Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
COMPREHENSIVE
PSYCHOLOGY
2012, Volume 1, Article 13
ISSN 2165-2228
Ammons Scientic
www.AmmonsScientic.com
DOI 10.2466/02.17.21.CP.1.13
© Jan A. Åström 2012
Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivs CC-BY-NC-ND
Received August 23, 2011
Accepted July 23, 2012
Published August 31, 2012
CITATION
Forsell, L. M., & Åström, J. A.
(2012) Meanings of hugging:
from greeting behavior to
touching implications. Com-
prehensive Psychology, 1, 13.
Meanings of hugging: from greeting
behavior to touching implications
Lena M. Forsell
Stockholm, Sweden
Jan A. Åström
Linköping, Sweden
Abstract
The aim and focus of this article is to present some circumstances under which
hugging occurs, as well as to describe its development from a focus on greeting
behavior to therapeutic eects, reected in emotional, physiological, and bio-
chemical alterations. The sensation of a hug for a single person also can be evoked
with electrical brain stimulation. The purpose of this article is to clarify under-
standing of the circumstances under which this type of behavior presents itself
in Western culture. Based on published literature as well as personal observation,
the article points to the fact that hugging is not only a part of greeting behavior,
but also has its place as a display of empathy and/or gratitude. The importance of
hugging from childhood to adulthood is discussed and claried. The psychologi-
cal and physiological ramications of this behavior are discussed.
The word “hug” is originally derived from the Saxon and Teutonic words “hog” or “ha-
gen,” which means “to be tender of, to embrace” (Kluge & Götze, 1930). These words
have inuenced Ancient Norse “höggva, haggvan” and also the modern Swedish word
“hugga,” which among other things means “ta fatt, infånga” or “to catch or seize.”
“Embrace” has a Latin origin with the Latin prex em meaning “here you are” and brace,
from the word ”braccia,” which in the combination “bracchia collo circumdare” means
”put one’s arms around.” More specically, a ”Salutation Display demonstrates that we
wish someone well, or at the very least, that we wish them no harm. It transmits sig-
nals of friendliness or the absence of hostility” (Morris, 1977, p. 77). A salutation dis-
play may consist of behaviors such as handshaking, hugging, embracing, and kissing.
Hugging often occurs when people part or when having received a gift (Morris, 1977),
although sometimes a hug may represent a symbolic gesture, like that between states-
men. In some situations, it may represent an ideological position like that of “tree hug-
gers” demonstrating their ideological beliefs by literally hugging and, thereby protect-
ing, trees.
In the Western world, introductory greeting behavior often starts with handshaking
and continues with presenting the name of the promoter of the greeting (Åström, 1993).
Greeting behavior varies from a nod to a colleague or acquaintances to a closer saluta-
tion consisting of a handshake with a hug (dened as enclosing and pressing each oth-
er’s bodies and sometimes kissing), most often reserved for intimate friends and loved
ones. These behaviors may occur in both greeting and parting situations.
Hugging behavior has been studied in the light of anthropology, anchored in com-
munication theory, which includes many facets, e.g., facial expressions such as looking
and smiling, kinesics, i.e., all discriminable bodily movements (Harper,Wiens, & Mata-
razzo, 1978), and proxemics, i.e., “how we structure, use, and are aected by space in
our interactions with others” (Harper, Wiens, & Matarazzo, 1978. Preface. p. xii,). Mor-
ris (1977, p. 81) described body contact as, “. . . consists of a total embrace, bringing both
arms around the friend’s body, with frontal trunk contact and head contact. There is
much hugging, squeezing, patting, cheek-pressing, and kissing. This may be followed
by intense eye-contact at close range, cheek-clasping, mouth-kissing, hair-stroking,
laughing, even weeping, and, of course, continued smiling.” Hugging occurs in such
situations and is expressed in many social contexts, for example, when saying good-bye
after parties, or as a gesture of empathy or comfort.
Address correspondence to Jan Åström, Med.D., psychologist, psychotherapist, Stureplan 1, 582 21 Linköping,
Sweden or e-mail (astrom.j@telia.com).
Potentials of Hugging / Lena M. Forsell & Jan A. Åström
22012, Volume 1, Article 13
Comprehensive Psychology
Generally speaking, research shows that most people
acquire visual, auditory, and tactile information during
the initial short salutation display and may form some
passing impression of the other person. Some, however,
seem not to acquire, or at least seem not to utilize, this in-
formation during the handshaking phase (Åström, 1993).
The “light hug,” as the rst sign in introductory greeting
behavior, often combined with kissing the cheeks and
without handshaking, usually only exists in fashionable
circles and is used during presentation.
History of greeting
To understand the origin of the hug, one can make com-
parison in the animal kingdom. Many species of primates
have developed some sort of greeting mechanism for
announcing the recognition of one another. Black-and-
white colobus (Colobus guerza, a type of slender ape in
the tropical forests of Africa), studied in captive groups,
performed sexual mounting and embracing behavior
soon after an aggressive act. In non-antagonistic situa-
tions, mounting was the most frequent greeting behav-
ior and younger subordinate individuals greeted older
ones more often than vice versa (Kutsukake, Suet sugu,
& Hasegawa, 2006). There was no relation between inter-
relatedness, aliation frequency, and greeting behavior,
but the greeting behavior functioned as a tension-reduc-
ing mechanism in non-antagonistic situations.
Waal and Roosmalen (1979) described a greeting
pattern among the anthropoid apes. It consisted of two
kinds of patterns of approach: the rst one being an ap-
proach from the front and the second one being an ap-
proach from the rear, referred to as “presentation.” The
frontal approach comprised the following greeting be-
havior: touching the face, shoulder, and arm with hand,
face-to-face contact, and embracing each other in ven-
tral-to-ventral and side-by-side positions. In each case,
the behavior of patting on the back can accompany the
greeting. The rear approach consists of touching the
back with the hand and genital examination. The great
dierence between man and animals is that animals do
not use kissing in greeting behavior. Animals also do
not have farewell displays. Morris (1977) has discussed
the similarities between the greeting behavior in an-
thropoid apes and humans in more detail.
One of the rst human experiences in life for the
newborn baby is lying in the arms of its mother nursing
at her breast. The child receives many forms of parental
touching during its growth, particularly embracing in
the form of hugs, which become symbols for something
positive: joy, security, and condence. The child learns
parts of the touching behavior of adults and is observed
to hug himself, dolls, stued animals, living animals,
and people, especially the parents.
From the very beginning, humans made a point of
not showing hostility to people they met for the rst
time, by laying down gifts before the person with whom
they wished to get acquainted—a pattern of greeting
still utilized today. As an example of this behavior, al-
though there are few written descriptions of how hu-
mans have greeted each other in the past, ceremonial
descriptions can be found in the Bible, as well as in reli-
gious texts of the Orient (Goman, 1971; Kendon, 1990).
For example, when Jacob saw his brother Esau coming
toward him with 400 men, he gave his brother a peace
oering in the form of livestock and bowed himself to
the ground seven times, until he came near to his broth-
er. “Then Esau ran to meet him and embraced him, and
fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept” (The
Holy Bible; Genesis 33:3–5). Handshaking or hugging
have become a common element during the peace ritu-
al in the Holy Mass (Pope Pius IX, 1874; Jungman 1948).
The peace of greeting as a symbol of brotherly charity
got a distinct place in the theology of the Holy Commu-
nion (Svensk Uppslagsbok, 1956).
Variables in hugging behavior
Hugging is a closer and more aectionate form of
greeting than is handshaking (Åström, 1993) and takes
place in the rst of the four interpersonal distance zones,
i.e., the intimate or close distance (Hall, 1968). This zone
and its close phase is about 0 to15 cm distance between
two individuals. The ve most frequently mentioned
variables of hugging (Straker, 2002) include hand place-
ment (on shoulder, etc.), body position (front, side, be-
hind), pressure (light, strong), body touching (none,
full), and the sexes of the two people (dierent, same).
Hand placement refers to touching the greeted per-
son’s arm or shoulder and is sometimes preceded by
handshaking. During the hug, the hands may circle,
rub, or pat the back of the greeted person. It is under-
stood by both parties what the limits are of this par-
ticular friendly behavior. Another variation is putting
one’s hand on the shoulder of the receiver, using rm
pressure to indicate a closer connection. Sometimes, the
greeting individuals stand some distance apart from
one another, only hugging at the shoulders. This be-
havior may be an expression of fear of too close contact
with one another. Touching an arm may communicate
distinct emotions (Hertenstein, Keltner, App, Bulleit, &
Jaskolka, 2006) for instance love, anger, and sympathy.
Body position front to front can express a range of
possible emotional attachments from “friendly” to “ro-
mantic.” A side-by-side body position, as well as same-
sex hugging, with an arm around the neck or shoulders
of one another, is a “brotherly” or “sisterly” expression
or can be indicative of a homosexual identication. Op-
posite sexes, side-by-side, with arms on each other’s
shoulders, may mean nothing more than a friendly ges-
ture. Touching and hugging by friends of the opposite
sex are restricted to head, shoulders, back, arms, and
torso in men. Frontal torso in females belongs to the ta-
Potentials of Hugging / Lena M. Forsell & Jan A. Åström
32012, Volume 1, Article 13
Comprehensive Psychology
boo zones (Jourard & Friedman, 1970), which are dier-
ent in relation to same-sex and parental hugging. Every-
body has a special sense of body privacy. “Taboo zones”
vary from person to person and from culture to culture.
Pressure in hugging is often nothing more than a
measure of appreciating each other, with harder pres-
sure mirroring the extent of appreciation. Presence of
only small pressure may mean a more expectant or a
neutral attitude toward the greeted person.
Attachment and proxemics
Hugging is an important element in a child´s emotional
upbringing. Bowlby (1969), as well as his followers, Ain-
sworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978), have described
how intimate and emotional boundaries are formed
and how essential it is that a small child from the very
beginning experience and integrate them. Bowlby, the
originator of attachment theory, emphasized the impor-
tance of embraces and caresses followed by encourag-
ing and aectionate language in the child´s emotional
upbringing. Early experiences of attachment make it
easier, or more dicult, for the child to feel condence
in self and other people. Escoll (1992, p. 62) wrote, ”Be-
ing held, moving away, looking, listening for mother´s
voice, climbing into mother´s lap, touching her face, be-
ing hugged, and hugging back are all part of the pro-
cess”. Ainsworth, et al. (1978) identied three dier-
ent patterns of attachment: secure, insecure avoidant,
and insecure ambivalent attachment. These acquired
patterns are mirrored in the child´s and in the adult´s
ways of communicating, both verbally and nonverbal-
ly and can be witnessed in the individual’s willingness
to return hugs and caresses. Clinging children are often
anxiety-ridden and have parents who are sometimes
physically very close but mentally absent. The cling-
ing behavior may continue into adulthood and be man-
ifest in particular with a partner. There have been many
previous reports in the media that sta members of or-
phanages in Eastern Europe have complete ignorance
of the importance of hugging the children. As a conse-
quence, many of these children have experienced seri-
ous illness later in life, up to and including death (Liv-
ingston Smith, 2010).
Closeness and touching are proxemic phenomena
disclosing personality and psychopathology. In proxe-
mics, or the study of personal space, evolutionary the-
ory suggests a very close relation between genetic and
environmental determinants (Patterson, 1991). The ge-
netic determinant has previously been very little inves-
tigated. However, the environmental determinants af-
fecting personal space in dierent cultural practices, i.e.,
family structure, social roles, and child-rearing practic-
es, have been the focus of many studies (Åström, 1993).
Mutual interests, needs, and abilities seem to cluster in-
dividuals together in similar social situations. Snyder
(1983) asserted that the choice of social situations re-
ects aspects of one’s personality, especially seen from
the well-known personality variable of introversion vs
extraversion (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964). Liepold (1963),
Patterson and Holmes (1966), Cook (1970), Patterson
and Sechrest (1970), and Williams (1971) all reported
that people who may be classied “extraverts” accord-
ing to the Maudsley Personality Inventory (Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1964) required smaller personal space, which
would aect hugging behaviors.
Long, Calhoun, and Selby (1976) investigated the re-
lations between neuroticism and psychoticism and con-
sistency in selection of interpersonal distance based on
multiple-regression analysis. They found that “Neu-
roticism was the strongest predictor of consistency, be-
ing negatively related to interpersonal distance set-
ting across situations” (Harper, et al., 1978, p. 266).
Lett, Clark, and Altman (1969) reported that results of
many investigations show the need for increased per-
sonal space is greater for psychologically disturbed par-
ticipants, especially those with psychoses, i.e., schizo-
phrenics. Silverman, Pressman, and Bartel (1973) found
that participants with low self-esteem and neurotics
generally showed less tactile communication.
However, social situations set certain bounds to an
appropriate behavior. Patterson (1991) mentioned Hall’s
Classication of Distance Zones (1968) as being applied
to basic dierences in the interaction’s formality. For ex-
ample, “Close distances with high levels of gaze and
touch are more likely in casual, social exchanges than
in formal, business exchanges” (Patterson, 1991, p. 470).
Gender and cultural differences in hugging
Henley (1973) reported that males, to a greater ex-
tent than females, initiated all forms of greeting behav-
ior predominately by handshaking. The reason for this
was thought to be males’ need to display control and
dominance. Similarly, Dertega, Lewis, Harrison, Win-
stead, and Constanza (1989) have shown that embrac-
ing and hugging are more common among females
than males and that male hugging behavior in public,
compared to that of their female counterparts, can be
misconstrued as a homosexual behavior.
These dierences between the sexes were absent in a
former study by Stier and Hall (1984), as well as in a lat-
ter study by Hall and Veccia (1990), who found no dif-
ferences between male and female dyads. Both studies
did, however, establish the presence of more hugging
and kissing behavior in female-female dyads, rather than
more use of laying of hands on various areas of the body,
such as arm, shoulder, back, etc. in male-male dyads.
Cultural dierences in close greeting performances
have been observed, illustrated, and described by Mor-
ris (1977). The basis of the display in all Western cul-
tures is the full embrace, often followed by a kiss on
the cheek, which in Russia and France is practiced also
Potentials of Hugging / Lena M. Forsell & Jan A. Åström
42012, Volume 1, Article 13
Comprehensive Psychology
in male-male dyads. In Northern Europe, handshak-
ing with verbal greetings are more common, whereas in
Southern Europe hugging is more customary. Even the
amount of playful touching behavior in dierent coun-
tries is illustrated by Field (1999), where preschoolers
from America were observed on playgrounds and talk-
ed to and touched less by parents and peers playing
with them and showed more aggressive behavior than
corresponding children in France. However, the pres-
ent authors would like to argue that, during the last 30
years in Sweden, there appears to have been a change
from a simple “hello” to actual touching arms or hug-
ging, especially among younger generations.
Emotional factors inuencing hugging
The manner of greeting is to some extent dependent
on various factors, such as emotional bonds, the length
of time since the last greeting, as well as by force of hab-
it. Extraordinary gratitude for something may initiate
both handshaking and hugging behavior by the receiv-
er. Among good friends, hugging is a natural greeting,
assuming a similar greeting has not taken place recent-
ly. The positive eects of hugging are enhanced by the
addition of encouraging verbal communication. A di-
minished friendship may be emphasized by replac-
ing hugging with handshaking or a verbal greeting. As
such altered behavior may be regarded as a rather “un-
friendly” gesture, it is often avoided, for example in-
stead using a lighter hug (Morris, 1977).
The way greeting behavior is performed often inu-
ences the dialogue that follows or, in some cases, does
not follow. According to Molcho (1991), hugging behav-
ior seems to create a more emotional quality in the ini-
tial phase of a conversation, as compared to handshak-
ing or a verbal greeting, which is usually followed by a
more formal initial phase and conversation.
Touching and especially greeting behavior may be
predicted by a person’s past experience and motivation-
al characteristics. A person raised in an environment
where hugging is prevalent has a tendency to incorpo-
rate hugging in his own greeting behavior. This char-
acteristic is nearly equivalent to the concept of “trait,”
that is to say, as belonging to the personality. Sometimes
emotions may direct the touching behavior, so hugging
might be classied as a “state” behavior. Giving some-
one a hug presupposes a certain level of self-esteem,
since the initiator may run the risk of not being accept-
ed (Kauman, 1971).
The hugging style during congratulations and con-
dolences is based upon the strength of the emotions
associated with the matter at hand. As an example, in
condolences among close friends or relatives, hugging
is often performed without words and may result in a
long silent embrace (Morris, 1977).
Hugging and health
January 21st has been proposed as an ocial National
Hugging Day in the USA, a celebration that has spread
to many other countries. Its creator, Zaborney (1986),
believed that Americans needed an annual holiday to
promote more public performance of emotion among
people. Zaborney’s belief was based on his own ob-
servations that one positive eect of hugging was the
facilitation of human communication. Similarly, Keat-
ing (1995) has stressed the presence of acute needs for
hand-holding or hugs among the elderly, disabled, ter-
minally ill, and long-term care residents.
This focus on hugging has given rise to research
on its benecial eects. At a meeting of the American
Psychosomatic Society in Phoenix, Elias (2003) report-
ed that ”a brief hug and 10 minutes’ hand-holding with
a romantic partner greatly reduce the harmful physi-
cal eects of stress” (p. 1). In a study of 38 cohabiting
couples, Grewen, Girdler, Amico, and Light (2005) ob-
served that greater partner support (dened as a brief
episode of warm touching contact) was linked to higher
magnitudes of plasma oxytocin, norepinephrine, corti-
sol, and blood pressure and that these eects may be
greater for women than for men. Similarly, Light, Grew-
en, and Amico (2005) reported that more frequent part-
ner hugs were linked to higher oxytocin levels, lower
blood pressure, and lower heart rate in premenopausal
women. Lehr (2009) summarized the benecial eects
of a hug, including increased production of endorphins
which strengthen the body’s immune system. Field
(2010) summed up empirical research on touch includ-
ing hugging and described the consequences of too lit-
tle touch for socio-emotional and physical well-being in
childhood and adulthood. This need is strong enough
that a device has been created to allow persons to hug
themselves virtually. The Sense-Roid is described as “a
mannequin covered in tactile sensors and a tactile jack-
et with vibration motors and articial muscles which
recreate the feel of a hug” (Sense Roid Lets People Hug
Themselves, p. 1).1
Conclusions
As a rule, hugging may refer to physical sensations, a
psychological sense of well-being, and often a positive
emotional experience. In particular, the positive emo-
tional experience gives rise to biochemical and physi-
ological reactions, such as a higher magnitude of plas-
ma oxytocin, norepinephrine, cortisol, and changes in
blood pressure. In the last few years, researchers have
commented that in addition to hugging, bodily touches
of other kinds, such as hand-holding, also give rise to
both positive psychological and physiological changes.
The duration of the hug, the style of body touching,
1Sense-Roid lets people hug themselves. (2011) Retrieved from http://
www.diginfo.tv/v/11-0137-r-en.php. The University of Electrocom-
munications, Osaka, Japan.
Potentials of Hugging / Lena M. Forsell & Jan A. Åström
52012, Volume 1, Article 13
Comprehensive Psychology
the pressure of the body, and the activity of arms and
hands disclose the intensity of relationship. The more
frequent these behaviors, the closer the relationship.
The way one returns a hug can vary greatly, dependent
upon the emotional state of the other person. In other
words, the hug may be more “state-” than “trait-depen-
dent.” However, the extraverted personality facilitates
taking the initiative in hugging, as extraversion is as-
sociated with spontaneity, impulsiveness, warmth, and
sociability. Anxiety, lack of self-esteem, and lack of self-
condence, which are evident in neuroticism, may de-
crease the likelihood of taking the initiative to hug.
The change from handshaking to hugging during
an encounter is associated with a greater emotional in-
volvement in one another often announced by a partici-
pant raising the arms, in a display of the intent to hug.
The very rst time hugging occurs between individuals
seems most often to be upon parting.
Experiences of hugging by parental gures in early
childhood may make hugging more prevalent in adult-
hood. As a rule, a hugging person produces an impres-
sion of friendship and openness, which sometimes may
be reciprocated by more controlled individuals. These
eects may be further enhanced if combined with a
smile and verbal greetings, such as ”It’s great to see
you” or on parting, ”Looking forward to seeing you
again.” Also, after the encounter, thoughts of the hug-
ging may stimulate and put the individual in a more
positive mood.
The prevalence of hugging, particularly among
young people, has been reported from time to time in
the mass media and might have gained ground, al-
though there is no conclusive empirical evidence for
this. A change from less nodding and handshaking to
more hugging and embracing in a friendly encounter
may originate from a need for closeness and aection,
since hugs are a manifestation of concern and support
of an individual. A hug has great positive signicance
most of the time, although in some situations may be
considered more of a social requirement, than a natural
and free behavior. Such aspects must be included in any
observational study of hugging behavior.
Further research is needed to study physical sensi-
tivity and reactions during the hugging and the most
frequent emotions and thoughts during this short space
of time. The ability to “read” or understand the mes-
sage of a hug may depend on many factors and ought
to be a natural topic of the nonverbal communication
research. If the eects of hugging prove to be benecial
to both individuals and society, encouragement in an
educational context might become a vital part of public
wellness programs.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978)
Patterns of attachment: psychological study of the strange situation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Åström, J. (1993) Introductory greeting behaviour in relation
to sex, age, physical characteristics, attitudes, personality,
and psychopathology: approaches by interviews, observa-
tions, and experiments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Linköping Univer., Medical Dissertations No. 403.
Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and loss: attachment. Vol. 1. New York:
Basic Books.
Cook, M. (1970) Experiments on orientation and proxemics. Hu-
man Relations, 23, 61-76.
Dertega, V. J., Lewis, R. J., Harrison, S., Winstead, B. A., & Con-
stanza, R. (1989) Gender dierence in the initiation of intima-
cy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2, 83-96.
Elias, M. (2003) Study: hugs warm the heart, and may protect
it. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/
news/health/2003-03-09-hug-usat_x.htm, March 10.
Escoll, P. J. (1992) Vicissitudes of optimal distance through the life
cycle. In S. Kramer & S. Akhtar (Eds.), When the body speaks.
Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Pp. 59-87.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964) Manual of the Eysenck
Personality Inventory. London: Univer. of London Press.
Field, T. (1999) Preschoolers in America are touched less and are
more aggressive than preschoolers in France. Early Child De-
velopment and Care, 151, 11-17.
Field, T. (2010) Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being:
a review. Developmental Review, 30, 367-383.
Goman, E. (1971) Relations in public. NewYork: Basic Books.
Grewen, K. M, Girdler, S. S., Amico, J., & Light, K. C. (2005) Ef-
fects of partner support on resting oxytocin, cortisol, no blood
pressure before and after warm partner contact. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 67, 531-538.
Hall, E. T. (1968) Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 9, 83-108.
Hall, J. A., & Veccia, E. M. (1990) More ”touching” observations:
new insight on men, women and interpersonal touch. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1155-1162.
Harper, R. G., Wiens, A. N., & Matarazzo, J. D. (1978) Nonverbal
communication: the state of the art. New York: Wiley.
Henley, N. M. (1973) Status and sex: some touching observations.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 91-93.
Hertenstein, M. J., Keltner, D., App, B., Bulleit, B. A., & Jaskolka,
A. R. (2006) Touch communicates distinct emotions. Emotion,
6(3), 528-533.
The Holy Bible. (1953) Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer. Press.
Jourard, S. M., & Friedman, R. (1970) Experimenter-subject dis-
tance and self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 15, 278-282.
Jungman, J. A. (1948) Missarum Sollemnia: Eine genetische Erklärung
der römischen Messe. Vienna, Austria: Herder Verlag.
Kauman, L. E. (1978) Tacesics, the study of touch: model for
proximic analysis. In R. G. Harper, A. N. Wiens, & J. D. Mata-
razzo (Eds.), Nonverbal communication: the state of the art. New
York: Wiley. Pp. 149-161.
Keating, K. (1995) Hug therapy book. Minneapolis, MN: Hazelden
Information & Educational Services.
Kendon, A. (1990) Conducting interaction: patterns of behaviour in
focused encounters. Cambridge UK: Cambridge Univer. Press.
Kluge, F., & Götze, A. (1930) Etymologisches Wörterbuch der
deutschen Sprache. (11th ed.) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Potentials of Hugging / Lena M. Forsell & Jan A. Åström
62012, Volume 1, Article 13
Comprehensive Psychology
Kutsukake, N., Suetsugu, N., & Hasegawa, T. (2006) Pattern, dis-
tribution, and function of greeting behavior among black-and-
white colobus. International Journal of Primatology, 27, 1271-
1291.
Lehr, L. J. (2009) A hug: the miracle drug. Retrieved from www.
HelpINeedaHug.com. [not archival]
Lett, E. E., Clark, W., & Altman, I. (1969) A propositional inventory of
research on interpersonal distance. Research Report No. I. Bethes-
da, MD: Naval Medical Research Institute.
Liepold, W. E. (1963) Psychological distance in a dyadic interview.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of North Dakota,
Grand Forks.
Light, K. C., Grewen, K. M., & Amico, K. A. (2005) More frequent
partner hugs are linked to higher oxytocin levels, lower blood
pressure, and heart rate in premenopausal women. Biological
Psychology, 69, 5-21.
Livingston Smith, S. (2010) Keeping the promise: the critical need for
post-adoption services to enable children and families to succeed.
New York: Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.
Long, G. T., Calhoun, L. G., & Selby, J. W. (1976) Personality char-
acteristics related to cross-situational consistency in interper-
sonal distance. Paper presented at the meeting of the South-
eastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
Molcho, S. (1991) Körpersprache. Munich: Mosaic Verlag GmbH.
Morris, D. (1977) Manwatching: eld guide to human behavior. New
York: Abrams.
Patterson, M. L. (1991) A functional approach to nonverbal ex-
change. In R. S. Feldman & B. Rimé (Eds.), Fundamentals of
nonverbal behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer. Press.
Patterson, M. L., & Holmes, D. S. (1966) Social correlation cor-
relates of the MMPI extraversion-introversion scale. American
Psychologist, 21, 724-725.
Patterson, M. L., & Sechrest, L. B. (1970) Interpersonal distance
and impression formation. Journal of Personality, 38, 161-166.
Pope Pius IX. (1874) Omnem Sollicitudinem: on the Greek-Ruthe-
nian rite. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX.
Silverman, A., Pressman, F., & Bartel, H. (1973) Self-esteem and
tactile communication. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 13, 73-
77.
Snyder, M. (1983) The inuence of individuals on situations: im-
plications for understanding the links between personality
and social behavior. Journal of Personality, 51, 497-516.
Stier, D. S., & Hall, J. A. (1984) Gender dierences in touch: an em-
pirical and theoretical review. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 440-459.
Straker, D. (2002) Changing minds. Retrieved from http://chang-
ingminds.org/techniques/body/greeting.htm.
Svensk Uppslagsbok. (1956) Malmö, Sweden: Förlagshuset Norden.
Waal, F. B. M., & Roosmalen, A. (1979) Reconciliation and consili-
ation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
5(1), 55-66.
Williams, J. L. (1971) Personal space and its relation to extraver-
sion-introversion. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 3, 156-
160.
Zaborney, K. (1986) National hugging day. Retrieved from www.
nationalhuggingday.com. [not archival]
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
creative commons attribution license, which permits unrestricted,
non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medi-
um, provided the original author and source are credited.