Download Sharing 1 RUNNING HEAD: Touch and proximity affect platonic

Sharing 1
RUNNING HEAD: Touch and proximity affect platonic coed friendships when living together
Touch and Proximity in a Shared Living Space: Does Sharing a House Mean Sharing a Bed?
Andrea Rishmawi
Com 308
16 June 2003
Sharing 2
Male-female friendships have been talked about, studied, and tested for years. There are
numerous dimensions to as well as types of male-female relationships. So many things affect
these types of relationships that there are a countless number of ways to approach the topic.
Much of the previous research deals with nonverbal communication such as touch and proximity.
It is important to look at these two types of nonverbal communication in specific situations as the
relational messages mean very different things in different situations.
Specifically, sharing a living space with someone is something that would seemingly
affect the relational messages of touch and proximity. Living with one or more roommates is
something that most college students will experience. There is a large percentage that will at
some point live in a co-ed housing situation. The communication that takes place in a co-ed
house can affect nearly every aspect of each roommate’s life. Being so near to someone for a
large amount of time can escalate problems as well as intensify relationships.
Although there have been numerous studies done on how touch affects male-female
platonic relationships, affectionate behavior in male-female relationships, as well as how
proximity affects these relationships, it is curious to probe how these two aspects can affect the
male-female platonic relationship in a shared living space such as a house or apartment.
Hypothesis: Touch and proximity affect male-female platonic relationships in a
roommate situation such that if a more intimate relationship develops, it is likely due to these
two factors.
RQ: Would the intimate relationship have developed had the two people never lived
together?
Sharing 3
One of the most researched types of nonverbal communication is touch. Touch relates to
almost every aspect of communication. Specifically, it is a very large part of non-verbal
communication. According to Burgoon et al (1984), touch is the most powerful conveyor of
relational messages (p. 359). As Jones (1986) reports, “Touch is a highly intimate and influential
mode of interpersonal communication,” and also goes on to account that it is related closely to
personal development and communicative competence (p. 227).
A simple touch can mean so many different things in so many different situations. A
light touch on the cheek means something much different in a romantic relationship than it does
in a parent-child relationship. Touch is something that can also be interpreted very differently by
different people. Ojanlatva (1994) informs that touching means physical contact with another,
but can also mean an intellectual, social or emotional bond; this depends on how the person
wants to communicate (p. 349). Burgoon (1992) reports, “Among communicative nonverbal
behaviors, one of the most provocative, yet least well understood is touch,” as well as touch
having “multiple meanings,” (p. 237).
As far as gender differences in touch and affection, there seems to be an obvious
difference in the amount that each gender touches. It has been established that females initiate
touch and are involved in touching more often than males (Jones, 1986). Touch though, even in
a romantic relationship, does not always signify affection. Affection, defined by Floyd and
Mormon (1998) as, “an individual’s intentional and overt enactment or expression of feelings of
closeness, care, and fondness for another,” plays a part as well (p. 151). There is a correlation
between the two; just as women touch more, it is well known that women are generally more
affectionate than men. In fact, in a 1997 study examining affectionate behavior it was found that
Sharing 4
women engage in more expressions of affection than men (Floyd). Following this, the same
study showed that women’s expressions of affection are also more intense (Floyd, 1997).
With these things holding true, the same study goes on to report that it is, in a societal
sense, more appropriate for women to do both these things than for men (Floyd, 1997). This
being said, it correlates to the fact that women are generally more affiliative, immediate, and
intimate than men (Burgoon et al, 1984). It is also important to note that Grammer (1990)
reports, “Females seem to be much more sensitive to nonverbal cues,” (p. 233). This leads to the
idea that each gender interprets touch differently.
To understand how people interpret touch, participants in a previous study were shown
pictures of seven different touch conditions and were asked to interpret them; it was found that
touching typically conveys more immediacy, trust, similarity, and informality than its absence
(Burgoon, 1991). A key factor about interpreting touch deals with the Expectancy Violation
Theory (EVT). According to Burgoon et al (1992), interactants have expectations about when,
where, and from whom touch should come from (p. 238). Floyd and Voloudakis (1999) report
that, “Expressing affection can incur a number of interpersonal risks, especially in nonromantic
relationships, where opportunities for misattribution on the part of the recipient may be high.
Therefore it is important to understand individuals expectations for the kind and intensity of
affectionate behavior they anticipate in their personal relationships,” (p. 341). Burgoon et al
(1992) also reports that expectancy is closely related to touch (p. 255). During the study, in
which participants experienced touch by confederates with high and low-valence, it was found
that more favorable expectations were followed by more favorable outcomes (p. 255). Burgoon
et al (1992) also reports that positive violations produce more enjoyable outcomes than
expectancy-confirming behavior (p. 255). With this information, it is fair to say that touch
Sharing 5
follows closely the EVT model. However, an important note about interpreting touch comes
from Burgoon, Walther, and Baesler (1992) which reports that the specific type of touch must be
taken into account (p. 258).
In male-female platonic friendships, it often happens that the relational message of touch
and affection are misinterpreted. The main reason behind this is that emotional expressions
generally have two types of meanings: relational as well as literal (Floyd, 1997). Relational
messages are used to define and clarify the status of interpersonal relationships (Burgoon, 1991).
The two can get confused, thus causing a misinterpretation. Misinterpretation also has to do with
the appropriateness of the touch and/or affection. As mentioned earlier, it is more appropriate or
women to touch and show affection (Floyd, 1997). Thus, if men show more affection and/or
touch more, it could be interpreted in wrongly, such as overly aggressive.
Regarding proximity, in a previously mentioned study, participants were asked to
examine pictures of people with different postures standing at different distances apart; Burgoon
(1991) reported here that when proximity is combined with postural openness in opposite sex
interactions, it creates a strong sense of similarity and affection (p. 260). In an article discussing
predictors of liking, it was found that people use social networks to their advantage when they
like someone, bringing them into closer proximity (Dainton and Stafford, 1994).
One factor that has not yet been mentioned, but is important in close quarter situations is
touch avoidance. Guerrero and Anderson (1991) report that gender has no effect on touch (p.
147). However, the stage of the relationship does affect the patterns of touch behavior (1991, p.
159). Even though there is a strong tendency to reciprocate touch at all relational stages, touch
avoidance is much higher in the early stages of a relationship than the stable stage (1991, p. 161).
Sharing 6
Fatal attraction is another factor that affects the male-female friendship. Felmlee (1995)
reports, “Fatal attraction is a quality that eventually leads to disaffection with a partner is a
negative interpretation of the very same characteristic that was responsible for the initial
attraction (p. 296). Felmlee continues that these are fatal in that forecasts a sequence that will
end in future disillusionment (p. 296).
Since touch and proximity affect the male-female platonic relationship so much, it seems
obvious that when male-female friends are forced to spend large amounts of time in close
quarters, it would intensify the relational messages. It also seems possible that accidental touch
could be misinterpreted. More importantly, since proximity creates the feeling of similarity and
affection, it is possible that roommates, who are in the near vicinity of each other for such large
periods of time, would feel an added sense of closeness for each other.
It is important for these ideas to be tested as the results would be beneficial for many
people. Firstly, any two or more people who plan on living together would be aware of the
outcome that is likely to take place. Secondly, any male-female friends who are already living
together will be able to recognize what might be happening in their own relationship. More
importantly though, it is important for male-female friends, whether living together or simply
planning to in the future, to recognize that the bond and/or tension they feel could be due not
necessarily to any actual attraction, but merely because of the living situation.
The experiment in the present study will examine how these factors affect male-female
friendships in a shared living space. The expected results will be that relationships occurring in a
shared living space are caused because of the aforementioned factors.
Methods
Sharing 7
The participants were 1500 men and 1500 women recruited from a large Midwestern university.
The students were not required to participate, but were given extra credit in a Communication
course to do so. Their age ranged from 18-32 with a median of 21-23. After consent, the
participants were given a survey regarding co-ed living situations. The survey included two
closeness measurement scales. The participants turned the survey in to a female confederate
when they had been filled out and were free to leave.
Sharing 8
References
Burgoon, K. K. (1991). Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and
posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15 (4), 233-259.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D.B., Hale, J. L., & deTurck, M. A. (1984). Relational messages
associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10 (3), 351-378.
Burgoon, J.K., Walther, J.B., & Baesler, E.J. (1992). Interpretations, evaluations, and
consequences of interpersonal touch. Human Communication Research, 19 (2), 237-263.
Dainton, M. & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintenance strategies and physical affection as predictors
of love, liking, and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Reports, 7 (2), 88-99.
Felmlee, D. H. (1995). Fatal attractions: Affection and disaffection in intimate relationships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12 (2), 295-311.
Floyd, K. (1997). Communicating affection in dyadic relationships: An assessment of behavior
and expectancies. Communication Quarterly, 45 (1), 68-80.
Floyd, K, & Morman, M. T. (1998). The measurement of affection communication.
Communication Quarterly, 46 (2), 144-162.
Floyd, K. & Voloudakis, M. (1999). Affectionate behavior in adult platonic friendships. Human
Communication Research, 25 (3), 341-369.
Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex
encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14 (4), 209-236.
Guerrero, L. K. & Anderson, 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.
Jones, S. E. (1986). Sex Differences in Touch Communication. The Western Journal of Speech
Sharing 9
Communication, 50, 227-241.
Ojanlatva, A. (1994). Touch as a human tool. Medical Teacher, 16 (4), 347-354.
Sharing 10
Survey
1.) Indicate your sex:

Male

Female
2.) Indicate your age:

18-20

21-23

24-26

27-29

30-32

33 +
3.) Indicate your current year of college:

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior
4.) Indicate your ethnicity:

White/Caucasion

African-American

Native-American

Asian

Other _____________________
5.) Do you/have you lived in co-ed housing situation (excluding family)?**

Yes

No
6.) If no to question #5, would you ever/do you plan to live in a co-ed housing situation?

Yes

No
The remaining questions apply solely to those who answered yes to question # 5.
7.) If yes to question #5, how long did you live there and are you currently still living there?
_____Years _____Mo

Yes

No
8.) Did a romantic relationship develop with any of your roommates during the time in which
you lived with them?

Yes
Sharing 11

No
9.) If no to question #8, if the opportunity arose, would you allow a romantic relationship to
develop with someone with whom you lived?
The following questions apply solely to those who answered yes to question #8.
10.) If yes to question #8, how long did the relationship last and are you currently still involved
in a romantic relationship with this person?
_____Years _____Mo

Yes

No
11.) If no to question #10, are you still involved in a platonic friendship with this person?

Yes

No
12.) If yes to question #8, would you involve yourself in a romantic relationship with a
roommate again if the opportunity presented itself?

Yes

No
13.) Would you live in a co-ed housing situation again?

Yes

No
14.) How would you rate the closeness of your relationship before moving in together?
1 = Did not know each other
7 = Best friends
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
15.) How would rate the closeness of your relationship at the end of your time living together (if
currently living together, rate the relationship at this point and indicate that you are currently
living together)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
 Have moved apart
 Currently living together
** If you have lived with roommates of the opposite sex more than once, please fill out a survey
for each experience and staple the surveys together.
Thank you for participating! Have a great day! 