ArticlePDF Available

Who’s got the Upper Hand? Hand Holding Behaviors Among Romantic Couples and Families

Authors:

Abstract

The hand holding behavior of romantic couples and family dyads (n = 886) in public locations around Myrtle Beach, South Carolina was observed. Over 90 % of males in heterosexual romantic couples, parents in parent child pairs, and older siblings in child sibling pairs tended to place their hand on top when holding hands, displaying what we consider social dominance. Women holding hands with men in romantic relationships placed their hand under their partner’s hand, and women switched to have their hand on top when holding hands with a child. Results are discussed in relation to social dominance theory and social role theory, along with implications for equality among the sexes.
Whos got the Upper Hand? Hand Holding Behaviors
Among Romantic Couples and Families
Terry F. Pettijohn II &Shujaat F. Ahmed &
Audrey V. Dunlap &Lauren N. Dickey
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract The hand holding behavior of romantic couples and family dyads (n=886)
in public locations around Myrtle Beach, South Carolina was observed. Over 90 % of
males in heterosexual romantic couples, parents in parent child pairs, and older
siblings in child sibling pairs tended to place their hand on top when holding hands,
displaying what we consider social dominance. Women holding hands with men in
romantic relationships placed their hand under their partners hand, and women
switched to have their hand on top when holding hands with a child. Results are
discussed in relation to social dominance theory and social role theory, along with
implications for equality among the sexes.
Keywords Hand holding .Equality among sexes .Social dominance .Social roles
Nonverbal behaviors offer a wealth of information about the social dynamics within
interpersonal relationships. When people hold hands, the hand holding behavior
communicates information that partners have some type of established relationship.
We do not just hold hands with strangers, but the way in which people hold hands
could indicate additional information about the status differential and equality be-
tween the couple. In order to hold hands, one partners hand must be on top with palm
facing back while the other partners hand is underneath, with palm facing up. Being
on top or in front may indicate superiority in body positioning (Brown 1965).
Similarly, Borden and Homleid (1978) found that males generally hold hands with
their dominant hand and thereby place their romantic partners on their dominant side
Curr Psychol
DOI 10.1007/s12144-013-9175-4
Portions of this research were presented at the 22nd Annual Association for Psychological Science
Convention, Boston, MA.
T. F. Pettijohn II (*):S. F. Ahmed :A. V. Dunlap :L. N. Dickey
Department of Psychology, Coastal Carolina University, P.O. Box 261954, Conway, SC 29528-6054,
USA
e-mail: pettijohn@coastal.edu
Present Address:
S. F. Ahmed
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA
(for the majority, this is the right side). Chapell and colleagues (1998) investigated
hand holding behaviors in romantic, college-aged, heterosexual couples and found
mens hands to be the upper hand significantly more often than womens. Differences
in height, age, hand preferences, ethnicity, culture, and sex of the person initiating the
hand holding were studied in a follow-up study of over 15,000 couples by Chapell
and colleagues (1999). Although there were some interesting variations, Chapell and
colleagues (1999) conclude the male hand on top sex difference is a robust
phenomenon.
We wanted to replicate the male upper hand effect found in previous research
(Chapell et al. 1998,1999), as well as expand these investigations beyond romantic,
heterosexual couples to families. We predicted that when romantic couples hold
hands, the dominant partners hand will be on top. In our culture, despite advances,
men continue to maintain a hierarchal social advantage over women, due in part to the
way sexual stereotypes frame social relations (Ridgeway 2011). Consistent with
social dominance theory (for example, Sidanius and Pratto 1999,2012) and social
role theory (Eagly 1987,1996; Eagly and Wood 2012), men maintain dominance
over women. Within families, parents maintain dominance over children, and older
children maintain dominance over younger children.
Therefore, we predicted that: 1) Maleshands will be on top when holding the
hand of a female romantic partner; 2) Parents(malesand females) hands will be on
top when holding the hand of a child; and 3) Older childrens hands will be on top
when holding the hand of a younger child. While men are consistently considered
dominant, when women take on the social role of mother they become dominant over
their children, and their hand-holding behavior is thereby predicted to reverse.
Method
The hand holding behaviors of 886 romantic couples and family dyads (80.1 %
Caucasian, 10.2 % African American, 6.4 % Hispanic, 2.5 % Asian, and .8 % other)
were observed in public locations along the beach, public parks, and popular tourist
shopping areas around the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina area during the summer.
Approximately 14 million tourists visit the Grand Strand each year, and the majority
include families (56 %) or couples (26 %) (Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Com-
merce 2010).
Four independent observers, blind to the study hypotheses, naturally observed
each couple and family dyad in public and coded for observed sex (male or female),
race (Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American), age
category (child ages 112, teenager ages 1319, adult ages 2060, older adult ages
60 and over), height category (partner one taller, partner two taller, equal height),
whose hand was on top (partner one or partner two), and relationship type (romantic
or family). The hand on top in each handholding pair was defined as the hand that
was observed to be held in front of and on top of the other partners hand with the
palm facing back. Observers randomly selected locations at random times on random
days and independently made their observations. Observers sat on a bench or chair,
waited, and recorded observations with paper and pencil on a clipboard. Which
member of the couple initiated hand holding behavior was not recorded. Previous
Curr Psychol
research has demonstrated that males maintain the upper hand position when holding
hands with females regardless of who initiated the handholding (Chapell et al. 1999,
Study 6). The couples and family dyads were never approached or interviewed.
Results
Among heterosexual romantic couples observed (n=362), the male partners hand
was on top of the females hand while holding hands in 87.85 % of the cases,
χ
2
=207.39, p<.001, φ=.76. In romantic couples where the female was taller than
the male or both partners were of equal height (n=45), men still had the upper hand in
68.89 % of the cases, χ
2
=6.42, p<.01, φ=.38. Among adults holding hands with
children (n=469), the adults hand was on top of the childs hand while holding hands
in 97.65 % of the cases, χ
2
=426.03, p<.001, φ=.95. Female adults hands were on top
of the childs hand in 98.25 % of the cases and male adults hands were on top of the
childs hand in 97.24 % of the cases. Female adults had the upper hand when holding
hands with female (98.3 %) and male (98.1 %) children equally. Among children
holding hands with other children (n=42), the older childs hand was on top of the
younger childs hand when holding hands in 97.62 % of the cases, χ
2
=38.10, p<.001,
φ=.95. There was not enough variation in race to conduct meaningful comparisons
(the overwhelming majority of our sample was Caucasian).
Discussion
Results were consistent with previous research related to romantic partner hand holding
patterns (Chapell et al. 1998,1999), and the current predictions expanding the focus on
family relationships. These results cannot be explained by height differences or age
differences alone. While males are typically taller and older than their female partners in
heterosexual relationships, our research and past research (Chapell et al. 1999)suggests
height and age differences play a lesser role in determining hand holding positions than
sex. Furthermore, current findings reveal new details relating social dominance (for
example, Sidanius and Pratto 1999,2012) and social roles (Eagly 1987,1996)tohand
holding behavior, especially in the area of family dynamics. Women, in particular,
interestingly change their hand holding orientation between romantic partners and
children as the power differential changes. Furthermore, women keep their hands on
top of both male and female children equally. There were even specific instances in our
investigation where we saw a man holding a womans hand with the mans hand on top,
and then the same woman holding a childs hand with her other hand, with the womans
hand on top. Women adopt many different social roles in our culture (Eagly and Wood
2012), and in the current investigation, a womanshand-holdingorientationshifted
depending on whether her role was that of a romantic partner (submissive to a man) or a
parent (dominant over children).
Future research, including experimental manipulations of power differentials in
hand holding scenarios, may build on these initial observations. Other investigations
may consider hand holding behaviors among those with homosexual orientations,
cultural differences, and other special populations as representations of gradations of
Curr Psychol
social dominance and prescribed social roles. It may be especially interesting to
observe hand holding in cultures with varying degrees of inequality among sexes,
given recent findings linking sexist ideologies to inequality among sexes, within
societies (Brandt 2011). Hand holding, an outward social behavior, may offer a cue to
a more complex social hierarchy.
References
Borden, R. J., & Homleid, F. M. (1978). Handedness and lateral positioning in heterosexual couples: Are
men still strong-arming women? Sex Roles, 4,6773.
Brandt, M. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychological Science, 22, 1413
1418. doi:10.1177/0956797611420445.
Brown, R. (1965). Social psychology. New York: The Free Press.
Chapell, M., Basso, E., DeCola, A., Hossack, J., Keebler, J., Marm, J., et al. (1998). Men and women
holding hands: Whose hand is uppermost? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 127130.
Chapell, M., Beltran, W., Santanello, M., Takahashi, M., Bantom, S. R., Donovan, J., et al. (1999). Men and
women holding hands: II. Whose hand is uppermost? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 537549.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Earlbaum.
Eagly, A. H. (1996). Differences between women and men: their magnitude, practical importance, and
political meaning. American Psychologist, 51(2), 158159. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.158.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. Higgins
(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458476). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publica-
tions Ltd.
Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce (2010). Myrtle Beach area data &statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.myrtlebeachareachamber.com/research/data_and_statistics.html. Accessed 1 May 2010.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2012). Social dominance theory. In P. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E.
Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 418438). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Curr Psychol
Chapter
Non-verbal communication in close relationships can be misunderstood. Relational partners can mistake each other’s intentions. Dating partners may not be skilled at communicating their feelings non-verbally. Besides the internal dynamics within close relationships, close relationships can be influenced by lay knowledge of non-verbal communication. This may take the form of opinions of well-meaning others, relationship portrayals in television and film, and analysis by guests on talk and news programmes. However, lay opinion is not fact and is oftentimes contradicted by scientific research on non-verbal communication. This chapter will highlight several misconceptions related to non-verbal behaviours in close relationships at the onset and throughout including those related to communicating interest, sexual consent, and cultural differences. In so doing, this juxtaposition of research findings and opinion will strengthen understanding of when non-verbal behaviours are communicative and the nature of scientific research.
Article
Full-text available
This study of royal gestures and postures in the Amarna private tombs' iconography aims at characterizing and interpreting royal nonverbal communication during Akhenaten's reign. Akhenaten's imagery is a selective repertoire of movements, each of special significance in its iconographic context, as opposed to the vast range of movements in real life. Nonverbal communication theory together with the lexicosemantic information encoded in the ancient Egyptian iconic scripts may be used to analyze how the royal body communicates visually, what is communicated, and the specificity of royal communication in Amarna iconography, in order to provide insights into Atenist kingship and evaluate the tension between semiotic and representational aspects of the king's image.
Conference Paper
The ability of walking together with children is important for future autonomous robots in terms of affecting the children's mental development as walking with someone is considered as a social act. Many research studies have focused on robot' s walking together with people where participants are mainly adults. However, these research were not targeted for children, and therefore, children are ignored when considering a walking together system. In addition, some of these studies used robots that were operated by remote control as the first step. In this paper, we propose a walking together system that enables a child to assist a robot by teaching the robot the moving direction. We demonstrate the feasibility of our approach by implementing our system on the personal robot Pepper and by conducting an experiment with nine child participants. In the experiment, the robot is supposed to walk with a child by having its hand pulled for recognizing the moving direction. A child walks in two ways during the experiment: One is walking in front of it and the other is walking besides it. Three trials are used for setting the proper experimental course. Six out of the nine participants walking data, five walking video data and inquiry results from nine participants are evaluated. This study contributes to the design of an autonomous robot system for children in that we consider the design by focusing on the behaviors which have social importance for children and conduct an experiment targeted for children users.
Article
Full-text available
Social dominance theory This chapter outlines the intellectual and personal influences on the development of social dominance theory (SDT). SDT examines how societies organize themselves as group-based social hierarchies. SDT assumes that processes at different but intersecting levels of social organization, from prejudice to cultural legitimizing ideologies, produce and maintain hierarchical societal structure. The chapter examines the counteracting roles of hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing ideologies and social institutions, the intersection between gender and arbitrary set discrimination (i.e., discrimination based on socially constructed group distinctions), the distinction between authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, and emphasizes the critical role of social power (as opposed to social status), and the need to see social dominance as an integrated and dynamic social system. Stated most simply, social dominance theory (SDT) argues that intergroup oppression, discrimination, and prejudice are the means by which human societies organize themselves as group-based hierarchies, in which members of dominant ...
Article
Full-text available
Social role theory What causes sex differences and similarities in behavior? At the core of our account are societal stereotypes about gender. These stereotypes, or gender role beliefs, form as people observe male and female behavior and infer that the sexes possess corresponding dispositions. For example, in industrialized societies, women are more likely to fill caretaking roles in employment and at home. People make the correspondent inference that women are communal, caring individuals. The origins of men's and women's social roles lie primarily in humans' evolved physical sex differences, specifically men's size and strength and women's reproductive activities of gestating and nursing children, which interact with a society's circumstances and culture to make certain activities more efficiently performed by one sex or the other. People carry out gender roles as they enact specific social roles (e.g., parent, employee). Socialization facilitates these sex-typical role performances by enabling men and women to ...
Article
How does gender inequality persist in an advanced industrial society like the United States, where legal, political, institutional, and economic processes work against it? This book draws on empirical evidence from sociology, psychology, and organizational studies to argue that people's everyday use of gender as a primary cultural tool for organizing social relations with others creates processes that rewrite gender inequality into new forms of social and economic organization as these forms emerge in society. Widely shared gender stereotypes act as a "common knowledge" cultural frame that people use to initiate the process of making sense of one another in order to coordinate their interaction. Gender stereotypes change more slowly than material arrangements between men and women. As a result of this cultural lag, at sites of social innovation, people implicitly draw on trailing stereotypes of gender difference and inequality to help organize the new activities, procedures, and forms of organization that they create, in effect reinventing gender inequality for a new era. Chapters 1 through 3 explain how gender acts as a primary frame and how gender stereotypes shape interpersonal behavior and judgments in contextually varying ways. Chapters 4 and 5 show how these effects in the workplace and the home reproduce contemporary structures of gender inequality. Chapters 6 examines the cultural lag of gender stereotypes and shows how they create gender inequality at sites of innovation in work (high-tech start-ups) and intimate relations (college hook-ups). Chapter 7 develops the implications of this persistence dynamic for progress toward gender equality.
Book
Part I. From There to Here - Theoretical Background: 1. From visiousness to viciousness: theories of intergroup relations 2. Social dominance theory as a new synthesis Part II. Oppression and its Psycho-Ideological Elements: 3. The psychology of group dominance: social dominance orientation 4. Let's both agree that you're really stupid: the power of consensual ideology Part III. The Circle of Oppression - The Myriad Expressions of Institutional Discrimination: 5. You stay in your part of town and I'll stay in mine: discrimination in the housing and retail markets 6. They're just too lazy to work: discrimination in the labor market 7. They're just mentally and physically unfit: discrimination in education and health care 8. The more of 'them' in prison, the better: institutional terror, social control and the dynamics of the criminal justice system Part IV. Oppression as a Cooperative Game: 9. Social hierarchy and asymmetrical group behavior: social hierarchy and group difference in behavior 10. Sex and power: the intersecting political psychologies of patriarchy and empty-set hierarchy 11. Epilogue.
Article
Replies to comments by J. A. Archer, B. Lott, and R. F. Martell et al (see PA, Vols 26370, 26383, and 26385, respectively) regarding A. H. Eagly's (see record 1995-21141-001) discussion comparing the sexes in scientific research. Specific issues regarding the issue of magnitude of differences between men and women that were raised by the commentators are addressed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
This study examined the way in which heterosexual couples arrange themselves while walking together. In same-handed couples, significantly more females were on the males' preferred (dominant) side than expected by chance — especially when the partners were touching. Apparently, handedness and lateral positioning combine to reflect a male-dominance tendency in this type of situation. In opposite-handed couples, males and females put their dominant sides together, especially when touching. Social implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are also discussed.
Article
Theory predicts that individuals' sexism serves to exacerbate inequality in their society's gender hierarchy. Past research, however, has provided only correlational evidence to support this hypothesis. In this study, I analyzed a large longitudinal data set that included representative data from 57 societies. Multilevel modeling showed that sexism directly predicted increases in gender inequality. This study provides the first evidence that sexist ideologies can create gender inequality within societies, and this finding suggests that sexism not only legitimizes the societal status quo, but also actively enhances the severity of the gender hierarchy. Three potential mechanisms for this effect are discussed briefly.
Article
This study explored the issue of whether status and power differences are expressed in the way men and women hold hands. It was hypothesized that men's hands would be upper in heterosexual handholding couples significantly more often than women's. Also, to explore the possibility that height differences of handholding partners might affect handholding position, all handholding couples observed in this study were classified as couples with men and women of equal height or couples where either the men or women were taller. A total of 1,006 handholing couples were observed, and men's hands were significantly more likely to be the upper one in couples when men were taller than women and in couples where men and women were of equal height, suggesting that, while height does matter, it is less important for this handholding pattern than sex differences.
Article
Sex differences in the way men and women hold hands were investigated in a series of six studies. Specifically, it was hypothesized that men would have the uppermost hand in male-female couples holding hands in public significantly more often than women. Also, the American couples observed in Study 1 were classified by height, those in Study 2 by age, those in Study 3 by hand preference, those in Study 4 by ethnic group, and those in Study 6 by sex of initiator of the handholding; the handholding couples in Study 5 were Japanese adults. A combined total of 15,008 handholding couples were observed in these six studies, and across differences in height, age, hand preference, ethnicity, culture, and sex of the initiator of handholding in public, men were significantly more likely than women to have the uppermost hand.