Full text of DOI:10.1080/01926180390201936

This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee At Martin]
On: 06 October 2014, At: 01:09
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The American Journal of Family Therapy
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaft20
Romantic Physical Affection Types and Relationship
Satisfaction
Andrew K. Gulledge a , Michelle H. Gulledge a & Robert F. Stahmannn a
a Brigham Young University
Published online: 13 Dec 2006.
To cite this article: Andrew K. Gulledge , Michelle H. Gulledge & Robert F. Stahmannn (2003) Romantic Physical
Affection Types and Relationship Satisfaction, The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31:4, 233-242, DOI:
10.1080/01926180390201936
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926180390201936
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31:233–242, 2003
Copyright © Taylor and Francis Inc.
ISSN: 0192-6187 print / 1521-0383 online
DOI: 10.1080/01926180390201936
Romantic Physical Affection Types and
Relationship Satisfaction
ANDREW K. GULLEDGE, MICHELLE H. GULLEDGE,
and ROBERT F. STAHMANN
Brigham Young University
College students (N = 295, 100 men, 195 women) responded to a
questionnaire examining their preferences and attitudes regard-
ing romantic physical affection (PA) types and relationship satis-
faction (sexual intimacy is excluded from the scope of this study).
The seven PA types examined are backrubs/massages, caressing/
stroking, cuddling/holding, holding hands, hugging, kissing on the
lips, and kissing on the face (not lips). In general, PA is found to be
highly correlated with relationship and partner satisfaction as is
suggested by prior research. Respondents’ attitudes regarding the
seven PA types are given in ordinal data (with gender differentia-
tion) across the dimensions favorite, frequent, intimate, and ex-
pressive of love. Those respondents currently involved in romantic
relationships provided information as to the average amounts of
each PA type they engage in per week. These amounts were signifi-
cantly correlated with relationship and partner satisfaction for all
PA types except holding hands and caressing/stroking. Conflict reso-
lution was generally found to be easier with more PA, but the amount
of conflict was irrespective of PA. Conflict was resolved easier with
increasing amounts of cuddling/holding (p < .01), kissing on the
lips (p < .01), and hugging (p < .05). The implications of these
findings are discussed.
Many aspects of a romantic relationship contribute to the happiness and
satisfaction thereof. Couples therapists try to integrate these critical elements
into the lives of dissatisfied partners. This is only effective, however, where
there exists a causal relationship between the satisfaction of the partners and
We thank D. Russell Crane, Thomas B. Holman, Jeffry H. Larson, Donovan Fleming, Mat-
thew P. Spackman, Darhl M. Pedersen, Bruce N. Carpenter, Jared Montoya, Cassiey Dorius,
and Bruce L. Brown for assistance in providing survey respondents for the present study.
Address correspondence to Andrew K. Gulledge, 1601 Barton Rd., #2712, Redlands,
CA 92373. E-mail: akgulledge@hotmail.com
233

234
A. K. Gulledge, M. H. Gulledge, and R. F. Stahmann
that element we are trying to integrate. The first step is to determine if a
significant correlation exists between the factors. Appropriate experimental
designs should then ensue since correlation exists between the factors. This
paper presents the data of a correlational study. Those elements of a roman-
tic relationship considered in the paper deal with (nonsexual) physical affec-
tion (PA) types.
Countless studies have dealt with PA between parent and child, teacher
and pupil, and similar associations. Other papers include PA as a small part
in a broad study focusing on the romantic relationship. Few studies, how-
ever, have examined the subject of PA in romantic relationships with consid-
erable detail and much research is still needed on the subject (L’Abate, 2001).
Sternberg (1986, 1997, 1998), for instance, developed a triangular Theory of
Love, which includes passion, intimacy, and commitment, but does not di-
rectly address PA. In Lemieux’s (1996) examination of this theory, various
“love behaviors” (one of which is kissing) were studied with respect to their
change over time. These “love behaviors” were positively correlated with
relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, factor analysis in Lemieux’s study de-
lineates affection as a component of romantic relationships.
Diamond (2000) compared romantic relationships with platonic rela-
tionships looking at PA and its effects on cardiovascular arousal. She found
that PA is associated with an arousal-modulating function in romantic rela-
tionships but not in platonic relationships, providing support to the dichotomy
of the two relationship types in terms of physiological activity. PA was also
associated with the development of attachment bonds. Furthermore, Flaherty
(1999) found a positive correlation between romantic PA and feeling under-
stood. Mackey, Diemer, and O’Brien (2000) also found that PA contributes to
the development of psychological intimacy. These data suggest that PA is at
least somewhat related to relationship satisfaction.
There is a problem, however, in the literature regarding terminology.
One study refers to affection with the operational definition of “emotional
acceptance,” which might be related to (but certainly does not inherently
suggest) PA (see Gaines, 1996). Since affect denotes feeling or emotion, it is
possible that the term affection may or may not refer to PA as defined in this
paper. Assumptions, therefore, based on the nonexistent continuity of mean-
ing in the word affection make the interpretation of related research litera-
ture rather difficult. The terms touch, affection, physical affection, and affec-
tionate behavior can all be seen in the literature (e.g., Gaines, 1996; Lum,
1997; Mackey, Diemer, & O’Brien, 2000; Noel, 1996; Van Horn, Arnone, Nesbitt,
Desilets, Sears, Giffin, et al., 1997), yet except where an operational defini-
tion is expressly given, one cannot be sure what to understand by these
terms. In an attempt to facilitate understanding, we have operationally de-
fined PA as any touch intended to arouse feelings of love in the giver and/or
the recipient. This operational definition was also provided on the survey
instrument employed in the present study.

235
PA Types and Relationship Satisfaction
Seven types of PA are examined (sexual intimacy is, once again, ex-
cluded from present consideration). These types are backrubs/massages,
caressing/stroking, cuddling/holding, holding hands, kissing on the lips, and
kissing on the face. It was originally hypothesized that individuals who were
more physically affectionate with their romantic partners (as reflected by the
seven PA types) will generally be happier and more satisfied in their relation-
ships than those who are not as physically affectionate.
METHOD
Participants
College students (N = 295, 195 women and 100 men, mean age = 22.4 years)
completed the survey in several classes at Brigham Young University in Psy-
chology; Sociology; and Marriage, Family, and Human Development. There
was no paid remuneration for participation. One hundred and eighty-six
participants reported being currently involved in a romantic relationship (mean
age = 22.73 years) while 109 were not (mean age = 21.95 years).
Questionnaire
The survey instrument contains three sections: (1) an ordinal section dealing
with the seven PA types on the dimensions favorite, frequent, intimate, and
expressive of love, (2) a 7-point Likert scale dealing with respondents’ atti-
tudes regarding PA (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree), and (3) a
small section asking how many average minutes/times per week the respon-
dent engages in each of the seven PA types.
RESULTS
Analyses for section 1 use means and Bivariate Spearman rank correlations
*
with two-tailed alpha levels of .05 and .01 (represented by and ** respec-
tively). Analyses for sections 2 and 3 use means and bivariate pearson prod-
uct moment correlations with the same alpha levels and representations as
mentioned above.
The original hypothesis that PA would be significantly correlated with
relationship and partner satisfaction is strongly supported as shown in Table
1. Table 2 shows the correlations between relationship/partner satisfaction
and the seven PA types. The only two PA types that are not significantly
correlated with relationship/partner satisfaction are holding hands and ca-
ressing/stroking. Correlational data show relationships between PA and con-
flict. The amount of PA given (r = –.097) and received (r = –.099) does not
appear to be related to the amount of conflict in the relationship; however,

236
A. K. Gulledge, M. H. Gulledge, and R. F. Stahmann
TABLE 1. Correlation Matrix for Amount of PA and Relationship/Partner Satisfaction
I am happy/
satisfied in my
current
My romantic
partner is happy/ satisfied with my
satisfied in our
relationship.
I am happy/
My romantic
partner is happy/
satisfied with me.
romantic partner.
relationship.
I give my
romantic
partner
a lot of PA. **.505
My romantic
**.565
**.600
**.493
**.401
**.528
**.577
partner
gives me
a lot of PA. **.439
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
the amount of PA given (r = **.342) and received (r = **.361) appears to be
positively correlated with how easily conflict is resolved. Furthermore, con-
flict was resolved easier with increasing amounts of cuddling/holding ( p <
.01), kissing on the lips ( p < .01), and hugging ( p < .05).
Respondents’ attitudes regarding PA are shown in Table 3. There were
no significant gender differences in these data. Respondents tended to un-
TABLE 2. Correlation Matrix for Relationship/Partner Satisfaction and PA Types
I am happy/
satisfied in my
current
My romantic
I am happy/
My romantic
partner is happy/ satisfied with my partner is happy/
satisfied in our
relationship.
romantic partner. satisfied with me.
relationship.
Amount of
Backrubs/
Massages
Amount of
Cuddling/
Holding
**.210
*.173
**.253
**.215
*.193
*.165
**.244
**.217
Amount of
Kissing
on the Face
Amount of
Hugging
*.184
*.193
**.205
**.202
*.164
*.184
**.209
**.206
Amount of
Kissing
on the Lips
Amount of
Holding
*.193
.124
.097
*.192
.126
.099
*.186
.111
.084
*.184
.125
.084
Hands
Amount of
Caressing/
Stroking
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

237
PA Types and Relationship Satisfaction
TABLE 3. Respondents’ Attitudes Toward PA on 7-Point Likert Scale
Mean
Std. Deviation
1.25
PA is important to
achieve happiness/
satisfaction in
romantic relationships.
My satisfaction in
our romantic relationship
is directly related to
the amount of
6.05
3.96
PA I give/receive.
1.72
There is less conflict
in romantic relationships
when partners
give each other PA.
Conflict is more easily
resolved when partners
give each other PA.
I feel more loved
by my romantic partner
when he/she gives me PA.
I feel more understood
by my romantic partner
when he/she gives me PA.
PA is a good way of
showing one’s romantic
love for another.
4.85
4.79
6.01
5.01
5.97
1.71
1.63
1.01
1.39
1.05
1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree
derestimate the relationship between PA and conflict resolution and the strong
link between relationship satisfaction and PA. They generally feel more loved
and understood when given PA, and they generally agree that PA is a good
way of showing one’s romantic love for another.
The seven PA types are ranked from 1 to 7 in Table 4 with gender
differentiation across four dimensions: favorite, frequent, intimate, and ex-
pressive of love. Mean values were obtained from each item and were or-
dered from least to greatest. For example, respondents would put a “1” next
to “Kissing on the Lips” to show that it is their most favorite. Since “Kissing
on the Lips” had the lowest mean value for men, it appears that it is generally
their most favorite PA type. Any ordinal difference of more than one place
across gender is noted with an asterisk (*) on Table 4 and does not refer to
alpha levels.
Spearman Rank Correlations show significant gender differences not
illustrated in Table 4. Men appear to favor kissing on the lips ( p < .01) and
backrubs/massages ( p < .05) more than women. Women appear to favor
cuddling/holding ( p < .01) and holding hands ( p < .01) more than men.
Also, men appear to find kissing on the lips ( p < .05) and backrubs/mas-
sages (p < .05) to be more expressive of love than do women.

238
A. K. Gulledge, M. H. Gulledge, and R. F. Stahmann
TABLE 4. Ordinal Data of the Seven PA Types
Favorite
Frequent
Men
Women
Men
Women
(Most)
Kissing on
the Lips
Cuddling/Holding
Cuddling/Holding
*Holding Hands
Cuddling/Holding
Kissing on
the Lips
Hugging
Cuddling/Holding
Hugging
Hugging
Hugging
Kissing on
the Lips
*Backrubs/
Massages
*Holding Hands
*Holding Hands
Kissing on
the Lips
*Caressing/Stroking
Kissing on
the Face
Caressing/Stroking
Kissing on
the Face
Kissing on
the Face
*Backrubs/Massages
Kissing on
the Face
Caressing/Stroking
*
(Least)
(Most)
*Holding Hands Caressing/Stroking Backrubs/Massages
Backrubs/
Massages
Intimate
Expressive of Love
Men
Women
Men
Women
Kissing on
the Lips
Kissing on
the Lips
Kissing on
the Lips
Kissing on
Cuddling/
Holding
Cuddling/
Holding
Cuddling/
Holding
Cuddling/
Holding
Caressing/
Stroking
Caressing/
Stroking
Caressing/
Stroking
Kissing on
the Face
Kissing on
the Face
Kissing
the Face
Kissing on
the Face
Caressing/
Stroking
Backrubs/
Massages
Hugging
Backrubs/
Massages
Holding Hands
hugging
Holding Hands
Holding Hands
Hugging
(Least)
Holding Hands
Hugging
Backrubs/
Massages
Backrubs/
Massages
*Indicates a notable difference in order across gender
The Likert scale data examining the favorite dimension show both
supporting and conflicting results to the aforementioned gender differ-
ences regarding the seven PA types. In this section it appears that men
favor giving backrubs/massages more than women ( p < .05), but both
men and women equally favor receiving backrubs/massages. Women fa-
vor holding hands more than men ( p < .01) as previously suggested, but,
contrary to the ordinal data, there is no significant sex difference in the
favoring of cuddling/holding. Also contrary to the above findings, this
section found no significant gender differences in the favoring of kissing
on the lips. Furthermore, this section found that women both like to hug
( p < .01) and be hugged ( p < .05) by their romantic partners more than
men—a finding that was not suggested by the above data.

239
PA Types and Relationship Satisfaction
DISCUSSION
As suggested by previous literature, the data in the present study support the
original hypothesis that PA and relationship/partner satisfaction are highly
correlated. Furthermore, five of the seven PA types were specifically linked
to this satisfaction. What are the implications of these findings? Couples thera-
pists search for ways to improve their clients’ relationships. What is it, then,
that makes happy couples happy? Amidst the vast constituent parts that form
a romantic relationship, perhaps we have found one stone that has hereto-
fore been mostly left unturned. Certainly more depth in understanding must
be reached before therapists can make any definitive conclusions about the
importance of PA in relationships.
Of what value is it to understand generally what people’s opinions are
with regard to PA? Nomothetic research will never be able to take the place
of solid idiographic data in the context of the romantic relationship. Gender
differences should also be considered. For example, a male researcher would
not be justified in telling his wife that because of such-and-such data, she
will inevitably and automatically consider kissing on the lips to be more
expressive of love than cuddling/holding. Idiosyncrasies should, therefore,
always be considered when dealing with such personal and subjective top-
ics as romantic PA. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to assess what one’s
romantic partner considers to be most expressive of love (or favorite, inti-
mate, etc.) and to go from there. Generally, however, we can see trends and
patterns in the data regarding PA that would be invaluable to the therapist.
For example, why do men generally appear to favor giving backrubs/
massages more than women when the data also show that both men and
women equally favor receiving backrubs/massages? If we consider that men
tend to find backrubs/massages as more expressive of love than do women,
we might infer that men have a higher likelihood of giving their partners a
massage when they want to express love. Women, however, might not see
this through the same lens as do men. To women, in general, a massage is
not as expressive of love as it is to men. Therefore, the feelings of love that
a man desires to convey to his partner through a massage might not be
received with the same intensity as he had intended.
If the woman, however, favors holding hands more than the man (as is
suggested by the data in a general sense), then a man might not find holding
hands as pleasing as does the woman. If that man, then, being cognizant of
this difference in preference, desires to please the woman, he will hold
hands with her even if he does not equally enjoy it. Conversely, if a woman
knows that her male partner favors backrubs/massages more than she does
and that he considers it to be more expressive of love, she will then know
just how to please him. If she desires to express her love to him, she will
know how to do so in a way that he will understand the best (i.e., through a
backrub, massage, etc.). We suggest that couples be cognizant of these dif-

240
A. K. Gulledge, M. H. Gulledge, and R. F. Stahmann
ferences in attitudes regarding PA (in their own relationships), and adjust
their behavior accordingly. As shown in previous research, this might con-
tribute to increased understanding between partners (e.g., Flaherty, 1999).
Therapists might also benefit from this consideration.
Certain PA types are more “selfless” than others. Backrubs/massages,
for example, may be stimulating to the giver as well as to the recipient
but are generally seen as selfless acts. This might be an explanation as to
why the amount of backrubs/massages a couple gives each other has a
higher correlation with relationship/partner satisfaction than any other
PA type (see Table 2). However, the fact that caressing/stroking (which
might or might not be “selfless”) is the PA type least correlated (not even
significantly) with satisfaction shows that perhaps this explanation is not
valid. Backrubs/massages, nevertheless, still seem to require the exertion
of more energy for a more sustained period of time than does caressing/
stroking or even kissing on the face (another “selfless” PA type). Perhaps,
then, backrubs/massages are more highly correlated with relationship
satisfaction because they are not as easy to give, and therefore require
higher levels of dedication.
One problem with this study is the homogeneity of the sample. We
assume a generally conservative, young, white, Latter-day Saint sample of
both married and single college students. We hypothesize that significant
differences exist across individuals of differing demographic backgrounds.
More experienced couples, for example, might prefer holding hands to other
PA types whereas those of younger relationships might have the preferences
outlined in this paper. This is to say nothing of the many other forms of
“affectionate behavior” outside the genre of PA (e.g., gazing, conversing,
cleaning, just saying “I love you,” etc.). Sexual PA should also be considered.
In fact there are many parts of a relationship which might contribute to the
happiness and/or satisfaction thereof, irrespective of PA. These might be
examined in connection with PA as well in future studies.
We also hypothesize that those of other cultural backgrounds will
have significant differences as well. In many Latin cultures, for example,
kissing on the cheek is customary and polite and does not necessarily
depict the romantic interest of the giver for the recipient. Those without
this cultural background might, therefore, place more emphasis on facial
kissing (as a manifestation of romantic interest) than those who are more
accustomed to the practice. Another possible example of poor sampling
is the religious affiliation of the majority of students surveyed. The Latter-
day Saints’ strong emphasis on premarital sexual abstinence probably has
a bearing on the opinions reflected in this survey. Many church leaders,
for example, advise that couples abstain from “excessive” PA before mar-
riage, especially backrubs/massages. This will indefinitely have an effect
on the frequency dimension of our ordinal data (e.g., backrubs/massages
came in last place for both men and women). Those of other religious

241
PA Types and Relationship Satisfaction
backgrounds may or may not have these (or similar) manifestations in the
data. There may very well be other sampling biases related to religious and
cultural background. Further research with more representative samples
should, therefore, be conducted to examine the effects of these sampling
biases.
Another problem with this study is the use of too many positive state-
ments to which participants responded on the 7-point Likert scale. Since
many respondents tend to have a positive set in answering survey questions,
the data might easily be skewed in favor of our hypothesis. Future survey
instruments should incorporate a comparable amount of negative statements
(e.g., “I am not happy/satisfied in my current relationship” or “I do not like
to kiss my romantic partner on the lips”). Furthermore, more accurate mea-
sures should be taken to assess the amounts of each PA type in which the
individual engages for a set period of time. More than a few respondents
entered “a lot” for these questions where a specific quantity (albeit a rough
estimate) would have been much more helpful (e.g., 150 times per week).
Since we (subjectively) delineated seven PA types, other possible PA
types have been suggested. Among the suggestions offered by respondents
are “playing with your partner’s hair,” “playing footsie,” “just touching,” “wres-
tling,” and “dancing.” The first three might been seen as caressing/stroking
or even cuddling/holding. “Wrestling” could also be viewed as cuddling/
holding. And “dancing” seems more like a social activity than PA, although it
might (at times) fit the criteria for PA. Furthermore, PA itself could probably
be considered a social activity depending on how we define social. Other PA
types might also be suggested in the future.
CONCLUSION
If PA is closely associated with relationship and partner satisfaction, then it
ought to be looked at further from a scientific standpoint. Even though the
data appear to support this correlation, PA has not been sufficiently exam-
ined in the context of the romantic relationship. An experimental design will
be able to show if the two exist in a causal (not just correlational) relation-
ship. If they do, then therapists might find merit in “prescribing” PA for
couples in therapy. Perhaps we will be able to delineate which PA types
(and how much) to prescribe for certain couples depending on a plethora of
demographic characteristics in order to obtain maximum satisfaction (or the
likelihood thereof ) in the relationship. Perhaps the therapist will be able to
recommend increased amounts of cuddling/holding, kissing on the lips, and
hugging to facilitate conflict resolution (again, an experimental design will
be necessary). Although there are countless other variables in a relationship
that determine one’s happiness and satisfaction, PA might be a significant
enough component to consider in the context of Marriage and Family Therapy.

242
A. K. Gulledge, M. H. Gulledge, and R. F. Stahmann
REFERENCES
Diamond, L. M. (2000). Are friends as good as lovers? Attachment, physical affection,
and effects on cardiovascular arousal in young women’s closest relationships
(Doctoral dissertation, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B:
The Sciences and Engineering, 2000 Mar., 60(8-B), 4272.
Flaherty, L. M. (1999). Communication expectations, feeling understood, and rela-
tionship development (Doctoral dissertation, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts In-
ternational, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 1999 Jul., 60(1-A), 0020.
Gaines, S. O. (1996). Impact of interpersonal traits and gender-role compliance on
interpersonal resource exchange among dating and engaged/married couples.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1996 May, 13(2), 241–261.
L’Abate, L. (2001). Hugging, holding, huddling and cuddling (3HC): A task prescrip-
tion in couple and family therapy. Journal of Clinical Activities, Assignments &
Handouts in Psychotherapy Practice, 1(1), 5–18.
Lemieux, R. (1996). Behavioral indicators of intimacy, passion, and commitment in
young versus mature romantic relationships: A test of the Triagular Theory of
Love (Doctoral dissertation, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, Section
A: Humanities and Social Services, 1996 Sep., 57(3-A), 0926.
Lum, J. L. (1997). Ethnic differences in the expression of affection and other emo-
tions (Doctoral dissertation, 1997). Dissertation-Abstracts-International, SectionB:
The-Sciences and Engineering, 1997 Sep., 58(3-B), 1596.
Mackey, R. A., Diemer, M. A., O’Brien, B. A. (2000). Psychological intimacy in the
lasting relationships of heterosexual and same-gender couples. Sex Roles, 2000
Aug., 43(3–4), 201–227.
Noel, J. G. (1996). Trust, behavioral expectations, and interpersonal influence in
romantic relationships (Doctoral dissertation, 1996). Dissertation Absracts Inter-
national, Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 1996 Sep., 57(3-B), 2221.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–
135.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313–335.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Cupid’s arrow. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Horn, K. R., Arnone, A., Nesbitt, K., Desilets, L, Sears, T., Giffin, M., et al. (1997).
Physical distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students’ romantic
relationships. Personal Relationships, 4(1), 25–34.