletin
Personality and Social Psychology
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/07/24/0146167213497592
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0146167213497592
published online 24 July 2013Pers Soc Psychol Bull
Anik Debrot, Dominik Schoebi, Meinrad Perrez and Andrea B. Horn
Psychological Intimacy
Touch as an Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Process in Couples' Daily Lives : The Mediating Role of
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Personality and Social Psychology
can be found at:Personality and Social Psychology BulletinAdditional services and information for
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Jul 24, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin
XX(X) 1 –13
© 2013 by the Society for Personality
and Social Psychology, Inc
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0146167213497592
pspb.sagepub.com
Article
Nonverbal interaction plays an important role in human rela-
tionships, especially with respect to the communication of
emotional content (Schachner, Shaver, & Mikulincer, 2005).
Touching an interaction partner is an important way of com-
municating affection throughout the life-span (Gallace &
Spence, 2010; Hertenstein, Verkamp, Kerestes, & Holmes,
2006), especially in romantic relationships (Hanzal, Segrin,
& Dorros, 2008). Recent research suggests that touch is posi-
tively related to the health of the touch receiver, a linkage
that could be established via moderating physiological stress
response. For example, in premenopausal women, the
reported frequency of received hugs by the husband was
found to be linked to lower blood pressure and higher oxyto-
cin levels (Light, Grewen, & Amico, 2005). Moreover, Holt-
Lunstad, Birmingham, and Light (2008) have shown that a
relatively simple and brief 4-week “warm-touch” interven-
tion that involved the partners learning to display agreeable
and responsive touch to each other had a beneficial effect on
several stress-sensitive parameters (blood pressure, alpha-
amylase, and salivary oxytocin). Finally, simply holding the
hand of the romantic partner seems sufficient to attenuate the
neural stress response, reflecting stress-buffering effects of
touch (Coan, Schaefer, & Davidson, 2006).
Apart from physiological mechanisms, little is known
about how interpersonal touch might lead to positive out-
comes, particularly via socio-affective psychological pro-
cesses. The main goal of this study is to investigate the
emotion regulatory function of touch, adopting a dyadic per-
spective and using an electronic diary approach. We test the
hypothesis that the association between touch and mood, as
reported in the couple’s daily life, is mediated by increased
experience of psychological intimacy.
Partner Touch as an Interpersonal
Emotion Regulation Process
Social baseline theory (Coan, 2008, 2010) maintains that
social proximity serves the function of regulating affect.
Social proximity signals security, which, if present, reduces
497592
PSPXXX10.1177/0146167213497592Personality and Social Psychology BulletinDebrot et al.
research-article2013
1
University of Fribourg, Switzerland
2
University of Zürich, Switzerland
Corresponding Author:
Andrea B. Horn, Psychopathology and Clinical Intervention, University of
Zürich, Binzmühlestr. 14/17, Zürich CH-1850, Switzerland.
Email: a.horn@psychologie.uzh.ch
Touch as an Interpersonal Emotion
Regulation Process in Couples’ Daily
Lives: The Mediating Role of Psychological
Intimacy
Anik Debrot
1
, Dominik Schoebi
1
, Meinrad Perrez
1
,
and Andrea B. Horn
2
Abstract
Interpersonal touch seems to promote physical health through its effects on stress-sensitive parameters. However, less is
known about the psychological effects of touch. The present study investigates associations between touch and romantic
partners’ affective state in daily life. We hypothesized that this association is established by promoting the recipient’s
experience of intimacy. Both partners of 102 dating couples completed an electronic diary 4 times a day during 1 week.
Multilevel analyses revealed that touch was associated with enhanced affect in the partner. This association was mediated
by the partner’s psychological intimacy. Touch was also associated with intimacy and positive affect in the actor. Finally,
participants who were touched more often during the diary study week reported better psychological well-being 6 months
later. This study provides evidence that intimate partners benefit from touch on a psychological level, conveying a sense of
strengthened bonds between them that enhances affect and well-being.
Keywords
emotion regulation, touch, intimacy, e-diary, couples
Received June 15, 2012; revision accepted May 14, 2013
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)
the need to invest one’s own regulatory resources to ward off
threat. A similar position is adopted by Sbarra and Hazan
(2008), who proposed that in romantic relationships, positive
rewards and felt security contribute to coregulation that
involves psychological and physiological components.
In both models, romantic relationships operate as regu-
latory systems that contribute to the maintenance of posi-
tive affect and to the down-regulation of negative affect. As
a signal of proximity and connection, being touched in a
responsive way should go along with improved mood, and
some evidence supports this view. Burleson, Trevathan, and
Todd (2007) reported that women who received nonsexual
physical signs of affection from their romantic partner
experienced reduced negative affect and more positive
affect on the same day. Touching one’s partner in a positive,
caring manner can thus be considered a way to improve the
partner’s affect (Hertenstein & Campos, 2001; Niven,
Totterdell, & Holman, 2009) and thus an emotion regula-
tion strategy
1
.
Adopting this viewpoint, the current study seeks to
extend prior research by examining momentary associa-
tions between touch in romantic couples’ daily lives and
concurrent or subsequent affective states. The momentary
affective state (Gross & Thompson, 2007; Larsen &
Prizmic, 2004), reflects a broad aspect of the emotional
experience including the valence of mood and/or discrete
emotions (i.e., Frijda & Scherer, 2009). In this study, we
refer to it as the momentary valence of peoples’ emotional
tone. This can be assessed continuously and is readily
changed by social, psychological, and environmental con-
texts (Cranford et al., 2006). In this capacity, reports of
affective states are particularly well-suited for assessing
fluctuations and, thus, regulation of the affective experi-
ence in daily life. Hence, we predict that participants’ affec-
tive state improves as a function of being touched by the
partner, (Figure 1: Path 1a).
Intimacy as a Mediating Variable
In addition, we investigated the experience of intimate feel-
ings toward the partner as a putative mediator of the emotion
regulation effects of touch displayed in couples’ everyday
interactions. Touching the partner is a behavior that signals
affection, care, and concern through physical contact (i.e.,
Dainton, Stafford, & Canary, 1994). When displayed in a
benevolent way and in a meaningful situation, touch can be
considered a nonverbal form of responsiveness. Being
responsive is a critical factor in building and maintaining
trust and intimacy in romantic relationships (Lemay & Clark,
2008; Reis & Patrick, 1996). It communicates that the wel-
fare of the partner is important to oneself and conveys empa-
thy, respect, and appreciation as a response to one’s partner’s
action or disclosure (Reis, 1998). Responsiveness fosters the
experience of intimacy, that is, the extent to which one feels
understood, validated, and cared for (Debrot, Cook, Perrez,
& Horn, 2012; Reis & Patrick, 1996)
2
. Accordingly, we pro-
pose that touch, as a benevolent gesture in response to the
partner’s affective state, will foster feelings of intimacy.
The experience of intimate feelings toward the partner
involves a sense of the quality and strength of one’s bonds
with the partner, thereby strengthening mental health and
enhancing positive affect (Prager & Roberts, 2004; Reis &
Franks, 1994). Intimacy experiences conveyed by the part-
ner’s touch should therefore be a key mediator of the effects
of touch on the partner’s affective states (Figure 1: Path 1b
followed by Path 3).
In other studies (i.e., Stadler, Snyder, Horn, Shrout, &
Bolger, 2012), physical proximity between romantic part-
ners has been labeled “physical intimacy.” In this study, we
differentiate touch as a responsive behavior toward the part-
ner, from intimacy as a feeling toward the partner that is
characterized by a subjective experience. To ensure empiri-
cally that these are two different aspects of the participant’s
Own intimacy
Own affective
state
Partner
responsive touch
Direct partner
path (1a)
Indirect partner
path (1b)
Indirect path (3)
Own
responsive touch
Direct actor
path (2a)
Indirect actor
path (2b)
Figure 1. Daily mediation model.
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Debrot et al. 3
experience, we test whether (a) touch at the previous report
predicts intimacy at the consecutive report and (b) whether
intimacy at the previous report predicts consecutive touch.
Benefits of Touching the Partner
Prosocial behaviors can also be beneficial to the health and
well-being of the person performing them (i.e., the actor;
Kogan et al., 2010; Lemay & Clark, 2008; Post, 2005). Some
evidence suggests that these benefits extend to behaviors
involving touch. Field, Hernandez-Reif, Quintino,
Schanberg, and Kuhn (1998) found that elderly individuals
benefit from giving a massage to children; their anxiety,
depression, and stress hormone levels were reduced, even
more so in the condition where they received a massage.
Although based on a small sample (N = 10), these results are
consistent with attachment-related models of interpersonal
coregulation (e.g., Coan, 2010; Sbarra & Hazan, 2008),
which suggest benefits for both partners to the extent that the
responsive behavior leads to a shared perception of security.
Accordingly, touching one’s partner should also foster
one’s own experience of intimacy (Figure 1: Path 2b fol-
lowed by Path 3), and thereby improve the affective state in
the actor (Figure 1: path 2a). Moreover, we expect this asso-
ciation to be mediated by one’s own experience of intimacy
(Figure 1: Path 2b followed by Path 3).
Long-Term Consequences of
Responsive Touch
Being able to effectively regulate one’s affect has important
implications for mental and physical health (e.g., Cohen,
Alper, Doyle, Treanor, & Turner, 2006; John & Gross, 2004;
Kring & Werner, 2004), and to the extent that they contribute
to emotion regulation, interpersonal processes, such as touch
in the relationship, should be associated with better
psychological functioning longitudinally (Ryff, 1989; see
Figure 2). We therefore predicted that responsive touch, as
reported during daily life, was associated with better psycho-
logical well-being (PWB) over the course of 6 months.
In sum, the present study investigated whether a simple
touch gesture can have an emotion regulation function in
romantic couples’ daily lives and whether this association
occurs by increasing the intimacy feelings of the partners.
We examined the self-reported touch, assessed 4 times per
day over a period of 7 consecutive days using an electronic
diary procedure. A set of hypotheses is tested: We predicted
that the experience of being touched by the partner would be
associated with more positive affect states, and that this asso-
ciation would be accounted for by feelings of psychological
intimacy toward the partner. Similarly, we hypothesized that
the act of touching one’s partner would foster one’s own
experiences of intimacy, which in turn would improve one’s
affective state. Finally, we examined the longitudinal effects
of touch, testing the hypothesis that the frequency of reports
of touch during the diary week would predict the PWB of the
partners 6 months later.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited by means of e-mails, posters, and
flyers distributed in colleges and universities in Switzerland.
One hundred and two couples agreed to participate in the
study and met the inclusion criteria (being between 18 and
40 years of age, dating for at least 3 months, and being
unmarried). The average participant was in his or her mid-
twenties (M = 25.40, SD = 5.08). Couples had been dating
between 4 months and 15 years (M = 35.48 months, SD =
32.31), and less than half of them were cohabitating (43.3%).
Most participants had finished high school (89.8%) and 27%
PWB Time 1
W
PWB
6 months later
M
Mean daily
responsive touch
M
Mean daily
responsive touch
W
PWB Time 1
M
PWB
6 months later
W
Figure 2. Responsive touch as a predictor of PWB over 6 months.
PWB = psychological well-being; W = woman; M = man.
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)
had a master’s degree from a university. More than half of
the participants (54.4%) were students, while the remaining
participants were employed. Participants reported high satis-
faction with their relationships (relationship satisfaction, as
measured with a German version of the Relationship
Assessment Scale [Hendrick, Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998;
Sander & Böcker, 1993] was 23.99; SD = 1.87, minimum =
17, maximum = 29).
Both partners entered the laboratory, where they com-
pleted a computerized questionnaire package (Time 1 assess-
ment). Each couple then participated in a standardized
training for completing the electronic diary (e-diary), imple-
mented on handheld computers, and received a manual.
Participants were asked to fill in the e-diary during a week
they identified as being representative of their everyday lives
(i.e., no extraordinary events were reported). Participants
were invited to record their entries 4 times a day by means of
an acoustic signal. Reports were prompted randomly, but
simultaneously for both partners, within 30-min time win-
dows around 9:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 5:00 p.m., and 9:00 p.m.,
within a 2-hr time interval after the signal. Participants were
instructed to complete their diaries in private, and not to dis-
cuss their answers with their partner. Participants responded
at 91.4% of the scheduled reports. The mean response time
after the signal was 9:03 min. Because we focused on respon-
sive touch, we only utilized the reports where a direct contact
with the partner was reported (62.0% of the reports). At a
follow-up assessment 6 months after the e-diary assessment
week (Time 2), participants were e-mailed questionnaire
packages. A total of 182 questionnaires were completed and
returned at this time (89.22%).
Measures
Affective state. At each report, participants rated the valence
of their present affective state by responding to the question
“How do you feel at this moment?” Answers were given by
means of two bipolar 9-point scales, ranging from 1 = unwell
to 9 = well, and from 1 = discontent to 9 = content. The two
reports were averaged to obtain a variable reflecting one’s
general affective state in the particular situation. Partici-
pants’ average affective states over the e-diary week ranged
from 3.74 to 8.61 (M = 6.55, SD = .87; after centering the
data at the individual mean: M = .16, SD = 1.52, minimum =
−6.61, maximum = 4.26) and did not differ significantly
between men and women, paired t(101) = 1.08, p=.28.
Responsive touch. If participants reported that the partner was
present, the device presented a list of 16 statements reflect-
ing different ways to deal with the partner’s affective state.
Sample items included: “Since the last report, I have hugged,
caressed, or physically approached my partner as a response
to his or her affective state.”
3
The item was rated on a 5-point
scale (0 = does not apply to 4 = applies very strongly). Par-
ticipants’ average ratings over the week ranged from .29 to
4.00 (M = 2.55, SD = .88), reflecting a frequent use of respon-
sive touch toward the partner. Women scored significantly
higher than men on this item, paired t(101) = 2.81, p < .01.
Psychological intimacy. At all reports, participants answered
questions concerning how they felt toward their partner since
the last report. Intimacy was assessed by four items: [I felt]
close to, secure with, cared for, and understood. Items were
rated on 5-point scales (0 = does not apply to 4 = applies very
strongly). A confirmatory factor analysis indicated that these
items reliably assess the same construct for men and women
(Debrot et al., 2012). The four items were averaged to pro-
vide an intimacy score for each report. Mean scores over the
assessment period ranged from .80 to 4.00 (M = 3.05, SD =
.60). They did not differ significantly between men and
women, paired t(101) = .072, p = .94.
PWB. We used the average of six subscales from the PWB
Scale by Ryff (1989; see also Springer & Hauser, 2006) to
measure PWB. Each subscale was measured with 9 items.
The six scales included Self-Acceptance, Environmental
Mastery, Positive Relations with Others, Personal Growth,
Purpose in Life, and Autonomy. The measure was adminis-
tered immediately prior to the diary week (Time 1) and 6
months later (Time 2). It was reported to have high degrees
of validity and reliability (Risch, Taeger, Morina, & Stangier,
2011). Participants indicated their thoughts and feelings on
scales ranging from 1= disagree strongly to 6 = agree
strongly. The mean score overall scales was moderately high
(Time 1: M = 4.91. SD = .47; Time 2: M = 4.76. SD = .54). In
the current sample, the Cronbach’s alpha suggested high
consistency (α
Time 1
= .90; α
Time 2
= .88). We found no gender
differences at Time 1, paired t(100) = 1.025, p = .31, but
higher scores for men than for women at Time 2, paired t(85)
= 2.706, p < .01.
Data Analytic Strategy
The current data feature dependencies due to repeated mea-
surements within each participant. Due to the fact that par-
ticipants were nested within couples, this clustering led to
similarity of data stemming from the same person and from
the same couple (Laurenceau & Bolger, 2012). To adjust for
these dependencies, we used a multilevel modeling approach
for dyads. We computed a two-level adaptation of the Actor-
Partner Interdependence Mediation Model (APIMeM;
Ledermann & Bodenmann, 2006, an extension of the Actor-
Partner Interdependence Model, APIM; Cook & Kenny,
2005) with two sets of parameters per couple (one for the
female and one for the male partner; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook,
2006). Participants’ multiple daily reports (Level 1) were
considered as nested within couples (Level 2; see also
Laurenceau & Bolger, 2005). Intercepts were allowed to
vary randomly across persons and reports, and residual terms
were allowed to be correlated between partners.
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Debrot et al. 5
The present hypotheses concern associations at the
within-subject level (Level 1). Thus, to remove the effects of
individual differences at Level 2 (i.e., mean over the assess-
ment period), all predictors were centered at the person’s
mean on that variable. Moreover, we adjusted for the score of
the dependent variable from the prior report, so that the out-
come represented residualized change that occurred since the
preceding report. We estimated random variation of param-
eter estimates at Level 2 (variation across husbands and
wives), except for the autoregressive parameter (b
1
).
Equation 1 shows the Level 1 model for the effects of
responsive touch and intimacy on changes in affective state.
Affective state
ij
= b
0j
+ b
1
(previous affective state)
+ b
2j
(partner responsive touch) + b
3j
(own
responsive touch) + b
4j
(own intimacy) + e
ij
Affective state
ij
is the current self-reported valence of the
affective state of a partner from couple j at time i. The esti-
mate for b
0j
is the average of the participant’s affective state,
adjusted for all predictors in the model. The estimate for b
1
reflects the effect of the actor’s affective state at the previous
report (i.e., the autocorrelation of the affective state vari-
able). The estimate for b
2j
captures the unique effect of part-
ner responsive touch on the affective state change since the
previous report (Figure 1, path 1a). The estimate for b
3j
rep-
resents the unique effect of the own responsive touch on
one’s change in affective state (Figure 1, path 2a). The esti-
mate for b
4j
captures the effect of the own intimacy on one’s
changes in affective state (Figure 1, path 3). The parameter
for e
ij
is the Level 1 error term.
Equation 2 represents a model for the prediction of the
partner’s intimacy changes by both partners’ responsive
touch:
Intimacy
ij
= b
0j
+ b
1
(previous intimacy) + b
2j
(partner
responsive touch) + b
3j
(own responsive touch) + e
ij
Intimacy
ij
represents the intimacy toward one’s partner felt
by the male or female partner of couple j at time i. The esti-
mate for b
0j
is the average of the participant’s intimacy,
adjusted for all predictors in the model. The estimate for b
1
reflects the effect for the actor’s intimacy at the previous report
(i.e., the autocorrelation of intimacy reports). The estimate for
b
2j
captures the effect of the partner’s responsive touch on the
own intimacy change since the prior report (Figure 1, path 1b).
The estimate for b
3j
represents the effect of own responsive
touch on one’s intimacy changes (Figure 1, path 2b).
4
To test the indirect effects of a touch experience on one’s
affective state via intimacy (mediation at Level 1), we used a
procedure recommended by Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006)
for assessing lower-level mediation. This approach tests the
two equations of the indirect path simultaneously. The proce-
dure allows obtaining estimates of a possible correlation
between the individual’s parameters (touch predicting
intimacy, and intimacy predicting affective state), and to
adjust for this correlation in the tests of the mediational
paths. We implemented the proposed model using the multi-
variate extension of the MLwiN software (Rabash, Charlton,
Brown, Healy, & Cameron, 2009). The equation for the inde-
pendent variable (Equation 1) and the equation for the medi-
ator variable as the outcome (Equation 2) were computed
simultaneously. For the formal estimation of the indirect
paths, we utilized the Monte Carlo Method for Assessing
Multilevel Mediation (MCMAM; Selig & Preacher, 2009).
Commonly, heterosexual couples are seen as distinguish-
able dyads as women and men belong to clearly distinguish-
able populations (Olsen & Kenny, 2006). Moreover, means
are not equal between women and men, so that the first condi-
tion of indistinguishability is not met (Kenny et al., 2006).
Therefore, an APIM framework for distinguishable dyads
was applied. However, it is commonly recommended to use
the most parsimonious model, particularly in complex models
as the present one. As research in supportive communication
did not yield particular overall gender differences (e.g.,
Burleson & Kunkel, 2006), we tested whether assuming
equality in the actor and partner effects and the size of their
variance terms lead to models that performed equally well. A
model comparison between the original model and a model
with gender constrained suggested no significant difference,
χ
2
diff
(11) = 13.52, p = .26. This provided the empirical grounds
to retain a more parsimonious model with equal parameters
and variances for husbands and wives, whereas men and
women can still be considered to be distinguishable members
of the dyad on the gender variable (Olsen & Kenny, 2006).
We ran additional analyses to explore the temporal unfold-
ing of the effects of responsive touch and psychological inti-
macy. To this end, we ran two slightly modified models,
testing prospective change rather than concurrent change. In
the first model, responsive touch at the prior report was
tested as a predictor of intimacy. In the second model, inti-
macy at the prior report was tested as the predictor of respon-
sive touch. In both models, we adjusted for the dependent
variable at the prior report and for the predictor at the concur-
rent report.
To investigate the long-term effect of responsive touch on
PWB, we regressed partner’s PWB at Time 2 (6 months fol-
low-up) on the mean scores of responsive touch over the
e-diary period, adjusting for PWB at Time 1 (Ledermann &
Bodenmann, 2006; see Figure 2). We estimated all actor and
partner associations within a Structural Equation Modeling
approach (using AMOS, Arbuckle, 2009).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and Pearson
product moment correlations
5
between variables aggregated
across all reports for each person.
(1)
(2)
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)
To obtain estimates of the intercorrelations of variables at
within and between subjects, we examined the variance–
covariance matrices of a multivariate analysis with empty
models (including random intercepts and no further predic-
tors) for all investigated variables. The results suggested that
all variables covaried significantly between partners at both
levels. For affective state, the correlation at Level 2 was r =
.27, p < .05 and at Level 1 r = .32, p < .001; for responsive
touch, correlation at Level 2 was r = .67, p < .001 and at
Level 1 r = .24, p < .001; for intimacy, correlation at Level 2
was r = .67, p < .001 and at Level 1 r = .41, p < .001.
Daily Associations Between Touch, Intimacy, and
Affective State
Unstandardized parameters estimates, standard errors, and
variances of the investigated associations are displayed in
Table 2. The average affective state over the assessment
period of both partners, controlled for all other parameters in
the multivariate model, was b = 5.697, SE = .141, p < .001;
the corresponding average intimacy level was b = 2.38, SE =
.060, p < .001. The affective state at the previous report pre-
dicted the concurrent affective state significantly, b = .124,
SE = .018, p < .001. Intimacy at the previous report also pre-
dicted concurrent intimacy, b = .209, SE = .015, p < .001.
Turning to our main hypotheses, we first tested our predic-
tion that partner responsive touch was positively associated
with own affective state (Figure 1: path 1a). The results
showed that daily responsive touch was associated with a
concurrent increase in the partner’s affective state, thus con-
firming our first hypothesis (b = .070, SE = .023, p < .01).
Computing the effect size
6
(ES) r yielded a medium estimate
of ES r = .29. Moreover, we expected that responsive touch
would be positively associated with the touch provider’s own
affective state (Figure 1: path 2a). We found a significant and
large actor effect (b = .156, SE = .024, p < .001; ES r = .55),
lending support to our hypothesis. Gauging the size of this
effect in terms of overall affect variability, this means that
compared with situations where the partner is not touched (a
score of 0), the partner’s affective state is improved by .89
SD
7
when he or she is touched very much (a score of 4).
Next, we turned to examine the mediational paths via psy-
chological intimacy. We expected that responsive touch
should be positively associated with increases in the part-
ner’s intimacy (Figure 1: path 1b), and also with increases in
the provider’s own intimacy (Figure 1: path 2b). The results
confirmed this expectation for the partner’s intimacy (b =
.067, SE = .008, p < .001; ES r = .65), and also for the actor’s
own intimacy (b = .163, SE = .012, p < .001; ES r = .81). This
means that compared with situations where the partner is not
touched (a score of 0), the partner’s intimacy is improved by
.45 SD, and the own intimacy is improved by .1.09 SD as a
consequence of high reported touch (a score of 4). Finally,
we assumed that experienced intimacy is positively
Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation of and Intercorrelations (Pearson’s r) between Men and Women’s Average Scores Over the
Assessment Period.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Valence of mood W 6.67 0.86
2. Valence of mood M 6.56 0.91 0.22*
3. Responsive touch W 2.7 0.79 0.13 0.30**
4. Responsive touch M 2.48 0.94 0.17
†
0.47*** 0.61***
5. Intimacy W 3.05 0.60 0.49*** 0.37*** 0.37*** 0.31**
6. Intimacy M 3.05 0.61 0.26** 0.48*** 0.30** 0.41*** 0.63***
Note. N = 102 men and 102 women. The correlations between the dyad members are in bold. M = men; W = women.
†p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two tailed).
Table 2. Betas, Standard Errors, and Variances of the Multivariate Multilevel Model.
Predicting mood Predicting intimacy
Predictor β
Variance of the effect
at Level 1 β
Variance of the effect
at Level 1
Intercept 5.697 (.141)*** 0.510 (.071)*** 2.38 (.060)*** .170 (.020)***
Previous outcome 0.124 (.018)*** — 0.209 (.015)*** —
Actor responsive touch 0.156 (.024)*** 0.001 (.011) n.s. 0.163 (.012)*** .015 (.003)***
Partner responsive touch 0.070 (.023)** 0.001 (.001) n.s. 0.067 (.008)*** .003 (.008) n.s.
Actor intimacy 0.662 (.076)*** 0.295 (.076)*** — —
Note. Effects were set equal between genders. N = 102 men and 102 women. Standard errors are shown in brackets. n.s. = nonsignificant.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Debrot et al. 7
associated with increases in the own affective state (Figure
1: path 3). The results confirmed our prediction, showing a
significant positive association between intimacy and affec-
tive state in participants’ daily lives (b = .662, SE = .076, p <
.001; ES r = .67). Thus, compared with reports where one
feels little intimacy (a score of 1), one’s affective state is
improved by 2.28 SDs when one feels very strong intimacy
(a score of 4).
Prospective Associations Between Touch,
Intimacy, and Affect
To obtain estimates that allow for more valid interpretations
of the direction of pathways, we also examined moment-to-
moment lagged effects of touch on intimacy, and vice-versa
in Level 1 analyses that did not apply the APIM framework
but instead examined within-person associations.
Controlling for intimacy at the previous report (b = .562,
SE = .021, p < .001) and for concurrent responsive touch (b =
.148, SE = .011, p < .001), responsive touch at the previous
report did not significantly predict intimacy (a marginally sig-
nificant effect was negative, b = −.017, SE = .009, p = .06).
Hence, adjusting for previous intimacy and concurrent touch,
prior responsive touch is not related to changes in intimacy.
We also examined the prediction of touch by intimacy at
the previous report. Controlling for responsive touch at the
prior report (b = .442, SE = .02, p < .001) and for concurrent
intimacy (b = .565, SE = .046, p < .001), prior intimacy did
not predict prospective change in responsive touch (b = .038,
SE = .041, p = .35). Thus, when controlling for previous touch
and concurrent intimacy feelings, previous intimate feelings
were not associated with changes in responsive touch.
Furthermore, to explore possible effect of mood on touch,
a cross-lagged analysis of earlier mood predicting touch con-
trolling for concurrent associations was conducted. It
revealed that the prior affective state did not predict touch
significantly (b = .023, SE = .019, p = .11), when adjusting
for the concurrent affective state (b = .179, SE = .019, p <
.001) and previous touch (b = .419, SE = .022, p < .001).
Finally, the cross-lagged association between intimacy and
mood was investigated. Results showed that earlier intimacy
predicts affect significantly (b = .115, SE = .038, p < .01),
while controlling for concurrent intimacy (b = .638, SE =
.055, p < .001) and previous affective state (b = .299, SE =
.021, p < .001). This effect corresponds to an increase of .26
SDs in affect, if one’s intimacy increases from moderate (a
score of 2) to very strong (a score of 4). The reversed associa-
tion was not significant (previous mood predicting consecu-
tive intimacy, b = .007, SE = .007, p = .16), while controlling
for concurrent affective state (b = .114, SE = .009, p < .001)
and previous intimacy (b = .517, SE = .017, p < .001).
Taken together, the association between touch and inti-
macy may be bidirectional and rather immediate. It appeared
to emerge within a relatively narrow time window and dis-
sipated over the span of 4 hr. Furthermore, touch was not
predicted by an earlier positive affective state. The concur-
rent association, however, may well be bidirectional. Finally,
the association between intimacy and affective state seems to
support our assumption, as previous intimacy predicts later
mood, but not the reverse.
Testing Mediational Paths
The results of our main model (Figure 1) showed that all
hypothesized paths were significant. As mentioned, we esti-
mated the significance of the full mediational paths in a mul-
tivariate framework, following the procedure proposed by
Bauer and colleagues (2006).
Before beginning with the actual test of the mediational
path, to test the value of adding the mediator to the model,
we compared a fixed model without the mediator (direct
partner path 1a, b = .112, SE = .023, p < .001; direct actor
path 2a, b = .253, SE = .023, p < .001) to a fixed model with
the mediator (direct partner path 1a, b = .069, SE = .023, p <
.01; direct actor path 2a, b = .154, SE = .024, p < .001). The
models differed significantly, χ
2
diff
(10) = 1080.3, p < .001,
showing the relevant contribution of the mediator.
We first tested an indirect path between partner respon-
sive touch and own affective state via own intimacy. Because
we only constrained the variances but not the covariances to
be equal across gender, we conducted one MCMAM-analysis
(Selig & Preacher, 2008) with 20,000 repetitions for the
effect on men’s affective state and one for the effect on wom-
en’s affective state. Results revealed that the hypothesized
indirect effect (path 1b × path 3) differed significantly from
zero in both partners (men: 95% confidence interval [CI] =
[.027, .076]; women: 95% CI = [.005, .055]). This confirms
our second hypothesis, whereby the effect of partner respon-
sive touch on own affective state is mediated by own
increased intimacy feelings toward the touch-displaying
partner. Second, we tested whether intimacy mediated the
association between own responsive touch and own affective
state (path 2b × path 3). This indirect path was significant for
both partners (men: 95% CI = [.070, 1.431]; women: 95%
CI = [.074, 1.459]). Note that actor and partner direct effects
remained significant when controlling for the indirect effects,
indicating partial rather than full mediation.
Long-Term Effects of Responsive Touch
To examine whether the mean amount of responsive touch
displayed in couple’s daily lives had a long-term association
with a trait-oriented well-being measure, we conducted an
APIM structural equation model controlling for concurrent
well-being. Again, all effects were set equal across genders.
As the constrained model did not perform worse than the
unconstrained model, χ
2
diff
(6) = 8.21, and simultaneously the
means were not equal for all variables of the model (Kenny
et al., 2006), we used a model for distinguishable dyads with
effects set equal on gender to improve parsimony. The
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)
resulting model fit the data well, χ
2
(6) = 8.21, p = .22,
pclose = .37, comparative fit index (CFI) = .99. The results
of the full model are displayed in Table 3 and illustrated in
Figure 2. They revealed a significant partner effect of mean
responsive touch at Time 1 on Time 2 PWB (b = .094, SE =
.035, p < .01; standardized estimates: effect of women’s
touch = .14, effect of men’s touch = .15), while adjusting for
correlation in the two partners’ predictors and outcomes and
for PWB at Time 1. This suggests that experiencing a rela-
tively high degree of touch from one’s romantic partner (e.g.,
an average score of 3), compared with low-frequency touch
(a score of 1), is associated with increases of .40 SDs
(women) or .35 SDs (men) in long-term well-being. The cor-
responding actor effect, that is, the effect of the mean respon-
sive touch at Time 1 on own PWB 6 months later, was not
significant (b = −.053, SE = .034, p = .12), indicating that
actors did not benefit from touching their partner.
Discussion
The main aim of the study was to investigate the effects of
responsive touch on the romantic partner’s affective state as
it occurs in daily life. We used electronic diary reports of
both partners of dating couples to test the assumption that
touching one’s partner represents an interpersonal way to
improve their emotional experience, and that this regulatory
effect is established by conveying a feeling of intimacy. The
results confirmed that displaying responsive touch toward
one’s partner was positively associated with changes in
momentary affect, in the touched as well as in the touching
individual. This association was partially mediated by fluc-
tuations of intimacy felt toward the partner. Moreover,
exploring the possible long-term implications of touch in
close relationships, interindividual differences in the overall
amount of daily responsive touch were found to be predictive
of the partner’s PWB 6 months later.
Responsive Touch as Interpersonal Emotion
Regulation
The display of responsive touch toward a partner in response
to their affective state was associated with a more positive
affective valence in the touched partner. This supports the
view that responsive touch may be used as a nonverbal inter-
personal emotion regulation strategy, not only in mother–child
relationships (Hertenstein & Campos, 2001) but also in adult
romantic relationships. Few studies have investigated genuine
interpersonal emotion regulation (Butler & Gross, 2009), and
particularly few in a naturalistic setting. Touch, as a response
to the partner’s affective state, is obviously displayed and
easy to perceive (Debrot et al., 2012). It might be an efficient
way to transmit responsiveness toward the partner, which is a
key feature of interpersonal transactions that renders social
support most beneficial (Maisel & Gable, 2009). Moreover,
touch has been shown to have specific stress-reducing (Holt-
Lunstad et al., 2008) or stress-preemptive properties (Ditzen et
al., 2007), on a physiological and on a subjective level (Coan
et al., 2006). These findings are in line with the assumed posi-
tive effects of touch on the partner’s affective state as observed
in this study.
The size of the effect was moderate. However, several
aspects indicate that touch may have a substantial practical
significance for the partners’ daily affective state. First, con-
sidering that affect has the function of responding to chang-
ing demands of the environment (Robinson & Clore, 2002),
there are a multitude of influences on its daily fluctuations.
Thus, the fact that partner’s reports of responsive touch
explain positive changes in affect above and beyond the pre-
vious affective state—allowing to exclude that the effect of
touch is a mere correlate of better affective atmosphere in
the couple—self-reports of touch, the averaged couple level
of touch, and actor and partner intimacy is eloquent. Besides,
the difference in mood between situations where the indi-
vidual reports not having been touched and having been
touched a lot by the partner corresponds to about a SD dif-
ference in affect; this supports the notion that touch has a
practical emotional-regulation function. Furthermore, as
additional analyses revealed that affect at the previous ses-
sion was not associated with later touch, nothing indicates
that partners touch each other because they were previously
in a good mood. Moreover, following the APIM framework,
the partner effect of touch reflects an added effect above the
“touching culture” of a couple (i.e., the covariation of actor
and partner touch). That means that the partner effect of
touch is additionally predictive even in couples with high
rates of mutual touch. In sum, as actor and partner effects
Table 3. Responsive Touch as a Predictor of PWB Over 6 Months.
Predictor
Actor’s PWB at Time 1 Partner’s PWB at Time 1 Actor’s PWB at Time 2 Partner’s PWB at Time 2
β Stand. β β Stand. β β Stand. β β Stand. β
Mean daily
responsive touch
.075 (043)
†
W: .133/M:
.160
.022 (.043) n.s. W: .040/M: .047 −.053 (.034) n.s. W: −.094/M:
−.071
.094 (.035)
**
W: .140/M: .150
PWB at Time 1 — — .999 (.055)
***
W: .758/M: .828 .000 (.055) n.s. W: .000/M: .000
Note. Effects were set equal between genders. N = 102 men and 102 women. In brackets is the standard error. PWB = psychological well-being; Stand. = standardized; M = men;
W = women; n.s. = nonsignificant.
†p < .1. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Debrot et al. 9
are significant, one might conclude that responsive touch
shows a substantial association with fluctuations of daily
momentary affect. Via touch, we regulate our own and our
partner’s emotions, and we thereby contribute to emotional
synchrony and connection between spouses (e.g., Schoebi,
2008, Schoebi & Perrez, 2012).
Touch Brings Us Together: The Mediating Role of
Intimacy
The second main result of this study is that the positive
effect of responsive touch on the partner’s affective state
was partially but significantly mediated by increased inti-
macy experienced by the receiving partner. In other words,
when we are touched by our partner, we experience being
closer and more intimate with him or her; this in turn is asso-
ciated with a more positive affective state. Thus, a signifi-
cant part of the emotion regulative function of touch seems
to be established via the experience of intimate bonds toward
the romantic partner. It is interesting to note that the media-
tion was only partial—even if the partner does not feel any
closer, there remains a significant direct association of touch
with the affective state. Possibly, this can be explained by
the soothing and calming effect of touch as reported earlier
in studies focusing on the physiological effects (i.e., Ditzen
et al., 2007).
Additional analyses on the temporal unfolding of the
association between touch and intimacy show that only pre-
vious intimacy predicted consecutive affect and not the
reverse. This finding supports our assumptions about the
importance of feeling intimate for well-being (Reis &
Franks, 1994), confirming its value in a short time period
(about 4 hr).
The results of the mediation analyses reflect the socio-
affective pathways that seem to play an important role in
terms of health benefits of touch. In this study, responsive
touch represents a reaction to the partner’s state and is a way
to express care and affection that is easily perceived as such
by the target (Debrot et al., 2012; Lemay & Clark, 2008).
Coan and colleagues (2006) reported that the positive effects
of touching a hand while being exposed to a stressor were
stronger when it was the spouse’s hand, as compared with a
strangers’ hand. Moreover, this effect was stronger the more
satisfied the individuals were in their relationship. This find-
ing underlines the importance of the relationship quality with
the touching person beyond the mere physical process. In
fact, based on Sbarra and Hazan (2008)’s adult attachment
perspective, one could argue that the positive effect of touch
on affective state is a conditioned response of reward, related
to experiences of a secure attachment situation. This condi-
tioned association may explain the positive impact on a
moment-to-moment basis but also in the long term.
Physiological and psychological effects are closely interwo-
ven and may reinforce each other. Investigation of interac-
tions between physiological and psychological responses to
interpersonal touch will be a promising avenue to increase
our understanding of the effects of touch.
Positive Effects on the Touch Displayer
Accumulating evidence supports that doing good to others is
also beneficial for the self (Kogan et al., 2010; Lemay &
Clark, 2008; Post, 2005). This study showed that the dis-
player benefits from the responsive touch in romantic rela-
tionships, as touch also increases his or her affective state.
Moreover, we demonstrated that this effect was partially
mediated by an increase in the displayer’s intimacy toward
the touched partner. Thus, touch seems to be a way to bring
both partners together, to increase their mutual feelings of
connectedness and, in turn, to positively affect both partners’
affective state. In the context of romantic relationships—as
opposed for example to a professional setting of massage—it
is probably often not clear which partner is the touch dis-
player and which the receiver. Rather, caring touch appears
as a genuine exchange between both partners, as indicated by
the high correlation between both partner’s responsive touch
at the person’s level.
Long-Term Effects of Partner Responsive Touch
The aggregated amount of responsive touch displayed in
daily life was associated with enhanced partner’s PWB in the
long term. As the APIM framework provides a control for
interdependencies in the couple, this effect goes beyond the
mere common level of touch in couples. Individuals with
partners who reported touching them more frequently experi-
enced higher levels of well-being 6 months later. As the mean
level of PWB was high in our sample and even higher at Time
1 than at Time 2, it may be that partner touch prevents a
decrease in PWB rather than promoting increases. A small ES
for this finding supports this interpretation. This association
indicates a possible mechanism by which positive relation-
ships play a health-enhancing (or rather health-preserving)
role (Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000; Holt-
Lunstad, Smith, Layton, & Brayne, 2010). Interestingly
enough, this effect is not observable in concurrent associa-
tions between habitual responsive touch and well-being,
showing that this association seems to be delayed.
Accumulated measures of momentary affect have been
shown to be particularly meaningful for health and well-
being (Cohen et al., 2006) and even more predictive than
common retrospective measures of affect (Gunthert et al.,
2007). Further research is needed to identify mediators of
this long-term effect, on a psychological and physiological
level. Leaning on Sbarra and Hazan’s model (2008), it seems
plausible to assume that factors such as relationship quality,
perceived proximity of social resources (Coan et al., 2006),
or a positive or idealized perception of the partner (Murray,
Holmes, & Griffin, 1996) mediate the long-term benefits of
touch.
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions
The present study relied on an electronic diary method to
investigate interpersonal emotion regulation in daily life. We
can therefore assume ecological validity for the present
results (Fahrenberg, Myrtek, Pawlik, & Perrez, 2007; Reis,
2012). The sample included mostly young, well educated,
and relatively satisfied partners. These results may therefore
not generalize to the broader population, nor may they char-
acterize distressed or clinical populations well. Moreover,
the study was conducted in Switzerland; results may not gen-
eralize to other cultural contexts.
In most effects found in this study, significant variability
at the person level remained to be explained. In this regard, it
would be worth investigating whether the beneficial effects
of touch are also found in avoidantly attached individuals
who often distrust their relationship partner’s goodwill
(Schachner et al., 2005). One might expect that their reaction
to responsive touch will not be always positive and might
even be negative. A similar pattern can be expected in dis-
tressed couples, where conflict history might affect the per-
ception of the goodwill of a partner’s touching behavior
(Gottman, 1993). Relationship length or relational stage
(Emmers & Dindia, 1995; Guerrero & Andersen, 1991),
socioeconomical level, or cultural background may also
moderate the effect of touch. It is important to note that dif-
ferences in relationship satisfaction did not alter the observed
results, albeit in a rather homogeneous sample to this regard.
More research is needed to examine possible influences of
couple-related variables in this process.
A further possible limitation concerns the fact that the
study relies entirely on self-reported data. This raises the
possibility of inflated coefficients due to reporting bias
regarding the actor effects. However, we have determined
that the partner effect of responsive touch is not due to report-
ing biases, as this measure relies on reports of two different
individuals. As mentioned, another limitation is that although
responsive touch was reportedly displayed as a reaction to
the partner’s affective state, we do not know to which dis-
crete emotion (i.e., anger, joy, or sadness) the touch was
related. The conferred meaning and therefore the associa-
tions might differ according to which emotion or situation
the partners are experiencing.
Finally, the current results are correlational and do not
allow the identification of causal relationships. Rather, it is
possible that the associations found in this study are also
likely to be valid in other configurations. For example,
being in a good mood could concurrently promote more
responsive touch toward the partner, as it could also encour-
age the partner to approach responsively. However, the
cross-lagged analyses show that neither earlier positive
affective state nor intimacy predicts responsive touch.
Therefore, there is no temporal antecedence in directional-
ity that contradicts our theoretical assumptions. The asso-
ciations seem to be concurrent (except for intimacy
predicting mood), and bidirectional associations may also
be likely. The reported results reflect changes in affective
state and intimacy as they are controlled for earlier affec-
tive states and intimacy.
Conclusion
Our results complement and extend previous research on
the health benefits of a positive physical contact to a close
partner. Our study shows that in everyday life of couples,
the display of responsive touch has direct short-time effects
on the affective state not only of the touch target but also
for the touching partner. The mediational role of intimacy
suggests that the benefits of a positive partner contact are
transmitted on the socio-affective level, as mood and rela-
tionship quality are highly interwoven and both relevant for
health (Ong & Allaire, 2005). Furthermore, the amount
of accumulated received responsive touch in everyday life
appears to have a long-lasting effect, as reflected by
enhanced PWB of the target 6 months later. The route of
physical closeness leading to psychological closeness and
thereby enhancing positive affect may be an important
pathway through which the health-enhancing function of
positive relationships can be explained (Berkman et al.,
2000).
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Manuela Christen and Louella Molina for their
assistance with data collection, and to Ian Law and Karl Bühler
for the technical support. We thank Peter Wilhelm and Thomas
Ledermann for their valuable advices on the statistical analyses
and are particularly grateful to Joseph Trombello for the reading
and edits.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Anik
Debrot’s, Meinrad Perrez’s, and Andrea B. Horn’s participation in
the project and data collection was supported by the Swiss National
Science Foundation and was part of the National Center of
Competence in Research of Affective Sciences (Geneva); project
51A24-104897, M. Perrez and M. Reicherts.
Notes
1. Even if we do not assess discrete emotions per se, but rather
the valence of the momentary affective experience, as strate-
gies aiming at altering the latency, magnitude, duration, and
offset of affective dynamics on the behavioral, experiential,
and physiological domain are commonly referred to as emo-
tion regulation strategies (Gross & Thompson, 2007, p. 8),
here we use the term “emotion regulation.”
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Debrot et al. 11
2. Some authors have considered these feelings as reflecting
“perceived partner responsiveness”, that is, an earlier step in
the interactive process of intimacy (e.g., Laurenceau, Barrett,
and Rovine, 2005). However, in this study, we consider per-
ceived responsiveness and intimacy as distinct constructs,
leaning on Reis, Clark, and Holmes’ (2004) definition of per-
ceived responsiveness: “[ . . . ] a process by which individu-
als come to believe that relationship partners both attend to
and react supportively to central, core defining features of the
self. [ . . . ] This definition does not equate perceived partner
responsiveness with intimacy or closeness; rather we see this
process as one path (albeit a key one) by which people become
intimate or close” (p. 203).
3. No explicit distinction was made between sexual and non-
sexual touch. However, the example points toward nonsexual
aspects of touch.
4. Relationship duration and relationship satisfaction could
have an influence on the studied processes. They were there-
fore included in the model. Relationship duration showed no
association with the outcomes. Relationship satisfaction was
positively and significantly related to daily affective state and
daily intimacy. However, the inclusion of these variables in the
model did not affect the hypothesized effects in a significant
way, and we therefore excluded them from our models.
5. Prior centering at the person’s mean.
6. Determining effect sizes (ESs) in multilevel models is an
issue of ongoing debate. We computed ESs r (e.g., Rosenthal,
Rosnow & Rubin, 2000) based on the Wald test and the
degrees of freedom for coefficients with random variation.
These ESs should be interpreted with caution, and might
overestimate the true size of the effects.
7. To compute such ESs, we calculated the predicted units of
change in the outcome variable divided it by its standard
deviation.
References
Arbuckle, J. J. (2009). Amos 18.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Amos
Development Corporation.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing
and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation
in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations.
Psychological Methods, 11, 142-163. doi:10.1037/1082-
989X.11.2.142
Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000).
From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millen-
nium. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 843-857. doi:10.1016/
S0277-9536(00)00065-4
Burleson, B. R., & Kunkel, A. W. (2006). Revisiting the different
cultures thesis: An assessment of sex differences and similari-
ties in supportive communication. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary
(Eds.), LEA’s communication series: Sex differences and simi-
larities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 137-159). Mahwah,
N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burleson, M. H., Trevathan, W. R., & Todd, M. (2007). In the mood
for love or vice versa? Exploring the relations among sexual
activity, physical affection, affect, and stress in the daily lives
of mid-aged women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 357-368.
doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9071-1
Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2009). Emotion and emotion regu-
lation: Integrating individual and social levels of analysis.
Emotion Review, 1, 86-87. doi:10.1177/1754073908099131
Coan, J. A. (2008). Toward a neuroscience of attachment. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 241-265).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Coan, J. A. (2010). Adult attachment and the brain. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 210-217.
doi:10.1177/0265407509360900
Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending
a hand: Social regulation of the neural response to threat.
Psychological Science, 17, 1032-1039. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2006.01832.x
Cohen, S., Alper, C. M., Doyle, W. J., Treanor, J. J., & Turner, R.
B. (2006). Positive emotional style predicts resistance to ill-
ness after experimental exposure to rhinovirus or influenza A
virus. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 809-815. doi:10.1097/01.
psy.0000245867.92364.3c
Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The Actor-Partner
Interdependence Model: A model of bidirectional effects in
developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 29, 101-109. doi:10.1080/01650250444000405
Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., &
Bolger, N. (2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to
within-person change: Can mood measures in diary studies
detect change reliably? Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 32, 917-929. doi:10.1177/0146167206287721
Dainton, M., Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1994). Maintenance
strategies and physical affection as predictors of love, liking,
and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Reports, 7, 88-98.
doi:10.1080/08934219409367591
Debrot, A., Cook, W. L., Perrez, M., & Horn, A. B. (2012). Deeds
matter: Daily enacted responsiveness and intimacy in cou-
ples’ daily lives. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 617-627.
doi:10.1037/a0028666
Ditzen, B., Neumann, I. D., Bodenmann, G., von Dawans, B.,
Turner, R. A., Ehlert, U., & Heinrichs, M. (2007). Effects of
different kinds of couple interaction on cortisol and heart rate
responses to stress in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32,
565-574. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.03.011
Emmers, T. M., & Dindia, K. (1995). The effect of relational
stage and intimacy on touch: An extension of Guerrero and
Andersen. Personal Relationships, 2, 225-236. doi:10.1111/
j.1475-6811.1995.tb00088.x
Fahrenberg, J., Myrtek, M., Pawlik, K., & Perrez, M. (2007).
Ambulatory assessment—Monitoring behavior in daily life
settings: A behavioral-scientific challenge for psychology.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 206-213.
doi:10.1027/1015-5759.23.4.206
Field, T. M., Hernandez-Reif, M., Quintino, O., Schanberg, S., &
Kuhn, C. (1998). Elder retired volunteers benefit from giving
massage therapy to infants. Journal of Applied Gerontology,
17, 229-239. doi:10.1177/073346489801700210
Frijda, N. H., & Scherer, K. R. (2009). Emotion definitions (psy-
chological perspectives). In D. Sander & K. R. Scherer (Eds.),
The Oxford companion to emotion and the affective sciences
(1st ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

12 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)
Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal
touch: An overview. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,
34, 246-259. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.10.004
Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escala-
tion, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view
of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 61, 6-15. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.6
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation:
Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emo-
tion regulation (pp. 3-24). New York, NY: Guilford.
Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1991). The waxing and waning
of relational intimacy: Touch as a function of relational stage,
gender and touch avoidance. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 8, 147-165. doi:10.1177/0265407591082001
Gunthert, K. C., Conner, T. S., Armeli, S., Tennen, H., Covault,
J., & Kranzler, H. R. (2007). Serotonin transporter gene
polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) and anxiety reactivity in daily
life: A daily process approach to gene-environment interac-
tion. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 762-768. doi:10.1097/
PSY.0b013e318157ad42
Hanzal, A., Segrin, C., & Dorros, S. M. (2008). The role of marital
status and age on men’s and women’s reactions to touch from
a relational partner. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32, 21-35.
doi:10.1007/s10919-007-0039-1
Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relationship
Assessment Scale. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 15, 137-142. doi:10.1177/0265407598151009
Hertenstein, M. J., & Campos, J. J. (2001). Emotion regula-
tion via maternal touch. Infancy, 2, 549-566. doi:10.1207/
S15327078IN0204_09
Hertenstein, M., Verkamp, J., Kerestes, A., & Holmes, R. (2006).
The communicative functions of touch in humans, non-
human primates, and rats: A review and synthesis of the
empirical research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 132, 5-94. doi:10.3200/MONO.132.1.5-94
Holt-Lunstad, J., Birmingham, W. A., & Light, K. C. (2008).
Influence of a “warm touch” support enhancement intervention
among married couples on ambulatory blood pressure, oxyto-
cin, alpha amylase, and cortisol. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70,
976-985. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e318187aef7
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Layton, J. B., & Brayne, C. (2010).
Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic
review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. doi:10.1371/journal.
pmed.1000316
John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion
regulation: Personality processes, individual differences, and
life span development. Journal of Personality, 72, 1301-1334.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00298.x
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data
analysis (Methodology in the social sciences). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Kogan, A., Impett, E. A., Oveis, C., Hui, B., Gordon, A. M., &
Keltner, D. (2010). When giving feels good: The intrinsic
benefits of sacrifice in romantic relationships for the com-
munally motivated. Psychological Science, 21, 1918-1924.
doi:10.1177/0956797610388815
Kring, A. M., & Werner, K. H. (2004). Emotion regulation in psycho-
pathology. In P. Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The regulation
of emotions (pp. 359-385). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Larsen, R. J., & Prizmic, Z. (2004). Affect regulation. In R. F.
Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation:
Research, theory, and applications (pp. 40-61). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The
interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-
diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19, 314-323. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314
Laurenceau, J.-P., & Bolger, N. (2005). Using diary methods
to study marital and family processes. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19, 86-97. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.86
Laurenceau, J.-P., & Bolger, N. (2012). Analyzing diary and
intensive longitudinal data from dyads. In M. R. Mehl & T.
S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying
daily life (pp. 407-422). New York, NY: Guilford.
Ledermann, T., & Bodenmann, G. (2006). Moderator and mediator
effects in dyadic research: Two extensions of the Actor-Partner
Interdependence Model. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37,
27-40. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.37.1.27
Lemay, E. P., & Clark, M. S. (2008). How the head liberates the
heart: Projection of communal responsiveness guides relation-
ship promotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
94, 647-671. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.647
Light, K. C., Grewen, K. M., & Amico, J. A. (2005). More frequent
partner hugs and higher oxytocin levels are linked to lower blood
pressure and heart rate in premenopausal women. Biological
Psychology, 69, 5-21. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.11.002
Maisel, N. C., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The paradox of received social
support: The importance of responsiveness. Psychological
Science, 20, 928-932. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02388.x
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The ben-
efits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of
satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 79-98.
Niven, K., Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2009). A classification of
controlled interpersonal affect regulation strategies. Emotion,
9, 498-509. doi:10.1037/a0015962
Olsen, J. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling
with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11, 127-
141. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.127
Ong, A. D., & Allaire, J. C. (2005). Cardiovascular intraindividual
variability in later life: The influence of social connectedness
and positive emotions. Psychology and Aging, 20, 476-485.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.20.3.476
Post, S. G. (2005). Altruism, happiness, and health: It’s good to be
good. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 66-77.
doi:10.1207/s15327558ijbm1202_4
Prager, K. J., & Roberts, L. J. (2004). Deep intimate connection:
Self and intimacy in couple relationships. In D. J. Mashek & A.
Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 43-60).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rabash, J., Charlton, C., Brown, W. J., Healy, M., & Cameron, B.
(2009). MLwiN (Version 2.2) [Computer Software]. Center for
Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.
Reis, H. T. (1998). Gender differences in intimacy and related
behaviors: Context and processes. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia
(Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication:
Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender
in interaction (pp. 203-231). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reis, H. T. (2012). Why researchers should think “real-world”: A
conceptual rationale. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.),
Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 3-21).
New York, NY: Guilford.
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Debrot et al. 13
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived part-
ner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of
intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.),
Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201-225). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reis, H. T., & Franks, P. (1994). The role of intimacy and social
support in health outcomes: Two processes or one? Personal
Relationships, 1, 185-197. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.
tb00061.x
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy:
Component processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski
(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles
(pp. 523-563). New York, NY: Guilford.
Risch, A. K., Taeger, S., Morina, N., & Stangier, U. (2011).
Die Erfassung von eudämonischem Wohlbefinden mit dem
Fragebogen zum Psychologischen Wohlbefinden [The assess-
ment of eudemonistic well-being with the Scales of Psychological
Well-Being]. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling:
Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 934-960. doi:10.1037//0033-
2909.128.6.934
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and
effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach.
Cambridge University Press.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on
the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.57.6.1069
Sander, J., & Böcker, S. (1993). Die deutsche Form der Relationship
Assessment Scale (RAS): Eine kurze Skala zur Messung der
Zufriedenheit in einer Partnerschaft [The German version of
the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS): A short scale for
assessing satisfaction in a relationship]. Diagnostica, 1, 55-62.
Sbarra, D. A., & Hazan, C. (2008). Coregulation, dysregulation,
self-regulation: An integrative analysis and empirical agenda
for understanding adult attachment, separation, loss, and recov-
ery. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 141-167.
doi:10.1177/1088868308315702
Schachner, D. A., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Patterns
of nonverbal behavior and sensitivity in the context of attach-
ment relations. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 141-169.
doi:10.1007/s10919-005-4847-x
Schoebi, D. (2008). The coregulation of daily affect in marital
relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 595-604.
doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.595
Schoebi, D., & Perrez, M. (2012). Emotional coregulation in
marriage: Contingencies between partners’ anger and sad-
ness, as associated with symptoms of depression, marital
satisfaction and culture. Studi Interdisciplinari sulla famiglia
[Interdisciplinary family studies], 25, 243-260.
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for
assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confi-
dence intervals for indirect effects. Retrieved from http://www
.quantpsy.org/medmc/medmc.htm
Springer, K., & Hauser, R. M. (2006). An assessment of the con-
struct validity of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-Being:
Method, mode, and measurement effects. Social Science
Research, 35, 1080-1102.doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.07
.004
Stadler, G., Snyder, K. A., Horn, A. B., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N.
(2012). Close relationships and health in daily Life: A review and
empirical data on intimacy and somatic symptoms. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 74, 398-409. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e31825473b8
at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on July 25, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from