A Study of Same Sex Touching Attitudes: Scale Development and Personality Predictors

Author(s): Knud S. Larsen and Jeff LeRoux

Source: The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, Measurement of Sexuality Related
Cognitions, Attitudes, and Behavior (Aug., 1984), pp. 264-278
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812468
Accessed: 07-05-2015 12:12 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Sex Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Journai of Sex Research VolQ20, No. 3, pp. 264-278 Augustt 1984

A Study
Attitudes:

of

Same

Scale
Personality

Sex
Touching
Development
Predictors

and

KNUDS. LARSENAND JEFF LEROUX

Abstract
Attitudes towardsame sex touchingis an areaof considerableimportanceto understandingsex-rolerigidityand heterosexualintimacy,and
are thought to be significantto sexual adjustmentand well-being.A
reliableand valid scale is neededfor researchon samesex touching.In
this article, seven phases in the developmentof a Likert-typescale
measuringattitudes towardsame sex touchingISSTS)are described.
Phase1 of the study was an item analysisproducingpart-wholecorrelations rangingfrom .72 to .82, alpha = .98, and reproducibility= .93.
Further,in Phase2, the SSTSwas shownto havemoderaterelationships
to authoritariaiism/r = -l38, p < .01),rigidity(r = -.48, p < .01),and
sociallydesirableconceptionsof femitiinityforbothmales(r = .46,p <
.01),andfemales(r-.31, p < .01).In Phase3 the constructvaliditycorrelationsof Phase2 weregenerallyreplicated.In Phases4 and5 significant correlationswere foundbetweenthe SSTS and Machiavellianism
(r = -.25, p < .05),religiousorthodoxy(r = -.29, p < .05),andlocusof
control(r = .35,p < .051for malesand with radicalism-conservatism
(r = .36,p < .05)andself-esteemkr= -.33, p < .05)forfemales.Phase5
yielded a -.77 (p < .01) correlationbetween SSTS and the criterion
touch-avoidance
measure.Finally,results fromPhases 6 and 7 demonstratedpromisingSSTSdiscriminantvalidity.In particular,morepositive attitudes were found for counseling as comparedto science
students.Furthermore,
stlldentsworkingin task groupsundercooperative conditionsdiscriminateeffectivelyon the SSTS for both self- and
peerrankingson ease of same sex touchirlgbehavior.
Research on attitudes toward same sex touching has been minimal,
yet, these attitudes are important since they contribute to a person's
behavioral intellect. Fishbein and Ajzen +1975)suggest that attitudes
are affective and evaluative components based on a person's beliefs.
Knud S. Larsen, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Oregon
State University, Corvallis,Oregon.Jeff LeRoux, MA, is currentlya doctoralcandidate
at the University of Californiaat Berkeley.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Knud S. Larsen, PhD, Department of Psychology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.
264

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SAME SEX TOUCHING

265

Thus scales which measure the underlying belief dimension define the
essential determinants of both attitudes and behavior.
A major handicap in the study of same sex touching behavior is the
lack of a reliable and valid instrument to measure attitudes. The purpose of this paper is to report several phases of research on the
development of a Likert-type scale for measuring attitudes toward
same sex touching.
Understanding attitudes toward same sex touching is crucial for a
complete understanding of sexual behavior. Not only are same sex
touching attitudes a key to heterosexual adjustment (Mehrabian,
1971), but they also relate to general well-being (e.g., Jourard, 1966;
Silverman, Pressman, & Bartel, 1973). Same sex attitudes may reflect
different patterns of sex-role training rigidity, with behavioral consequences for both same sex and heterosexual relations, and on attitudes
toward homosexuality.
Few would disagree that touching another person is a significant act
with psychological consequences. Yet, as Hall (1966) notes, investigators have failed to grasp the importance of touching in keeping "the
person related to the world in which he lives" (p. 57). The limited
research effort is perhaps itself a reflection of a widespread touching
taboo socialized during childhood. According to Jourard (1966), this
touch taboo "has produced a scotoma of our professional vision,
making us describe man in our textbooks as if he did not get closer to
his fellow than a foot or so" (p. 221). Research in the last decade, however, has demonstrated convincingly the important consequences of
touching behavior /Kennell, Slyter, & Klaus, 1970). On the whole, the
literature supports the facilitative and positive effects of touching
{Aguilera, 1967; Boderman, Freed, & Kinnucan, 1972; Breed & Ricci,
1973; Cooper & Bowles, 1973; Fisher, Rytting, & Heslin, 1976;
Pattison, 1973).
Body accessibility varies among cultural groups and among individuals (Jourard, 1966; Shuter, 1976; Watson & Graves, 1966). In the
Jourard (1966) and Rosenfeld, Kartus, and Ray (1976) studies, most
frequent touching occurredbetween subjects and closest opposite sex
friends. Nguyen, Heslin, and Nguyen (1975) observed that males regarded opposite sex touching as pleasant, whereas females found such
touching unpleasant until after marriage. Sex differences in opposite
sex touching are also reported in Heslin and Boss (1976);Lomranzand
Shapira (1974); Perry (1976); Silverthorne, Micklewright, and O'Donnell (1982).

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

266

K. S. LARSEN AND J. LEROUX

Samesex touchingalso showsa differentpatternfor the two

sexes.
JourardandRubin(1968)foundthat malestouchand disclose
moreto
oppositesex friends,whereasfemales show a greaterpreference
for
same sex touchingfsee also Silvermanet al., 1973).In a field
experiment,Whitcherand Fisher<1979)investigatedthe effectsof
touchin a
hospital setting. Results indicated that females experienced
more
favorablereactionswhen touched,whereasmales reactedmore
negatively than the controlsubjects.
The researchon personalitydifferencesin opposite or
same sex
touchingis also limited.In the Silvermanet al. (1973)study, high
selfesteemsubjectsengagedin moreintimatetouchingthan
participants
withlow self-esteem.Self-esteemmay be manifestedboth in
touching
and self-disclosure.Howe-ver,whereasLomranzand
Shapira(1974)
and Pedersen 11973)discovereda significant relationship
between
touchingand self-disclosurelJourardand Rubin (1968) found
that
touchingand self-disclosurewereindependent.Touchingmay
express
dominance.
HenleyA1973)
foundevidencethat high-statuspeopleinitiatetouchingmorethan those of low status.
In all, thereare relativelyfew studies on same sex touching
and on
personalityfactors that predict touching.The measurementof attitudestowardsame sex t;ouchingis limitedto the study of
Anderson
andLeibowitz(1978),who suggested that touchavoidanceis
a nonverbal
communication
consistingof two dimensions(i.e.,sarnesex and
oppositesex touch avoidance).This approachdid not treat
attitudes
toward
same sex touchingas an independentcomponent,but focused
onavoidancein same sex attitudes. However,attitudes
towardsame
sextouchingcould consist of both nagative(avoidance)and
positive
items,
as do indeedall attitudes.Clearly,a scaleis neededthat
focuses
directly
on attitudes towardsamesex touchingas both a positive
and
negative
(avoidance)phenomenon.
Developmentof a theory of attitudes toward same sex touching
must,in the absenceof direct researchdata, be based on
inferences
from
related research.Authoritarianism,as a concept, links deepseatedpersonality dispositions to social behavior and
attitudes.
Adorno,
Frenkel-Brunswik,
Levinson,and Sanford(1950)foundthat
individuals
who are rigid, intolerant,and authority-dependentare
more
likelyto supporttraditionalsex rolesin societyand,specifically,
norms
whichdefinetouchingbetweenmembersof the same sex. Elements
of the authoritariansyndromeincludeanti-intraception
(i.e.,the
avoidance
of introspection),a rigid conceptionof sex roles, cognitive

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SAMESEX TOUCHING

267

rigidity,and intoleranceof ambiguity(Lane,1955).Rigidityis central

to the authoritarianpersonality.Meresko,Rubin,Shontz,andMorrow
(1954) defined rigidity as resistance or lack of readiness to be influenced.Respondentsjudged rigid by the Mereskoet al. Rigidityof
AttitudesRegardingPersonalHabitsScale(R ^PH)andauthoritarian
on the Lane (1955)F-scale are thereforemore likely to conformto
establishednormswhich define the desirabilityof oppositesex, and
the ambiguityof samesex touching.Takentogether,these factorslead
us to predict that authoritarianpersonalitieswould feel discomfort
with andthereforehavenegativeattitudestoward,samesex touching.
Bem (1974,1975)describedsex-roleidentityin termsof masculinity,
feminity, or androgyny.Androgynousindividuals "might be both
masculineand feminine,both assertive and yielding, both instrumentaland expressive-dependingon the situationalappropriateness
of these behaviorsS'(1975,p. 155).This implicitflexibilityshouldproduce more positive attitudes toward same sex touching among
androgynousindividuals.However,an alternate perspectivewould
suggest that positiveattitudestowardsamesex touchingis implicitly
a femininetrait in oursociety.Therefore,it may be morethe abilityto
identifywith the tenderaspects of femininity,or, conversely,to reject
the "macho"traits of masculinity,whichproducepositive attitudes
towardsame sex touching.
Machiavellianism(Christie& Geis, 1970)is a personalityconstruct
definedas a dishonestandmanipulativeworldview.It canbe reasoned
that dishonestyand manipulationare not consistentwith a positive
attitudetowardsamesex touching,whichmust be basedon trust and
intimacy.Likewise,religiousorthodoxy(Putney&Middleton,1961)is
definedas a rigidadherenceto conventionalsocialandreligiousvalues
in whichsamesex touchingmay be construedas havingimmoralovertones. Onthe otherhand,an internallocusof control(Rotter,1966)expressesa beliefin a contingencybetweenbehaviorandoutcomes.This
constructmay measurea level of trust essentialto the self-confidence
basic to nonsexualsame sex touching.
As suggested by others (e.g., Whitcher& Fisher, 1979) attitudes
towardsame sex touchingare largelycircumscribedby socialization
rootedin conventionalnorms.Onemight thereforeexpect that sociopoliticallyconservativepeoplewouldbe morelikely to observesuch
implicit social norms (Comrey& Newmeyer 1965).We noted earlier
that self-confidence,and indeed self-esteem,may be essential to a
healthyattitudetowardsamesex touching(Janis&Field,1959}.It re-

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

268

K. S. LARSEN AND J. LEROUX

quires high self-esteemto assert positive attitudes toward

same sex
touching,since such attitudes frequentlyrun counterto
homophobia.
Furthermore,to assess the criterionvalidity of the scale developedin
this study, it was thought importantto relate it with the
same and
oppositesex touch-avoidance
measuresconstructedby Andersonand
Leibowitz(1978).
Finally,since scales of this type are especiallyvulnerableto
social
desirabilityresponsestyles (the scale content concernsviolations of
conventionalconduct),discriminantvalidity takes on added importance. It may be expectedthat students in counseling,who
have obtained training in various sensitivity exercises involving
touching,
wouldview same sex touchingas morelegitimateand desirable,
comparedto othergroupsof students,and thus scorehigheron the
SSTS.
Anotherapproachto discriminatevalidity focuseson peerrankings
in small task groups.A basic assumptionis that touchingis
a salient
phenomenonin coopertivelong-terminteraction.In this situation,
groupmembersare sufficiently aware of the touching
behaviorof
othermembersto enableeach participantto rankorderthe
otherson
relativecomfortin touchingmembersof theirownsex. These
rankings
couldthen be relatedto SSTS scores as suggested below.
This study consistedof seven phases.
1. In the first phase, items were selected for a
Likert-typescale
measuringattitudes towardsame sex touching.
2. The second phase was a reliability and validity study
which
examinedinternalconsistencyand the relationshipbetweenthe
scale and measures of authoritarianism,rigidity,
masculinity,
femininity,and androgyny.We predictedthe SSTS wouldcorrelate negatively with the authoritarianism,rigidity, and
masculinity measuresand positively with femininityand androgyny.
3. The third phase sought to replicate Phase 2 using
college
students.
4. In the fourthphase, the range of variableswas
extendedto includeMachiavellianism,
religiousorthodoxy,andlocusof control.
An inversecorrelationwas expectedbetweenthe SSTS and
both
Machiavellianism
and religiousorthodoxyand a positivecorrelation was expectedbetweenthe SSTS andan internallocusof
control.
5. In the fifth phase, same sex touchingattitudes were
relatedto
radicalism-conservatism,
self-esteem,and same and oppositesex
touchavoidance.Inversecorrelationswerepredictedbetween
the

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SAME SEX TOUCHING

269

SSTS and both conservatism and same sex avoidance. A positive

correlation was expected between the SSTS and higher selfesteem.
6. In the sixth phase differences were predicted between students in
counseling, (who should score significantly more positively on the
SSTS) and students of science.
7. In the seventh, and last, phase the relationship between peer
ratings of relative comfort in same sex touching and the SSTS
were examined. We predicted that subjects who were self- and
group-rated as above average in same sex assessibility would
derronstrate significantly more positive mean SSTS scores when
comparee with those rated below average.

Phases 1 and 2: Item Selection, Reliability and Construct Validity

Methodology
Subjects.The participants in Phase 1 were 29 males and 33 females
with a mean age = 4d.3, range = 19-86. The sample for Phase 2 consisted of 18 males and 41 females, with a mean age = 43.9, range =
22-82.
Proceduresandmeasures.The Phase 1 and 2 surveys were mailed to
households, selected at random, from the Portland, Oregon community telephone book. In Phase 1 the return rate was 67No;in Phase 2 it
was 61'Mo.
These rates are comparable to those expected in mailed
surveys (Babbie, 1973).The surveys employed in both phases included
instructions designed to reassure the subject of the acceptability of
his/her responses. The instructions emphasized that there were no
right or wrong answers, provided careful instructions on response
categories, and suggested social support for any opinion.
In Phase 1, 80 statements were collected from a variety of written
sources. These items measured the degree to which people approved or
disapproved of touching activities between people of the same sex. The
pool of statements was determined by item relevancy to body zones
and person touching itouching, being touched) as defined by Jourard
(1966). Finally, this item pool was edited employing Edwards' (1957) a
priori criteria for attitude scale statements to form the Same Sex
Touching Scale (SSTS)
In Phase 2, the SSTS was administered with the usual Likert-type

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

14.
12.
10.
20.
19.
8.
3.
4.
2.
1.It
IITouch
Iperson
clothed
sometimes
would
am
same
shoulders
appreciate
pleases
enjoy
sometimes
enjoy
comfortable
israther
persons
being
important
me
touching
sex
of
hug
to
a..............................................................................
enjoy
hug
see
touched
avoid
the
members
of
feels
.................................................................
giving
from
persons
my
in
some
hugging
same
touching
sex
my
aof
by
good
person
apersons
communication
of
who
my
massage
someone
sex
friends
the
sex
are
persons
of
.................................................................
same
when
.................................................................
comfortable
my
of
to
of
of
sex
the
someone
Iwith
the
of
the
feel
hug
when
same
the
same
others
same
each
Iwith
close
same
of
need
sex
other
sex
my
touching
of
to
sex
................................................................
comforting
sex
.................................................................
my
them
in.................................................................
sex
.................................................................
greeting
.................................................................
................................................................
................................................................
................................................................
.................................................................
82
78
77
74
82
75
72
78
73
79
82
71
79

K. S. LARSEN AND J. LEROUX

270

instructionsand responsecategories.In addition,the surveyformincluded the 4-item F-scale (Lane, 1955), the Rigidity of Attitudes
RegardingPersonalHabits Scale(Meresko,et al., 1954),and the Bem
(1974)Sex-RoleInventory(BSRI).
Results

The item analysis (Phase 1) yielded20 items with Pearsonproduct

momentpart-wholecorrelationsequal to or greater than .72 and a
mean part-wholecorrelation= .76. These items are displayed in
Table1. Further analysis yielded an alpha coefficient of .98 and
reproducibilitycoefficientof .93.
In Phase2 we sought to assess the SSTS reliabilityandits relationship to an arrayof variables.The reliabilityassessmentof the SSTS
scaleyieldedan alphacoefficientof .99. The relationshipbetweenthe
SSTS scale and other survey instrumentsis shownon Table2.
Table 1
Same Sex Touching Scale {SSTS) and Part-Whole Correlations

5. I sometimes enjoy the physical contact while hugging persons of the same sex . .77
6. I would feel comfortable embracing a close friend of the same sex while fully

.71
7. I am comfortableputting my arm aroundthe shoulders of persons of my sex ...................................
9. I sometimes like some persons of the same sex putting an arm around my
shoulders ..............................................................................

.81

.75
11. Physical expression of affection between persons of the same sex is healthy ...................................
13. When I am tense, I would enjoy receiving a neck and shoulder massage from a
15. I feel uncomfortabletouching in a relationship with someone of the same sex . . .78
16. Touching between persons of the same sex should be limited to a handshake
.72
only ....................................................................
17. I like the feeling of warmth I sometimes get while embracingclose friends of the
18. When I have a headache, having someone of the same sex massage my neck and

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SAMESEX TOUCHING

271

Table 2
Pearson Product Moment Correlationsbetween the Same Sex Touching Scale (SSTS)
and Survey Variablesin Phases 2, 3, 4 and 5

Phase 2
F-Scale
Raph
Masculinity
Femininity
Androgeny

Males
(n = 18)
- .50*
-.69*
-.34
.46*
- .08

SSTS
Females
(n = 41)
- .32*
-.36*
.10
.31*
- .12

Phase 3
F-Scale
Raph
Masculinity
Fernininity
Androgeny
Phase 4
Mach IV
Religious Orthodoxy
Locus of Control
Phase 5
Radicalism-Conservatism
Self-esteem
Same Sex Touch Avoidance
Opposite Sex Touch Avoidance

(n = 25)
-.30*
-.28*
.18
.57*
.01
(n = 50)
-.24*
-.29*
.35
(n = 61)
- .10
.13
-.71*
.05

(n = 39)
-.38*
-.26
-.09
.72*
-.04
(n = 46)
-.09
-.05
.22
(n = 39)
-.36*
-.33*
-.70*
.33*

Total Sample
(N = 59)
-.38*
-.48*
-.22
.47*
- .08
(N = 89)a
-.37*
-.31*
-.42*
.32*
-.08
(N = 96)
-.25*
-.19
.30*
(N = 100}
-.29*
-.08
-.77*
-.10

*P < .05.
aTotal sample size is larger than the combined subsamples because some subjects did
not indicate their sex.

The array of correlationsin Phase 2 follow the predictedpattern.

Authoritarianismand rigidity are negatively related to same sex
touchingfor both males and females:Authoritarianand rigidrespondents apparentlyfeel more uncomfortablewith same sex touching.
The SSTS was positivelycorrelatedwith the Bem femininityscore.
Phase 3: A Replication
Methodology

For Phase3, respondentswere89 studentswith a meanage of 19.7,

range = 17-28. Of those whorespondedto the sex identificationquestion, 25 were males, and 39 females. All subjects, undergraduate
studentsat OregonState University,wererecruitedfroma varietyof
campuslocationsandcompletedthe surveyin groupsof threeto seven

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

272

K. S. LARSENAND J. LEROUX

in a universityclassroom.Usablereturnrate was betterthan 99NO

for
this and succeedingsurveys.The Phase 3 surveycontainedthe SSTS,
the 4-itemF-scale,the RAPH, and the BSRI, as in Phase 2.
Results
In the third phase we sought to replicatethe findingsof Phase 2,
employinga collegestudentsample.Theresults showan alphacoefficient of .95 and the findings demonstratea pattern very similarto
Phase 2 (Table2).
The severalalpha estimates suggest a scale of considerablehomogeneity.To examinethe questionof whethera scalewith as few as five
or 10 items wouldhave comparablealphacoeffients,alphaestimates
werecalculatedfor Phases 1-3 separatelyfor the first five andlast 10
items of the 20-itemSSTS. Phase 1 (k = 5) alphais .95; (k-10) .87;
Phase2 (k-5) alphais .93;(k = 10).72;andPhase3 (k = 5)is .86 (k10) .88. Theseresults comparewith alphacoefficientsof .98, 99, and
.95 for the completescale. Since the subscalealphastend to be somewhat smaller,we recommendusing the full scale.
Phases 4 and 5: CoIlstructand CriterionValidity
Methodology
The participantsin Phase 4 were 50 male undergraduatesand 46
femaleundergraduateswith a mean age of 20.5, range = 18-37; 61
femaleundergraduatesand 39 maleundergraduateswith a meanage
of 21.2, range = 18-32, participatedin Phase 5. The recruitmentprocedureand surveyreturnrates wereas reportedin Phase 3.
The survey for Phase 4 was broadenedto includethe 20-itemMach
IV scale (Christie& Geis, 1970X,the 6-itemReligiousOrthodoxyscale
(Putney& Middleton,1961),and the 23-itemforced-choiceLocus of
Controlscale (Rotter, 1966) In Phase 5, the survey includedthe
19-itemRadicalism-Conservatism
scale(Comrey&Newmeyer,1965),a
20-itemsemallticdifferentialSelf-Esteemscale (Janis& Field, 1959),
and the 18-itemTouchAvoidanceinstrument(Anderson& Leibowitz,
1978),where10 items formeda subscaleon samesex touchavoidance.
Results
In Phase 4 the SSTS correlatedsignificantlyand inversely with
Machiavellianismand positively with an internal locus of control
(Table2). However,these factors(alongwith religiousorthodoxy)play

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SAMESEX TOUCHING

273

a role only for the male respondents.Thus for males, being Machiavellian,religiouslyorthodox,andpossessingan externallocusof control are significantlyrelated to negative attitudes towardsame sex
touching.Also, femaleshad a morepositive attitudetowardsame sex
touchingthan males in Phase 4, Mm = 58.85, SDm = 16.2, Mf =
74.15,SDf = 15.6, t(94) = 4.99,p < .001.
In Phase 5 we examinedthe constructvalidityof the SSTS further.
Socio-politicalconservatismand low self-esteemrelatedsignificantly
to the SSTSforfemalesbut not formales,whereasthe samesex touchavoidancemeasureis, as expected,highlyinverselycorrelatedforboth
sexes with the SSTS. Oppositesex touchavoidanceis correlatedpositively fc)rfemalesbut not for males. Again the attitudes of females
towardsame sex touchingare significantlymorepositive in Phase 5,
Mm = 59.82,SDm = 16.7,Mf = 75.59,SDf = 14.0, t(98)= 4.71,p <
.001.

Phases 6 and 7: DiscriminatoryValidity

Methodology
Participantsin Phase 6 were 21 male graduatestudents in science,
18 male graduatestudents in a counselortrainingprogram,and 19
femalegraduatestudentsin a counselortrainingprogram(meanage =
23.1, range = 17-40). Respondentsin Phase 7 were 28 male and 30
female graduates and undergraduates(mean age = 24.3, range =
18-42).
In Phase 6, subjects from counselingand science programswere
given the SSTS and were asked questionson age, school/college,and
sex identificationto examine differencespredicted to arise from
specialtouchtrainingandeducation.Testingwas completedin groups
of threeto seven students in a universityclassroom.
In Phase 7, we furtherexamineddiscriminantvalidity.Respondents
were participantsin functioningtask groups in several psychology
classes varyingin size fromfive to seven members.Thesegroupshad
been working on projects for 7 weeks under conditions collective
grading)designedto maximizecooperativefeelings. The purposeof
the tasks was to developgroup projects on adjustmentdifficulties.
After completingthe SSTS, group membersin Phase 7 were told,
"Somepeoplefeel at ease with membersof their own sex and in the
processtoucheachotherin a nonsexualway;othersfeel somewhatuncomfortablein touchingmembersof their own sex. Please rankorder

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

274

K. S LARSEN AND J. LEROUX

membersof your group (you included)in terms of their comfortin

touchingmembersof their own sex in your group."Each groupwas
then asked to adopt a letter code and then assign to each membera
numberwithin that code. This procedureensured the participants!
anonymity.We evaluatedthe respondents'self-rankingin relationto
othergroupmembersas well as an averagepeerXgroup)
rankingas attributedby other membersof the group.The procedureprovidedfor
methodvariancein the scalesemployedacrossa relativelybroadrange
of variables,in additionto studies on discriminantvalidity.
Results
One test of the SSTS discriminatoryvalidity is in detecting differencesbetweencounselingand science students. The formergroup
had had sensitivity trainingin whichtouchwas an essentialandpositively affectivepart,whereasthe latter grouphad no suchexperience.
Further,it was assumedthat sciencestudentscouldbe expectedto exhibit more emotionaldetachmentand thereforelower scores on the
SSTS. The results of Phase 6 confirmthis patternof difference.
Meandifferencesshow the expectedmorepositive attitude among
counselingstudents, MC = 76.56, SDC = 17.6, MS = 61.17, SDS =
16.2, t(38) = 2.84,p < .01. Furthermore,femalecounselingstudents
are significantlymorepositive than male counselingstudents,Mf =
87.63,SDf = 10.8,Mm = 76.56,SDm = 17.6, t136)= 2.32,p < .05, as
foundin the results of Phases 4 and 5.
In Phase 7, a second test of discriminatoryvalidity compared
studentswhohadworkedin task groupsundercooperativeconditions.
It was thought that these conditionsaffordedsufficientintimacyto
permitjudgmentregardingease of same sex touching.Such self- and
Table 3
SSTS Scores for Respondents Scoring Above- and Below-Averagein Same Sex Accessibility.
M
SD
n
Above-average on self-rankings
73.51
13.2
29

M
SD
n
t
Below-averageon self-rankings
60.02
11.9
29
3.65**

Above-average on group rankings

73.25
13.4
29

Below average on group rankings

63.31
13.6
29
2.52*

Males
11.5

58.33
*p

<

.01.

**p

<

28

74.46

Females
12.8
30

-4.37**

O()le

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SAMESEX TOUCHING

275

groupjudgmentscouldthen be employedto discriminatescoreson the

SSTS.Table3 showsthe resultsof this analysis.Both self-rankingand
peer rankings discriminateeffectively on the SSTS. In each case
respondentswho scored above the averageon comfortof same sex
touching also have significantly higher mean SSTS scores. These
results supportthe discriminatoryvalidity of the SSTS. As foundin
the previous phases, females have significantlymore positive attitudes towardsame sex touchingthan do males.
Discussion
In Phases 1 and 2, the SSTS showed highly satisfactoryinternal
reliability, and taken together, the results of the several phases
demonstraterather consistent constructvalidity coefficients.Thus,
both Phases 2 and 3 produceda similarpatternof correlationseven
though the samples were drawn from differentpopulations.Other
phases laid the foundationfor a theoryof attitudes towardsame sex
touching.Therigidanddogmaticlifestyleof authoritarianindividuals
would seem to predisposethem towardacceptingtraditionalnorms
concerningsamesex touching.Perhapssamesex touchingis viewedas
a facet of a gay lifestyleratherthana normaloutcomeof heterosexual
behavior. Both authoritarianismand personal rigidity reflect adherenceto well-specifiednormsof physicalconducttowardthe same
sex. These variablesalso relatedto negative attitudes towardhomosexuals (Larsen,Reed, & Hoffman,1980), suggesting that for some
respondentsthe physicalexpressionof emotionscannotbe separated
fromsexual connotations.
Phases 2 and 3 showedalso that favorableattitudes towardsame
sex touchingdid not predictandrogynyas measuredby the BSRI.
This findingis surprising,sinceonewouldexpectandrogynouspeople
to be morecomfortablewith same sex touching.However,it seemed
that positive attitudes toward same sex touching were related to
sociallydesirableconceptionsof femininityforbothmalesandfemales
(i.e.,samesex touchingwas viewedprimarilyas a componentfeminine
trait).Sincethe BSRI measuredself-descriptionsof sociallydesirable
masculineand femininetraits, malesand femaleswho perceivea high
degreeof personalfemininecharacteristicsare morelikely to express
positive attitudes towardsame sex touching.
A complexpictureemergedin Phases4 and5. As mightbe expected,
femalesare socializedto be moreemotionallyexpressiveand, conse-

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

276

Ks S. LARSEN AND J. LeROUX

quently, display morepositive attitudes towardsame ses touching.

Evidencefor the SSTS criterionvalidity may be foundin the highly
negativecorrelationwith the samesexptouchavoidanceinstrumentof
Andersonand Leibowitz(1978).However,differencesfoundfor males
and females suggest that alternate but comparabledynamicscontribute to same sex touch attitudes. For males, positive attitudes
towardsamesex touchingmay be rejectionof Machiavellianinfluence
attempts, influencedby low religiosity,and an internallocus of control; whereasfor females socio-politicalradicalism,high self-esteems
and avoidanceof oppositesex touchingmay play primaryr(les. These
factorscollectivelysuggest a patternof normativeindependencecontributingto positive attitudes.
The results of Phases 6 and 7 indicate promisingdiscriminatory
validity of the SSTS. As expectedtcounselingstudents with experience in sensitivity trainingexhibitedmorepositive attitudes toward
same sex touchingthan a comparablegroupof sciencestudents.Likewise, groupjudgments(peerrankings)on ease of samesex touchingef
fectively-discriminatedon the SSTS. These results, however,leave
unansweredthe question:Is the differencebetween counselingand
sciencestudents an experientialfactorof contemporarytralningor a
reflectionof a morepervadingpersonalitydifference?
We suggest that same sex touchingattitudes are importantto the
psychologicalwell-beingof the individualancithat same sex touching
ease has directimplicationsfor heterosexualadjustment.It couldbe
hypothesizedthat the lack of intimacyin some heterosexualrelationships is influencedby carry-overfearsbasedon samesex taboosin our
society. To understandthe full complexity of sexual behaviorX
researchersmust examinemorecloselythe maleurlease(ornegativeattztudes)and its influenceon heterosexualintimacy

References
ANDERSON,
P. A., & LEIBOWITZ,
K. (1978).The development and nature of the construct
touch avoidance. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3, 89-106.
ADORNO,
T. W., FRENKEL
BRUNS%TIK,
E., LEVINSON,
D. J., & S.ANFOR[),
R. N. (1950).The
authoritarianpersonalgty.New York: Harper.
AGUILERA,
D. C. (1967). Relationship between physical contact and verbal interaction
between nurses and patients. Journal of Psvehiatnc Nursing and Mental Health
Services, 5(1), 5-21.
BABESIE,
E. R. (1973). Survey researchmethods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SAME SEX TOUCHING

277

BEM,S. L. (1974).The tneasurementof psychological androgeny.Journal of Consulting

and ClinicalPsychology, 42, 155-162.
BEM,S. L. tl975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgeny.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634-643.
BODERMAN,
A., FREED,D. W., & KINNUCAN,
M. T. (1972). "Touchme, like me: Testing
an encounter group assumption. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 8, 527-533.
BREED,G. R. & RICCI,J. S. (1973>."Touch me, like me": Artifact? In Summary in Proceedings of the 31stAnnual Conventionof the AmericanPsychological Association
(pp. 153-154).Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
CHRISTIE,
R., & GEIS,F. L. (Eds.). (1970). Studaes in Machiavellianism. New York:
Academic Press
COMREY,
A., & NEWMEYER,
J. (1965).Measurementof radicalism-conservatism.Journal
of Social Psychology, 67X357-369.
COOPER.C. L., & BOWLES,C. (1973). Physical encounter and self-disclosure.
Psychological Reports, 33, 451-454.
EDWARDS,A. L. (1957). Techniques for attitude scale construction. New YorkAppleton-Century-Crofts.
FISHBEIN,
M., & AJZEN,I. (1975>.Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
FISHER,J. D., RYTTING,
M., & HESLIN,R. (1976). Hands touching, 39, 416-421.
HALL,E. T. (1966). The hidden dimensiort.Garden Citys NY: Doubleday.
HENLEY,
N. M. (1973).Status and sex: Some touching observations. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
2(2), 91-93.
HESIJIN,
R., & BOSS,D. (1976). Tactile behavior in arravaland departureof an airport.
Unpublished manuscript, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN.
JANIS,I. L., & FIELD,P. B. (1959) Sex differences and personality factors related to
persuasibility. In I. L. Janis, C. I. Hovland, P. B. Field, G. S. Linton, & B. T. King
(Eds.}, Personality and persuasibility (pp. 300-301). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
JOURARD,
S. M. (1966). An exploratory study of body-accessibility. British Journal of
Social and ClinicalPsychology, 5, 221-231.
JOURARD,
S. M., & RUBIN,J. E. (1968). Self-disclosure and touching: A study of two
modes of interpersonal encounter and their interrelation. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 8(1), 39-48.
KENNELLS
J. H., SLYTER,
H., & (:LAUS,M. H. (1970).The mourningresponse of parents
to the death of a newborninfant. New England Jour7talof Medicine,283(7X,344-349.
LANE,R. (1955). Fotlr-item F-scale in "Political personality and electoral choice.'
American Political Science Review, 49, 173-190.
LARSEN,K. S. REED,M*, & HOFFMAN,
S. (1980). Attitudes of heterosexuals toward
homosexuality: A L;kert-type scale and construct validity. The Journal of Sex
ResearchS16 245-257.
LOMRANX,
J., & SHAPIRA,
A. (1974). Communicative patterns of self-disclosure and
touching behavior. Joalrnczlof Psychology, 88, 223-227.
MEHRARIAN,
J. C. (1976). The effects of communicationapprehensionon nonverbal behavior. CommunicationQuarterly,24, 39-44.
MERESKO,
R., RUBIN,M., SHONTZ,
R. C., & MORROW,
W. R. (1954). Rigidity of attitudes regarding personal habits and its ideological correiates.Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 49 89-93.
NGUYEN,
T., HESLIN,R., & NGUYEN,
M. L. (1975). The meanings of touch: Sex differences. Journal of Communication,25 92-103.
Societyt

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

278

K. S. LARSEN AND J. LEROUX

PATTISON,J. E. (1973). Effects of touch on self-exploration

and the therapeutic relationship. Journal of Consultxngand Clinical Psychology,
40, 170-175.
PEDERSEN, D. M. (1973). Self-disclosure,
body-accessibility,
and personal space.
Psychological Reports, 33, 975-980.
PERRY, J. A. (1976). Physicians' erotic and
nonerotic physical involvement with
patients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 133, 838-840.
PUTNEY,S., & MIDDLETON,
R. (1961). Dimensions and correlates of religious
ideologies.
Social Forces, 39, 285-290.
ROSENFELD,
L. B., KARTIS,S., & RAY, C. (1976). Body
accessibility revisited. Journal of
Communication,26, 27-30.
ROTTER,J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for
internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(669).
SHUTER,P. (1976). Proxemics and tactility in Latin
America. Journal of Communication, 26, 46-52.
SILVERMAN,
A. F., PRESSMAN,M. E., & BARTEL,H. W. (1973).
Self-esteem and tactile
communication. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 13, 73-77.
SILVERTHORNE,
C., MICKLEWRIGHT,
J., O DONNEL,M., & GIBSON,R. <1982, April).
Attribution of personal characteristics as a function of touch on
initzal contact. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological
Association, Sacramento.
WATSON,
O. M., & GRAVES,T. D. (1966). Quantitative
research in proxemic behavior.
American Anthropologist, 68, 971-985.
WHITCHER,
S. J., & FISHER, J. D. (1979). Multidimensional
reaction to therapeutic
touch in a hospital setting. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 87-96.

Accepted forpublication December16, 1983

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions