THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TACTILE COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS AND
TEACHERS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ‘
GEORGE LYMAN McMAHON
1977

   
     

  

L IBR A R Y
Michigan State

University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TACTILE COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS AND
TEACHERS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

presented by
George Lyman McMahon
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Secondag Education

 

 

WWW

Major professor

Date {/30/77

0-7639

 

 

N V
0W1?

 

57%
i -’ “pl: ‘ in
‘vd' -‘ f ‘K

APR 1 1 2001
ue1aea

.L'.

ABSTRACT

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TACTILE COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS AND
TEACHERS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

BY

George L. McMahon
Statement of the Problem

Within the field of education, investigation into the
potential significance of the phenomenon of human touching
has generally been avoided. This exploratory study was
undertaken in an effort to generate some initial hypotheses
regarding the significance of touch between teachers and
students and the behavior's potential utility as a form of

interpersonal communication.

Design of the Study

The study included two major research components. The
first was an extensive review of the literature for information

pertaining to the potential importance of tactile communication

between teachers and students. Previous research and theoret-

ical writing from the fields of psychology, anthropology, communi-
cations, medicine and education were reviewed in order to establish

the importance of the human touch. The second component was a

survey of 222 elementary school, classroom, teachers conducted in

an effort to identify the nature and extent of the touch phenomenon

George Lyman McMahon

between themselves and their students. The instrument utilized

was the self designed "Survey of Touching Behavior and Attitudes."
The survey instrument was administered to the teaching staffs

of sixteen different elementary schools in four different school

districts within a metropolitan county in Michigan. Data generated

were analyzed using frequency distributions, modes, means and ranges.

Cross tabulations were computed for seven variables:

Sex of the teacher
Marital Status

Age of the teacher
Educational degree
Teaching experience
Tenure status
Teaching assignment

NO‘UIJ-‘UNH
0

Major Findings of the Study

The major findings from the literature indicated that the
phenomenon of touch behavior is of potentially high importance
for the growth and development of human beings. Although
research in education is extremely limited, the findings of
researchers in other disciplines support the significance of
physical contact.

The survey of touching behavior and attitudes indicated
that elementary school teachers engage in a wide range of
touching behavior. The more frequent contact is of the teacher
hand to student body types of touch. Teachers attributed a

high degree of importance to touch behavior and seventy—eight

percent felt that more research.was needed.

Some of the additional findings were:

3.

5.

George Lyman McMahon

Seldom do either teachers (5.52) or
students (4.1%) request not to be touched.
More than 872 of the teachers had never
received a complaint and complaints received
usually were in regard to punitive touch.
In regard to sex differences and touch,
272 of the teachers felt that girls
desired more touching as opposed to one
teacher (.52) who thought boys desired
more (primarily female teachers held this
view).

A higher percentage of male teachers
attributed greater importance to touch
than did females, however, females en-
gaged in touching behavior more frequently
than males.

Teachers of kindergarten through third
grade believed and engaged in touching
more frequently than teachers of older
students; although they (uppergrade teachers)
indicated recognition of the importance of

touching.

It is reiterated that the intent of this study was inquiry
and that relationships identified are presented for their potential

heuristic value for others who may wish to pursue the phenomenon

of human tactile communication.

 

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TACTILE COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS AND

TEACHERS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

BY

George Lyman McMahon

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

1977

© Copyright by
GEORGE LYMAN MCMAHON

1977

[II I! II

I I‘M I‘UIUI'I. if II, .? I
It), )I IIIIIII’II 4".» , .|I'

TO MY SON MICHAEL
WITH LOVE

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincere appreciation is extended to the chairman of my
committee, Charles Blackman for his guidance and for his concern
for me as a human being. Appreciation is also extended to the
other members of the committee from Michigan State University,
Lawrence Sarbaugh and Dale Alam for their interest in me, their
constructive questioning and their support for this project.

A special thanks to the fourth member of the committee, Allen
Menlo of the University of Michigan who represented the work
done as a 0.1.0. Traveling Scholar.

Gratitude is also extended to Keith Ward for being my
friend and confidant, to Fran Fowler for answering a thousand
questions and to Carolyn wells for typing the manuscript.

More personally, a heartfelt thank you, love and affection
are offered to my parents, John and Margaret McMahon for every-
thing they have done for me. Most importantly my love and
affection to my marriage partner, Kathy, who sacrificed so much
in order for me to return to school. Nerds are insufficient to
express my gratitude for her support.

To all of these peOple and to the students, colleagues and

friends from whom I've learned so much; thank you for helping me

become myself.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLESOOOOOOOOOOO0.00..0.0000000000000000000000IO Vi
I. INTRODUCTION To THE STUDYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1

Introduction........................................
Statememt of The Problem............................
Significance of The Study...........................
Assumptions on Which The Study is Based.............
Generalizability of The Study.......................
Limitations of The Study............................
Definition of Terms Used in The Study...............
Summary of the Chapter..............................

\OQNU’IUwav-t

II. Mlm 0F REMTED LITERATUREOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 10

Introduction........................................ 10
Psychology.......................................... 12
Anthropology........................................ 23
Communications...................................... 29
Medicine............................................ 34
Education..."...................................... 39
Summary of the Chapter.............................. 43

III. RESEARCH PROCEDURES or THE STUDY 45

Introduction........................................ 45
Population and Sample............................... 45
Development of The Survey Instrument................ 48
Administration of The Survey........................ 45
Procedure for Treatment of The Data................. 50
Summary of the Chapter.............................. 50

IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS or THE DATA.................... 52

Introduction........................................ 52
Description of The Sample........................... 53
Frequency Distributions............................. 58
Selected Crosstabulations........................... 76
Review and Summary of The Chapter................... 94

iv

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................

IntrOduCtj-onoooosees-00000000000oooeeooeooooeeoeeeeeoo
Summary of The Design.................................
Summary of The Survey Data............................
ConclusionS....o......................................
Recmendationsoooeoo00000000000000oooooeooooeooeeooee
Genera]- HypOtheaea.........ooooono...................
RafleCtj-Otlseeeoeeeooeeooeeeeoeoooeeeoeeoooeooeoeoeeooe

APPENDIX A. A Survey of Touching Behavior and Attitudes...
APPENDIX B Subjective Responses to Survey Items..........
APPENDIX C Supplementary Data............................
BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................

GENERAL REFERENCESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

98

98

98
102
105
108
111
112
118
121
150
153

156

 

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

22.

LIST OF TABLES

Sex Distribution of Sample...................................53
Marital Status Distribution..................................53
Age Distribution of The Sample...............................54
Distribution of Earned Degree.................................54
Distribution By Teaching Experience...........................55
Distribution By Teaching Assignment...........................56
Comparison of Building Staff and Enrollment...................S7
Touch and Positive Feelings...................................58
Touch and Negative Feelings...................................59
Touch and Self-Concept........................................60
Touch and Positive Attitudes..................................6O
Touch and Punishment..........................................60
Students Liking to be Touched.................................61
Teachers Liking to be Touched.................................61
Encouragement to Touch........................................62
Touching in Private...........................................62
Teachers Bugging Students.....................................63
Teachers Kissing Students.....................................63
One Arm Show of Affection.....................................64
Sitting on Teacher's Lap......................................64
Students Touching Teachers....................................65

Studmta Rigging TeaCherBOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOIOOOO00.0.0000000065

vi

23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.

Students Hugging Teachers..........................................66
Students Asking Not to be Touched..................................66
Teachers Asking Not to be Touched...... ......... ...................67
Teachers Spanking Students .......... . ..... .........................67
Method of Spanking........ ........ .................................68
Teachers Slapping Students.........................................68
Complaints About Touching... ...... .................................69
Complainants About Touching........................................7o
Students Responding Favorably to Touch.............................71
Teachers Responding Favorably to Touch.............................72
Need For More Research................... ..... .....................72
Sex Differences and Desire For Contact.............................73
Touching According To Sex of Student...............................73
Restraint in Touching..............................................74
Sex of Teacher and Opinions on Self-Concept........................77
Sex of Teacher and Opinions on Positive Attitudes............. ..... 77
Sex of Teachers and Hugging Students...............................78
Sex of Teachers and Kissing Students...............................78
Sex of Teachers and Affectionate Gestures..........................79
Students Kissing Teachers..........................................79
Students Hugging Teachers..........................................8o
Teachers Spanking Students.........................................81_
Sex of Student and Desire for Contact... ..... ......................81
Marital Status and Attitudes Toward Touching.......................83
Marital Status and Hugging Students................................83

Age and Teachers Hugging Students..................................84

vii

49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.

58.

Age am TeaChers Spanking Students.........00.0.0.0...OOOQOOOOO‘85

Age and Teachers Slapping Students..............................86

Grade Level

Grade Level

Grade Level

Grade Level

Grade Level

Grade Level

Grade Level

Grade Level

and

and

and

and

and

and

and

and

Touch to
Students
Teachers
Touching
Teachers
Teachers
Students

Students

Improve Self Concept...................88
Liking to be Touched...................89
Liking to be Touched...................89
in Private ...... .......................90
Hugging Students.......................91
Showing Affection......................91
Touching Teachers......................92

Hugging TeaCher8.00000000090000.000000093

viii

"Knowledge is a matter of degree. There are some
who will insist that 'scientific' knowledge is and must
be clear, lucid, unequivocally defined, unmistakable,
demonstrable, repeatable, communicable, logical, rational,
verbalizable, conscious. If it is not these, then it is
not 'scientific'; it is something else. But what shall
we say, then, about the first stages of knowledge, the
precursor of these final forms, the beginnings that each
of us can easily enough experience in himself? It is
both useful and correct to consider as falling within
the definition of knowledge all 'protoknowledge,‘ so long
as its probability of being correct is greater than
chance...knowledge is then seen as more reliable or less
reliable but still knowledge so long as its probability

is greater than chance."

Abraham,Maslow

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

W

Educators and educational researchers have regularly
sought improvement in the process whereby people learn.
We continually deve10p new materials and new procedures
for delivery of those materials. During recent years,
the importance of human interpersonal relationships has
been recognized by a growing number of educators. These
relationships and the concomitant emotions which are
affected, fit into the learning domain we commonly refer
to as the affective.

Amid the affective domain, which emphasizes inter-
personal communication skills, research on the impact of
nonverbal communication in general and more specifically
the significance of tactile communication has been avoided.

In an effort to provide some data pertaining to tactile
communication and generate some initial hypotheses regarding
its significance in elementary classroom settings, this
study was undertaken. Because of the relative absence of
research in the area of human tactile behavior, a seminal
study such as this will hopefully initiate additional work

of a more empirical nature.

[r [([fnto lt’l

This study was a combination of historical and descrip-
tive research. It was descriptive in that it examined the
existence or nonexistence of physical behavioral phenomena
in elementary classrooms. The study was also historical due
to the extensive review and analysis of virtually all of the
existing research and information on the subject of touching
behavior and/or tactile communication.*

Because of the miniscule amount of investigation into
the subject within the field of education, the bulk of the
supportive, historical information was derived from the
literature of sociology, anthropology, psychology, medicine
and communications. This material was synthesized and con-
tributed, in part, to the formulation of the seminal hypotheses
previously mentioned.

The additional contributing component, which was descriptive
in nature, was data gathered via a survey of elementary class—
room teachers which examined their attitudes and behaviors
regarding touching between teachers and students. The instrument
utilized to gather these data was the self-designed "SURVEY OF
TOUCHING BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDES" (appendix A).

{/The intent of this study was, therefore, initially to
establish through historical analysis the potential significance

of the touching phenomenon for educators and subsequently to

 

*There is some disagreement as to whether all touching
behavior is communication. Definitions of the terms are
forthcoming.

identify via descriptive research the extent to which the
behavior exists in classrooms and the attitudes of teachers

toward itf)

Statement of the Problem

Although physical contact is a fairly common occurrence
between human beings, the nature and the extent as well as
the intention or effect of the behavior is only beginning
to be investigated. Within the field of education, research
is nearly non-existent. This fact is more unfortunate
considering the apparent importance of the behavior to human
beings. Educational research into the phenomenon of physical
contact and touch is long overdue.

The primes! purpose of this study_was to establish a

theoretical base and to generate hypotheses regarding the
significance of tactile communication in elementagy classrooms.

Observations made in elementary schools reveal a wide range
of touching behavior between teachers and students. In some
classrooms there is seldom any contact between people; in
others there is considerable physical contact. (In nearly
all classrooms, the effects of touching or withholding the
human touch and the messages transmitted and received are

little understood.)

Significance of the Study

 

The importance of this study is that it examines an
area that has previously been almost totally overlooked
by researchers in education. It deals with a basically
important human need, the use or misuse of which can have
a profound effect upon human development and behavior. As
educators we cannot afford to overlook anything that may
contribute to our understanding of the learning process. For
the classroom teacher, knowledge about the effect of communi-
cating through touching may open the door to warmer and more
effective classroom climates. For the school administrator,
more information may legitimize the overt expression of posi-
tive feelings and thereby dispel the fear of public reprisal.
For parents, increased knowledge of the intent and effects of
tactile communication may draw back the curtains of ignorance
as to the importance and merit of physical contact for all
human beings and particularly for the positive development of
children.

(Everyone who is concerned about children.needs to be
better informed regarding the significance of touching;/ Tactile
communication and its judicious use in classrooms may signifi—
cantly contribute to the formation of atmospheres more conducive
to positive growth and learning in the affective, cognitive and

psychomotor domains.

Assumptions on which the Studygis Based

The following assumptions underlie this research:

1.

There exists insufficient knowledge of the
significance of tactile communications

between elementary teachers and students.

It was important to provide a theoretical
foundation preparatory to generating initial
hypotheses regarding the touching phenomenon.
The expression of positive feelings via

touching is an important behavior for elementary
school teachers to possess.

‘Many elementary school teachers are uncomfortable
with tactile communications.

Tactile communication may be a factor in the
affective development of children.

Tactile communication may be a factor in

the cognitive development of children.

Tactile communication may be a factor in the
psychomotor development of children.

Information regarding the significance of

touching is desired by classroom teachers.

Generalizability of the Study

In addition to the teachers and others who work in

schools from pre-kindergarten through the university level,

this study has important implications for all human beings.

Because the human being is a social animal we cannot avoid,
barring tragedy, the association interpersonally with our
fellow human beings. Knowledge gained regarding the im—
portance of tactile communications will be valuable to
everyone. To this date, we experience varying degrees and
types of physical contact with people and have some consid-
erable awareness and recognition of "what" we touch, "when"
and "whom" we touch, but very little understanding of "why"
and "how" we touch. In addition, there is almost nothing
to provide us with the answers to the questions below:
WHAT IF WE DO TOUCH?

WHAT IF WE DO NOT TOUCH?
Answers to these questions may aid people in their efforts
to improve interpersonal relationships.

More specifically, the study sheds valuable light on
an underexamined behavioral issue that has the potential
of revolutionizing the instructional process.

The accumulated results of the study will hapefully be
utilized by subsequent, interested researchers who will
follow up and expand upon this initial effort which provides
a foundation for them. i

The phenomenon of human touching in institutions for
human learning raises a large number of questions. The

following list represents the major questions of the study.

3.

Can the messages conveyed through touching
contribute to the positive development of
elementary school children?

Can the messages conveyed through the with-
holding of touch contribute to the lack of
positive development of elementary school
children?

Do elementary school teachers believe that
tactile communication is important?

To what extent does tactile communication exist
between elementary teachers and students?
What is the nature of tactile communication
in schools?

Is further research warranted?

Limitations of the Study

This study may be limited for the following reasons:

1.

When seeking the Opinions of classroom
teachers only limited effort was extended

to isolate touch from other variables that
might affect their opinions. In addition
the instrument itself may have precipatated

a perceived "appropriate" response.

The survey instrument utilized was self-
designed and field tested with a rather small

group of twelve selected teachers. The survey

4.

instrument also could reflect some bias

on the part of the researcher.

Conclusions drawn from the supportive literature
are necessarily limited due to the limited amount
and unscientific nature of some of the research.
A lack of participation from teachers in urban
schools provides insufficient data to generalize
regarding geographical, socioeconomic, and cross

cultural differences.

Definitions of Terms Used in the Study

1.

Physical contact--Any bodily contact which is
generally unintentional and no particular
message is intended to be communicated.
Touching-~Intentional physical contact by
which a Specific message may or may not
consciously be attempted to be communicated.
Tactile Communication--Intentional physical
contact by which a specific message is in-

tended to be communicated.

Growth--Positive development of the individual

in any and/or all of the three recognized domains
of learning; the cognitive, the affective and

the psychomotor.

Summary of the Chaptgr

This chapter includes an introduction to the remaining
chapters of the study. It outlines briefly what the intent
of the study is, provides a sense of support and justification
for the work done and also some insight into the limitations
of the effort. In addition, the definition of terms clarifies
that all physical contact or touching is not necessarily
communication. Inherent in this definition of tactile commu-
nication is the notion of intention, that a particular message
is intended to be communicated.

The chapter makes clear that the study is exploratory
in nature; attempting to provide a theoretical foundation and
generate some initial hypotheses regarding the significance
of tactile communication.

In the following pages, Chapter Two is an extensive review
of most of the existing literature available on the phenomenon
of touch. Chapter Three includes the research procedures of
the survey of teacher behavior and attitudes. Chapter Four
includes the presentation and analysis of the data and Chapter
Five a summary including final recommendations and conclusions
regarding tactile communication and the touching phenomenon

between elementary school teachers and students.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

 

It is the intention within this chapter to establish
the significance of tactile communication for educators and
to establish that it is an important phenomenon; meriting
additional investigation and consideration as a legitimate
force in the development of human beings.

Included in chapter two is the background support from
research and the writings of theoreticians that contribute
to the formulation of hypotheses regarding tactile communica-
tion in education. By synthesizing the work of others from
different disciplines and projecting their research conclu—
sions and theories into the field of education, the rationale
for surveying teacher attitudes regarding the behavior is
established. It should be pointed out that within the field
of education very little research or information exists and
within other fields, the research into the phenomenon of
touch is comparitively limited. The majority of the back-
ground literature is derived from the fields of anthropology,
psychology, sociology, communication and medicine. Only two

books have been published related to the issue of human physical

10

I III" [E‘.[.{l}l\l[l \. I

11

N

1 and Montagu.

contact; both written by anthr0pologists, Morris
The chapter is subdivided into sections in an effort to
provide some organization to the broad spectrum of material

utilized. The sections represent the various disciplines from

which the pertinent literature has been derived.

 

1Desmond Morris, Intimate Behavior (New York: Bantam
Books ed. Random House, Inc., 1971).

2Ashely Montagu, Touching; The Human Significance of
The Skin (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970).

12

Psychology

The field of psychology, strange as it seems, has generally avoided
study of the touching phenomenon between human beings. Psychologists
have evidently concluded that it is either too difficult to study or is
of insignificant importance for the study of human behavior. In fact,
the entire emotion, love, seems to have been avoided (with the exception
of sex) and left to the poets, and those who feel it, to ruminate upon
its importance. The study and investigation of love and the manner in
which it is communicated is long overdue.

From time to time psychiatrists, psychologists and other professionals
in the behavioral sciences have alluded to an apparent significance of
touching. The noted child psychiatrist Bettelheim, has written in
regard to childhood anxieties:

"They go back to the period of earliest infancy
when the children first experienced inadequate
handling in the way they were held when they were
fed, changed, or bathed. For one thing, parental
anxiety about the relationship to the child, and
the mechanisms 3 parent may have used in trying
to compensate for it, may have expressed them-
selves in little or no stimulation of the child's

skin, or in a rigid and hence painful way of
holding the child's body."3

The anxieties that Bettelheim relates to early experiences of
handling are often reported by experimental psychologists, zoologists
and others engaged in animal studies. It has been observed by many of
these researchers that animals that receive greater handling demonstrate

faster weight gain, improved general health and less anxiety.

 

3Bruno Bettelheim, Love is not Enough (New York: The Free Press,
1950) p. 330. VI“

13

The early work in this area was carried out on rats by Bernstein4 and

Weininger.5

The most popular among the animal studies and one which has direct
implications for this study of tactual significance was reported in
1958 by Harlowb, than at the University of Wisconsin. His well-known
experimentation with macaque monkies and mother surrogates is often
included in basic psychology textbooks. His work represents the first
effort to assess experimentally the significance of love as communicated
through tactual contact.

Briefly, Harlow exposed infant monkies to contact with an assortment
of "mother surrogates," in a laboratory setting. The surrogates, construc-
ted of wood and wire, were able to nurse via a functional nipple attached
and thereby provide nourishment to the infant monkies. In some cases the
surrogates were additionally covered with sponge rubber and terry cloth
in order to provide greater contact comfort. The monkies were exposed
to both a surrogate that was designed for contact comfort but gave no
milk and a surrogate that was equipped to give milk but offered little in
the way of contact comfort. From observation and records kept of time
spent with both surrogates, it was discovered that the monkies overwhelms

ingly preferred the surrogate that was designed for contact comfort.

 

4L. Bernstein "A Note on Christie's 'Experimental Naivete and
Experiential Naivete.'" szchological Bulletin, vol. 49 (1952),
pp. 38—40.

50. Weininger, "Mortality of Albino Rats Under Stress as a Function
of Early Handling", Canadian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 7 (1953), pp.
111-114.

6Harry F. Harlow, "The Nature of Love", The American Psychologist,
Vblume 13 (1958), pp. 673-685.

14

Subsequent testing in which both surrogates gave milk and
monkies were exposed only to one or the other, yielded addition-
al significant results. The two groups of monkies demonstrated
no difference in the amount of milk consumed or in the amount
of weight gained. The difference as evidenced by the composition
of the monkies' feces indicated that the monkies deprived of
contact comfort suffered psychologically. Harlow states:

"We were not surprised to discover that contact
comfort was an important basic affectional or love
variable, but we did not expect it to overshadow
so completely the variable of nursing; indeed, the
disparity is so great as to suggest that the
primary function of nursing as an affectional
variable is that of insuring frequent and intimate
body contact of the infant with the mother.
Certainly, man cannot live by milk alone. Love

is an emotion that does not need to be bottle-or
spoon-fed, and we may be sure that there is pothing
to be gained by giving lip service to love."

Although Harlow's work was done with monkies he postulated
that there is so much similarity in the mother-child relationship
that the results can be readily generalized to the human species.
In fact, much of the animal research was a direct result of Ribble8
whose observations of 600 infants seemed to indicate that regular
"mothering" including apparently essential physical contact was

necessary to prevent marasmus. The term, marasmus, collectively

describes a variety of undesirable and often fatal symptoms.

 

7Ibid., p. 677

8Margaret A. Ribble, "Infantile Experience in Relation to
Personality DeveIOpment", J. Hunt (Ed.) Personaligy and the Behavior
Disorders. New York, Ronald Press (1944)_pp. 621-651.

15

It is noteworthy that the animal studies of Bernstein9 and
Weiningerlo indicate that not only can marasmus be prevented by
cutaneous stimulation but that development can be enhanced. Their
young rats and mice when given additional tactile stimulation turned
out to be healthier, less emotional. better motivated. and faster
learners than the control group.

Subsequent research with human infants gives support. Rice,
states:

"Now we know that the cuddling. stroking. holding
and rocking that mothers give may be the most
important influence on their baby's future physical
mental health. Babies who receive a lot of touching
and fondling, babies who are held and rocked: may

be less subject to risk of the handicaps of cerebral
palsy. learning disabilities. hyperactivity. and
many physical and neurological defects and deficien—
cies. And mothers who comfort. cuddle. hold and
rock their newborns are also following the path to
greater emotional health. since they are forming

an attachment to their infant which cannot be
achieved in any other way."

Rice, in supporting her viewpoint cites research that she has
conducted with premature babies. She used fifteen premature babies as
a control group. The mothers of the control babies received the usual
doctor's instructions on caring for the babies after they left the
hospital. An experimental group of fifteen babies received a specific
program of physical stimulation according to instructions given the

mothers.

 

9
Bernstein, loc. cit.

loWeininger. loc. cit.

11Ruth D. Rice, "The Golden Touch,".Amgzican_Bahy, Volume 37.
Number 12. (1975), p. 24.

16

The experimental group received a systematic, four times
daily, sequence of massage and rocking for a period of thirty
days. When the infants were four months old, they were tested by
a psychologist, a pediatrician and a pediatric nurse. None of
the examiners knew whether the babies had been in the experimental
or control groups. This is what they found:

"1) The infants who received daily stimulation
treatments for thirty days made significant
gains over the control group in waight gain,
neurological development, and mental development.

2) The stimulated babies even surpassed the neu-
rological growth standards for normal fulliterm
infants when age adjustment was applied."

Although it is apparent that little care was taken to restrict
additional variables from contaminating this research, the fact that
the results so overwhelmingly indicate a positive correlation demands
serious consideration of the effects of tactile stimulation.

Additional human studies, supporting the previously mentioned
work of Ribble and thereby demanding additional work such as that
conducted by Rice, have been conducted over the past thirty years.

The first major study of institutionalized infants was conducted

by Spitz.13 He compared the development of babies reared in two distinctly

 

lzIbid., p. 38.
l3Renee A. Spitz, "Hospitalism: .An Inquiry into the Genesis of
Psychiatric Conditions in Early Childhood" Ps oana .

(1945), V01. ls pps 53-740

17

different types of institutions. In one "Nursery" the infants were
fed and cared for by their own mothers* or by full-time mother substi-
tutes. The other institution, "Foundling Home", provided very little
in the way of stimulation for the babies. It was discovered that the
babies in "Foundling Home" suffered from severe developmental retard—
ation and were more highly susceptible to infection and illness.

More recently, another study of a similar nature lends support to

an understanding of the debilitating effects of inadequate tactile

contact. Provence and Liptonl4 upon studying the occupants of a nursery
where there was only minimal contact between the caretakers and the
children made some unfortunate observations. They noted substantial
impairment in social responsiveness, language development. body awareness
and pain avoidance. In addition they observed a deficiency in motor skills.

Although additional supporting studies are available and included
as additional references later, let it suffice here to say that the research
overwhelmingly recognizes the importance of tactile stimulation on the
early development of human beings. Examination of the literature on older
children and adults is far less conclusive.

Generally, among psychologists, the importance of such affectional
issues as human touching tends to be more readily recognized by those
classified as the "third force" in psychology. These people often being
in sharp contrast to the "first force" (psychoanalysis) and the'becond

force" (behaviorism).

 

*"Nursery" was a home for delinquent girls-

14 Sally Provence. Rose _C. Lipton, Infants in Institutions} A
Comparison of Their Development During the First YeEr of Life with
Eggily-Reared Infants. International Universities Press, 1967.

18

Probably the first person to recognize the importance of early
experience upon later behavior was Sigmund Freud. Although Freud
theorized about early behavior and child development. his actual
contact with children was very limited. Most of the theory regarding
psychosexual stages of development was based upon his interaction with
his adult patients. In regard to his therapeutic work it is quite
apparent that the man remained considerably aloof in all of his human
relationships. It is evident that all of Freud's writings suffer from
a surprisingly light treatment of touching behavior. What there is,
of course, deals specifically with its association with sexuality.
Freud was apparently unable to recognize touching as it relates to
affection and to its potential for enhancing human development.

The behaviorists. on the other hand, do recognize touching as a
potential reinforcer. Although it is noted that little research has to
date been conducted on the impact of physical contact on human beings,
the need for such research has been acknowledged.

"Tactual stimulation could prove extremely important
to an understanding of infant development. If such
stimulation is reinforcing, then the opportunities for
behavioral elaborations through such tactual contin—
gencies are correspondingly great. This is another
reason why research in this area seems to have con-
siderable potential."l

Admittedly, the research that has been conducted related to taction

has, for the most part, dealt with babies and with infant animals. It

 

1
5Sidney‘W. Bijou, and Donald M. Baer, Child Development II!

Universal Sta e of Infanc . (Appleton-Century3Crofts. NewTYork"fi1965)
p. 9!. "

19

is generally felt that tactile communication is a form decreasingly
needed as people mature. There are. however. some third force
psychologists who are recognizing the importance and the potential
of the human touch for adults. Among these are Eric Berne whose
transactional analysis recognizes the importance of "strokingd'

Stroking and the recognition that it gives is a need that has been

acknowledged by James and Jongeward16 who state:

"Every person has the need to be touched and

to be recognized by other people...these are

biological and psyghological needs that Berne
calls 'hungers'."

The development of the encounter movement and its ever increasing
acceptance is indicative of the universality of the need and acceptance
of the human touch. Note this account by William Schutz:

"Methods involving touch and physical closeness
help clarify affectional feelings....Leo Litwak.
a reporter for the New York Times. recognized
this phenomenon in his excellent story about an
open encounter workshop. He noted how uncomfort~
able he felt when he arrived at Esalen. 'I was
somewhat put off by what I considered to be an
excessive show of affection. Men hugged men.

Men hugged women. Women hugged women. These
were not hippies but older folks like myself

who had come for the workshop. People fell into
one another's arms, and it wasn't my style at all.
At the end of his five-day workshop he wrote:

Our group gathered in a tight circle. hugging and
kissing, and I found myself hugging everyone,
behaving like the idiots I had noticed on first

 

l6Muriel James and Dorothy Jongeward. Born to Wine Transaction§1;_

Agalysis with Gestglt Experimentg, (Reading—Mass. Addison—Neeley
Publishing Co. 1971).

17Ibid. p. 44

20

arriving at Esalen.‘ This is a typical
response. In the affection phase, the
desire for total body contact flows easily,
while in the earlier phases it is stiff and
forced. Not being aware of this evolution,
passing observers oftepsget a distorted view
of workshop behavior."

During the late 1960's nude marathon groups were conducted in
an effort to satisfy what some have identified as "skin hunger."*
Here is what one facilitator reported:

"The tentative conclusions that I reached

from this first nude marathon were encouraging.

I reasoned that just as a lack of tender

tactile contact seems to be responsible in
certain cases for infant deaths, the same
deprivation may produce a nonlethal but chronic
tension and anxiety among adults. That is,
controlled skin contact might be therapeutic

in and of itself. Perhaps the social world is
such a jungle of polite estrangement that sensory
isolation may create a famine in the heart that
cannot be relieved by any one person, even one's
mate. If purely physical contact (particularly
between males who are most strongly inhibited

in this respect) remains tenderly sensual yet
takes place within an environment in which goals
of a purely sexual nature have been deconditioned,
then perhaps genuine mental and emotional exposure
and acceptance can flower more naturally and more
beautifully."19

I\It seems unfortunate that researchers have recognized the importance
of touching during the first two years of life and then arbitrarily be-
lieve that the need for physical affective support can be adequately

replaced with the acquisition of verbal skills.)

 

m

18William C. Schutz, nge Comes Everybody, (Evanston, Harper and

Row, 1971), pp. 128—9.
*This has no sexual connotation.

19Paul Bindrim, "Nudity: as a quick grab for group intimacy"
Psychology Today, vol. 3 no. 1 June 1969, p. 28.

21

There is a strong probability that the socialization process
which moves children from tactual expression to verbal expression
is rooted in cultural taboos regarding sexuality. These taboos
and cultural factors will be discussed later but it is appropriate
to point at this time to the research conducted by Lewis?0 He
observed and recorded the movement and interaction of mother-infant
dyads. He observed that during the first six months of life male
babies received more tactual contact than females but that after six
months decidely less. For both male and female the period from six
months to two years was a steady socialization process moving from
tactual to verbal expression.

This cultural socialization process no doubt contributes to the
creation of the stereotyped male and female roles in our society. In
addition there may be relationships between this process of separation

and differences in passive and aggressive behavior as well as the inci-

dence of anxiety and stress.

Summayy

Although not exhaustive.this section provides a representational
review of the research and thinking among psychologists. It is apparent
that although substantial evidence exists supporting the importance of
tactual stimulation for infants, there remain many unanswered questions

regarding the behavior's significance after the first two years of life.

 

20
Michael Lewis, "Culture and Gender Roles: There's No Unisex in

the Nursery" Psychology Today, vol. 5, no. 12, May 1972, pp. 54-57.

22

(VThe fact that more touching behavior is not observed in our
society, including schools which play a major role in the encultur-
ation process, indicates that we are, in fact, out of touch with
touch:) The answers to this limited display of physical affection

can probably best be answered by the anthrOpologists.

23

W

In man, the fact that we have language sets us off from the other
animals. In our continuing strides for sophistication we have made
use of verbal language more frequently; and less frequently the non—
verbal language with which we and the other animals began.

Our language is filled with verbal metaphors that indicate inten-
tions or that have supplanted actual physical contact. We are touched

by various scenes and events. We tell others that we will kgep in tough_

 

with them. Sometimes we tguch a nervg. We read EEPCH§93.§F°E193- On
occasion we rub people the wrong way. We give people pogitive strokeg,
Some peOple must be handled carefully. There are days when we need a
pppg. we like a pgt on the back.

In addition we verbally recognize the importance of the largest of
the human organs, the skin. We know people who are thick-skinned and

some who are thin skinned . Sometimes peOple ggt upder our skin. We

 

all know students who just skinned by. Our language, indeed seems to
indicate a certain degree of fascination with the skin and contact with
it. In fact we have developed words to take the place of the behavior.
Why do we talk so much about touching and yet touch so infrequently. our
fellow human beings?

The amount and degree of taction varies cross culturally. People who
travel to foreign countries regularly indicate their uncomfortable feelings
in regard to physical proxemity to other peOple. In some cultures it is
customary to stand closer to people when conversing with them. Sometimes
more casual touching is experienced. French men and men in the Soviet

Union hug and kiss each other as a greeting. Men in the United States

24

generally shake hands and in some cultures there is no contact at all.
These discrepancies are often unnerving to the traveler.

'Jourard21 visited public eating places around the world and
tabulated the frequency of physical contacts between couples (male-
female). Over a period of one hour, contacts in the Florida (USA)
location, (2), were more than only the contacts in London, England (0).

San Juan. Puerto Rico registered the highest frequency (180). Although

this is far from conclusive research, it does indicate that our culture
is not one that engages in a great deal of touching behavior.

Another study attempted to explore the question of how people touch
each other. Jourard and Rubin22 administered a questionnaire to students
asking them to identify which of twenty-four body parts they contacted
with four specific groups of people. The groups were mothers, fathers,
friends of the same sex and friends of the opposite sex. One of their
findings indicated that females were more accessible to touch than males.
The fathers in the study did the least amount of touching and generally
contact was made only on the hands.

A researcher who has made an additional contribution is Hall23 with
his concept of proxemics. He distinguished four zones which indicated
"appropriate" distance between two North American speakers. Hall
designated zero to 1% feet as the intimate range; 1% to 4 feet as the

personal; 4 to 10 feet as the social-consultive and 10 feet or over as

 

leidnay M. Jourard, "An Exploratory Study of Body-Accesibility,"
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, (1966):pp. 221-31.

22Sidney M. Jourard and J.E. Rubin, "Self-Disclosure and Touching:
A Study of Two Modes of Interpersonal Encounter and Their Inter-Relation,"

Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 8 (1968); pp. 39-48.

23Edward T. Hall, "A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior?
American AnthrOpologist, 65. (1963): pp. 1003-26.

 

25

the public range. Hall premised that when these limits were inap-
propriately passed, negative feelings were invoked. This point has
been supported by other researchers and leads to the conclusion that
various cultures have implicit restrictions based upon norms regard-
ing "apprOpriate" physical proxemics and that negative feelings and
discomfort are experienced when a violation occurs. It should be
noted that Hall's observations are of behaviors as they are and do
not indicate whether the behavior regarding interaction zones is
constructive or destructive in our human relationships.

When considering touching behavior in the school setting, the
matter of appropriateness is significant. When is a teacher's touch
appropriate? At what times would a touch be inapprOpriate? This
study will not find answers to all of the questions that can be
raised but at least will be of some heuristic value for additional
research which will, hopefully, follow.

In the schools, it has been observed that many students spend a
great deal of their time in search of love and attention*. The reluc-
tance of teachers to reach out and touch them to communicate a caring
attitude compounds their feelings of loneliness and inadequacy. Perhaps
the reported increase in promiscuous behavior, the increase in sensory
awareness and other growth groups, and the rapid develOpment of human
sexuality labs is an effort to meet an unfulfilled need. In his

seminal book on touching, Montagu24 states:

 

IA personal observation.

24Ashley Montagu Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin,
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1970).

26

"When affection and involvement are conveyed
through touch, it is those meanings as well
as the security-giving satisfactions, with
which touch will become associated. Inade-
quate tactile experience will result in a
lack of such associations and a consequent
inability to relate to others in many funda-
mental ways."

Another anthrOpologist who recognizes the significance of
touching is Morris who observes;

"The need that we, as adults, have to make
body contact with one another is basic and
powerful, but, as we have seen, it is rarely
fully expressed. Instead, it appears in
fragmented, modified or disguised forms in
many of the signs, gestures and signals we
make to one another in our daily lives.

Morris' notion is readily understood by most teachers who
often observed the pushing, poking, tripping, tickling, pulling,
etc. behaviors that school children indulge in so often. Mbrris
goes on to state:

"If a man feels the friendly urge to touch
another man's head but is inhibited about
making it a friendly caress, he can employ
the simple device of mock aggression. In-
stead of fondling his partner's head which
would have too strong a sexual flavour, he
can deliver a playful 'pretend-attact', such
as ruffling the hair or squeezing the neck
in a mock-grasp. Just as play-fighting
helped the parent to prolong intimacies with
his growing children, so many a fragment of
play-assault can be observed between male

 

251b1d. p. 335.

26Desmond Morris, Igtimate Behavior, (Bantam Books Edition),
(New York: Random House, Inc. 1971), pp. 121-2.

27
friends, enabling them to be both manly
and intimate at one and the same time."27

Morris goes on to point out the wide range of people who
by profession are legitimate "touchers" and the many activities
that people engage in that legitimize human contact, i.e. hair—
dressers, barbers, tailors, clothing sales people, dentists and
doctors. Medical doctors are well aware of the large number of
patients who return regularly for "treatment" and examination in
spite of questionable ailments. This is particularly the case with
older people who are so often neglected in our modern society.

Consider.as well.the tremendous popularity of athletic compe-
tition where either the contest itself, the jubilation of victory
or consolation of defeat brings on a great deal of legitimate
physical contact. Morris is truly a trained observer.

It is generally acknowledged how much children learn by imitat-
ing and modeling what others do. It seems that an awareness of how
the behavior of parents and teachers affects children would be extremely
important. Consider Montagu's observation of the English upper classes:

"Too often a lacklove childhood combined with
a minimum of tactile stimulation, compounded
by the experience of a public school, pro-
duced a rather emotionally arid human being

who was quite incapable of warm, human
relationships."2 '

It should be remembered that the culture found in North America

is not very unlike that in England.

 

27Ibid. page 135.

28Montagu, op. cit,, p. 301.

28

Summary

A review of research in anthropology does not yield a great
deal of empirical data, however, the observations of those who so
critically study cultures and the human beings who establish them,

are invaluable.

29

COMMUNICATIONS

Within the social sciences a relatively new group of re-
searchers has appeared which contributes greatly to the litera-
ture relating to the phenomenon of touching. Although there is
considerable debate still in evidence, communication researchers
are making considerable gains toward agreement as to what is and
what is not communication. They are generally more restrictive
in their definitions, labeling merely behavior much of what others
would consider communication. An aggreable definition of commun-
ication includes two essential elements:

1) Intention - a message must be intended
to be transmitted.

2) Shared Symbol System — the symbols or
gestures used to transmit a message
must be recognizable by both the sender
and receiver.

It can readily be seen that psychiatrists, most psychologists
and others who interpret meaning into inadvertent behavior are
going to have difficulty with the elements identified. For this
study, when referring to tactile communications, both elements must
be present in order for a communication to occur. A distinction is
made then between a touch intended to communicate a specific message
and general touching or casual physical contact.

A communications researcher who is beginning to provide some

data relative to tactual contact through his general work with non-

verbal communication is M'ehrabian.29 He formulated a relationship

 

29A1bert Mehrabian, "Orientation Behaviors and Nonverbal Attitude
Communication," Journal of Communication, 17, 1967, pp. 324-32.

30

between proxemics and liking and disliking. He found that closer
physical proxemity is associated with greater liking and with per-
ception of greater liking. It would seem, therefore, that teachers
who kept a close proxemity to their students would communicate
greater liking for them and would be perceived by their students

as liking them. It stands to reason that the reverse would also
be true. Teachers who maintain a great distance between themselves
and their students communicate dislike. One of the problems with
the lack of knowledge regarding tactile communication is that
teachers who, in fact, so like their students may be communicating
the opposite due to some misinformation or social taboo regarding
physical closeness.

In spite of the fact that we are taught to "keep our distance",
there is some indication that some people may even prefer tactile
communication over other forms of nonverbal and verbal communication.
Knapp30 cites a study by Bardeen.

"Subjects interacted with what they thought
were three different people under three
different conditions. Actually, they were
interacting with the same person each time.
The three situations included: Touch only
(no talking, blindfolded); visual only (no
talking, not blindfolded, no touching); and
verbal only (no touching, blindfolded).
After the interaction was finished, subjects
picked adjectives which they felt were most
descriptive of their encounters under each

condition. The touch only encounter was
described as: 'trustful, sensitive, natural,

 

30
Mark L. Knapp, Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction,

(Chicago: Holt, Rinehart A Winston, Inc., 1972) p. 111.

31

serious, mature, and warm.’ The verbal
encounter was described as 'distant, non—
communicative, artificial, insensitive,
and formal.' The visual condition was
labeled: 'artificial, childish, arrogant,
comic, and cold.' Each subject was then
asked which of the three persons with whom
they had communicated they would select as
a partner for future interactions. The
person encountered by touch only was chosen
by 47% of the subjects."31

This information has relevance for educators. By no means
is it suggested that teachers use only tactile communication but
it is suggested that serious consideration be given to supplementing
with touch,the verbal expression of positive regard. Teachers have
long been noted for their use of touching behavior for communication
of their negative feelings. It has been suggested by psychologists
that some children, hungry for some form of recognition and atten-
tion, intentionally misbehave in order to receive it. Could it be,
that even negative, disciplinary touching, painful touching, is
better than none at all? There is some evidence from psychological
and anthropological studies that this may be the case.

Although clearly written as a popular rather than a scientific
book but a work that does give an indication of interest on the part
of the people due to the fact that it became a best seller, was
written by Fast.32 The book.devotes an entire chapter pointing out

the importance of touch. In the chapter, Fast reports how he came

to recognize the importance. He was teaching a class and for some

 

31J.P. Bardeen, "Interpersonal Perception Through the Tactile,
Verbal, and Visual Modes, " (paper presented at ICA convention, Phoenix
1971).

32Julius Fast, Body Langpage, (New York: M. Evans & Company,
Inc., 1970)

32

time had been having difficulty with a particularly unruly, four-

teen year old boy.

"In a flash of inspiration I wrestled him to
the ground and started to tickle him. He
squealed with anger at first and then with
laughter. Only when he gaspingly promised

to behave did I let him up and found, to

my own mixed reactions, that I had created

a Frankenstein-type of monster. By tickling
him I had invaded his body zone and prevent-
ed him from using it for defense. Harold
behaved himself from that time on, but

Harold also became my devoted companion and
buddy, hanging on my arm or my neck, pushing
me, physically, as he could. I returned the
closeness, and somehow'we both made it through
the session. What fascinated me was that by
invading his personal sphere, by violating the
sanctity of his territory, I had communicated
with him for the first time."33

'The most comprehensive work ever done specifically dealing

with tactile communication was a paper written by Frank.34
It is surprising that twenty years have passes since he published
his manuscript and so little research has followed. In his paper
Frank gives a broad and convincing argument that tactile communication
is indeed an area meriting research in depth. He also recognizes
the significance for communicating with children.

"The communication between two persons

may be governed more by these physio-

logical emotional reactions than by the

content of the message,especially since

the coding of a message may be warped

or distorted by the emotional reaction

of the sender. The ualit or intent of

a message, as contrasted with its content,
may be conveyed by the emotional coloring-

 

33Ib1d. pp. 67-68

*

3.l'Lawrence R. Frank, "Tactile Communication," Genetic Psychology_

Monogrgphe,vvql: S6 (1957), pp. 209-255.

 

33

tone of voice, facial expression, gestures,

or lightness or heaviness of touch and the
recipient may respond largely to this intent
or quality. Thus small children often respond
more to quality than to content, hearing the
tone of voice more than the words spoken by

a parent, and responding to the Kinesic
messages." -

Summary

Within the field of communications the area of nonverbal
communication is only beginning to be adequately researched.
Tactile communication, as one form of nonverbal message trans-
ference, is recognized by researchers but very much avoided, to

this date, in regard to attempting informative research.

 

351bid. p. 216

34
Medicine

Considering that the medical profession requires physical
contact between doctor or nurse and patient, it is disheartening
that so few studies exist as to what significance tactile commun-
ication may have in the healing process. Some studies into
touching behavior between nurses and patients have been conducted

and are reviewed here. The first study was conducted by Aguilera36

who hypothesized that the use of touch as a technique of nonverbal
communication can increase verbal interaction between the nurse
and the psychiatric patient. She stipulated, however, that three
criteria must be met.

1) It must be acceptable to the patient.

2) It must be acceptable to the nurse.

3) There must be recognition that it has a
unique meaning to each person.

Aguilera selected nurses and patients who, on the basis of
their responses on a questionnaire, were determined to be comfortable
with tactual contact. The patients selected were matched as evenly
as possible regarding sex, age and psychiatric diagnosis. Thirty-six
subjects were selected and divided into an experimental and control
group. In interacting with the nurses (who worked with both groups),
the experimental group received verbal communication and touch gestures.

The control group received only verbal communication.

 

36Donna Conant Aguilera, "Relationship Between Physical Contact
and Verbal Interaction between Nurses and Patients," Journal of

ngchiptric Nursing, 5, 1967, pp. 5-21.

35

The major finding of the study was that the use of touch
gestures resulted in increased verbal interaction, rapport and
approach behavior as well as positive changes in attitude of the
subjects toward the nurses. An additional finding was that no
significant changes occurred until eight days had gone by: attri-
buted by Aguilera to the "learning" time for the nurses to become
comfortable with using touch.

Cashar and Dixson37 enlisted the aid of their student nurses
in observing and recording touch behavior in a hospital setting.
These observations led them to conclude that people, in general,
are not conscious of their touch behavior. They observed little
awareness of intention or reaction to effects on others on the
part of the touchers. The student nurses, on the other hand,
gained considerable awareness of their own attitudes and behaviors
regarding touch through their observations of others. In addition
they became more conscious observers of the reactions of people
when they use touch. Cashar and Dixson state:

"Aside from considering the patient's
feelings, the nurse should also con-
sider her own, Most of us do not often
think of using touch in a conscious,
deliberate manner and most of us are
not aware of our own feelings about

being touched unless this has been

brought to our attention in some way."38

 

37Leah Cashar and Barbara Keller Dixson, "The Therapeutic Use

of Touch", Jgurnal of Psyghiatric Nursing and Mental Health Service,
5, 1967. pp. 442-451. "‘

381bid. p. 442.

36

Another nursing educator, Johnson,39 warns against the conflict
between intended messages and perceive messages. She recommends that
touch needs to be used as a supplement to verbal messages, thereby,
strengthening human communication. She states:

"Many writers, particularly those in child
psychiatry and anthropology, agree that
nonverbal behavior most frequently is of
primary importance, particularly in com-
munication feelings and attitudes. Of all
the different forms of nonverbal communica-
tion. touch, than is the most significant.”0

The difficulty in interpreting messages delivered tactily
which was recognized by others was researched by De Augustinis
et. 81-41 through an extensive study on a ward in a psychiatric

hospital. She concluded:

1) Specific touch gestures do not have
universal meanings.

2) Messages intended and received similarly
were interpreted only 502 of the time.

Regardless of whether the human touch can be used for specific
communication or merely as a supportive behavior, medical people

are beginning to recognize its power. Gaining ever increasing

 

3
9Betty Sue Johnson, "The Meaning of Touch in Nursing," Nursing
Outlook, 13 2, 59-60, February 1965.

4°1b1d p. 59

41Jane De Augustinis, Rebecca S. Isani and Fern R. Kumler,
"Ward Study: The Meaning of Touch in Interpersonal Communication",
Some Clinical Approaches to Psychiatric Nursipg; _Burd and Marshal (ed.),
(New York: The Machllan Company, 1963) pp. 271—306.

37

popularity in the United States is the birth process developed by

42

Leboyer. He emphasizes the importance of immediate and sustained

physical contact between the mother and newborn child.
The medical community.well known for its reluctance to accept

the "unscientific? is even taking a sincere look at the ancient

43

art of faith healing. As evidenced in an article by Carlova which

describes the unexplainable (scientifically) success of Olga WOrrall

in curing people through the "laying on of hands." The substantial
number of doctors beginning to take notice of this type of "unex-
plainable" phenomenon is indicative of increasing interest in the power

of touch. Carlova quotes Dr. William A. McGarey:

"Olga Worrall has a remarkable ability to

heal. I have come to know her closely and

have seen some of the research in which

she has taken part. I have no question in my
mind but that she can heal people. I am aware
that the Americal Medical Association, of which

I am a part. states that methods of healing
should be founded on a scientific basis for a
physician to participate in them, but they

make no notation in that ethical rule about
whether or not a doctor should allow his

bedside manner to affect the patient; and also,
whether he should stOp the healing energy that
goes through his hands as he places them on the
patient in the process of examination or treat-
ment. Neither the bedside manner nor the healing
by laying on of hands, which every doctor does

to a certain degree, can be classified as scienti-
fically based. The issue is whether we should use
modalities of healing that bring the body back to
a more normal state, or whether we should keep

 

42
Frederick Leboyer, Birth Without Violence, (New York: Alfred
A. Knapf, 1975)

43
John Carlova, "Even M.D.s have faith in this faith healer,"

Medical Economics, Sept. 1973. pp. 98 - 114.

38

from peOple any manner of healing simply
because it is not scientific. It might

be said that we are being forced to decide
between the welfare of our patients and
obedience to so-called science."

Summary

Although the medical profession has only begun to recognize
the potential of the human touch and communication through touch,
they (medical professionals) are no longer ignoring it as insig-
nificant. Admittedly, the behavior is a difficult one to research
and it will be some time before the skeptic "scientists" will be
convinced.

This section reviewed several studies that lend support to
the use of touching as a viable technique. Recognition is made,
however, of the difficulties involved in interpreting messages

and intentions.

 

44Ibid. p. 114

39

Education

Only one person has written a book dealing specifically
with nonverbal communication in the schools. Thompsonf‘5 in

regard to tactile communication,makes the following statement:

"Tomorrow is not too soon to begin the human-
izing process. And begin it, where possible,

by touching students, especially if one teaches
small children. An encouraging pat or a sympa-
thetic arm around the shoulders when students
are discouraged or distressed may work small
wonders. It is a fact-a measurable flow of
electrical energy passes from one person to
another during tactile stimulation. Although
the origins and meaning of this are not clear,
its presence is evident, and its effect on
human behavior is beyond dispute. A sympathetic
human touch soothes the sick and the distressed,
the very young, and the very old. Do not under-
estimate the power of touch."

one educator who does not underestimate the power of touch
is Hymes.

"You can be sure that the closer children are

to infancy the more they will accept the signs
the infant does. Nursery school, kindergarten,
primary children will click best with someone

who is motherly. Not that being motherly means
having white hair. Evan a man can be 'motherly'.
These youngsters want an easygoing way; a patient
way that gives them lots of time; a gentle way,
relaxed and comfortable. And, although obviously
you as a teacher have to act in the way that is
right for you, young children almost surely are
looking for physical signs that you care: your

 

45James_J. Thompson, Beyond words: Nonverbal Communication
in the Classroom, (New York: Citation Press, 1973).

 

“1m. pp. 184-185.

 

nltj

40

arm around a child's shoulder, sometimes
holding a youngster on your lap, holding

a hand, and lots of sympathy when children
are hurt...or when they think they are
hurt."47

Some school districts are beginning to recognize a child's
need for "mothering" beyond what actual parents give. A report
on one such program utilizing teacher aides with strong affectional

skills to support students is reported by Cowen.48

Many teachers are strong themselves in expressing affection
for their students and need no assistance. Consider Harry Wong,
who reports:

"Love cannot be communicated at a distance.
Discipline problems decline and learning
increases as the distance between the teacher
and the student decreases. In fact, my
distance decreases to where I touch the
student."

Another who agrees but recognizes the unfortunate taboos
and reactions that exist in our present society is Heath.50
"As friendly as most Americans are, few of

us accept our need to be affectionate, tender,
and in physical contact with each other. Our

 

47James L. Hymes, A Child Development Point of View, (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955) pp. 25 - 26.

48Emory Cowen, "Mothers in the Classroom," Psychology Today,
V01. 3 N00 7, Dec. 1969’ pp. 36-390

 

49Harry K. Wong, "Dear Class, I Love You," Learning, Vol. 1,
No. 2, Dec. 1972, p. 22.

50Douglas H. Heath, Humanizing Schools: New Directions,
New Decisions, (New Jersey: Hayden Book Company, 1971)

41

society places formidable taboos on
emotional relationships, particularly
between members of the same sex. We are a
touchless society. One of the powerful
attractions of Esalen and other human
growth centers is that they help people
accept their need to touch and be touched.
Our fear of being close to each other has
intensified in the last decades. I am
intrigued by the current dancing styles
where young people barely touch or even
look at their 'partner.'* A youth, out of
fear of being labeled a homosexual, cannot
violate the touch barrier with his own sex.
The only exceptions our society permits
occur when contact is masked by aggressive-
ness, as in playful wrestling, mutual hug-
ging in the excitement of winning an
athletic contest, or drunkeness. To call
someone a fag or a queer is one of the
more damning indictments we can make in
our culture, similar in force to 'nigger'
or 'kike'. One boy who comforted a

friend whose roommate had just committed
suicide, by putting his arm around him,
was called a fairy the next day by another
student."

In light of the many myths and misconceptions as well as the
general lack of information relative to touching, the need for
research is apparent. In spite of this, few actual studies have
been attempted and only one, to the author's knowledge, in an
educational setting. In a study by Clapp,52 kindergarten children
in five elementary schools were studied in an attempt to assess exper-

imentally the effects of touch as an enhancement to perserverance.

 

*

There has been some change in social dancing as evidenced
by the current popularity of dances such as the "bump? Perhaps
a new trend has started i.e. touching.

Sllbid p. 22

52
Thomas B. Clapp, "A Study of Physical Touch as an Enhance-
ment to Student Perseverance," (unpublished dissertation) University
of Maryland, 1969.

42

The children were given two sets of drawing tasks to copy. The
tasks were judged by experts to be similar and of equal difficulty.
In the first task the children were all encouraged verbally. In
the second task the experimental group was in addition to verbal
encouragement, given physical encouragement via pats on the back,
arms and shoulders. The criterion measure was, success as deter-
mined by the number of drawings completed from the series provided
in each task.

The results indicated that those students who were touched
did complete more drawings. The results are, howeven inconclusive
in that there were a number of problems with the design and procedure
of the study. Not the least of these was the fact that student
teachers were recruited to serve as operators in the study; they
were the people offering the physical encouragement. The student
teachers were not volunteers and nearly 50% of them indicated on
a subsequent questionnaire that they did not feel the experience
was worthwhile. In other words, the operator's use of touch was
superficial in a large number of cases. A number of other problems
with the design of the study make its reliability very questionable.
Clapp readily admits the weaknesses of his effort; however, it is
significant that someone has taken an initial step in attempting to
research the issue. The greatest mistake that Clapp made was to
overlook the essential emotional involvement that is essential for

genuine communication via human touching.

43

Summagy

In the course of reviewing the literature within the field
of education relating to tactile communication or any reference
to human physical contact, one is struck by the sparcity of it.
In a profession so dependent upon human interpersonal relations
the phenomenon of touch has certainly been avoided and is,
therefore, little understood.

This section included the thinking of a few theoreticians
and reported the only research relating to touch between students

and teachers .

Summary of The Chapter

This chapter reviewed a representative sample of the research
available in the fields of psychology and anthropology pertaining
to touching behavior. In addition, a large portion of the exist-
ing literature from the fields of communications and medicine, and
virtually all of the research available in education was reviewed.
Although not an exhaustive review of the literature it does repre-
sent a fairly comprehensive account of that which pertains to
tactile communications between teachers and students.

A far better summation than any other is provided on the

following page by the anthropologist Desmond Mbrris.

44

"The human animal is a social species,
capable of loving and greatly in need

of being loved. A simple tribal hunter

by evolution, he finds himself now in a
bewilderingly inflated communal world.
Hemmed in on all sides, he defensively
turns in on himself. In his emotional
retreat, he starts to shut off even those
who are nearest and dearest to him until
he finds himself alone in a dense crowd.
Unable to reach out for emotional support,
he becomes tense and strained and possibly,
in the end, violent. Lost for comfort, he
turns to harmless substitutes for love
that ask no questions. But loving is a
twoeway process, and in the end the substi-
tutes are not enough. In this condition,
if he does not find true intimacy--even

if it is only with one single person--he
will suffer. Driven to armour himself
against attack and betrayal, he may have
arrived at a state in which all contact
seems repellent, where to touch or to be
touched means to hurt or be hurt. This,

in a sense, has become one of the greatest
ailments of our time, a major social disease
of modern society that we would do well to
cure before it is too late. If the danger
remains unheeded, then-like poisonous
chemicals in our food-it may increase from
generation to generation until the damage
has gone beyond repair.

 

3
Desmond Morris, Intimate Behavior, (Bantam Books edition)
(New York: Random House, Inc. 1971), p. 264

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY

Introduction

 

The historical review of existing knowledge relative to
human touching establishes the importance of touching behavior
for the expression of positive feeling and attitudes. Having
established that the use or misuse of touch may be a significant
factor in the growth of children, a survey was conducted to
determine whether or not and to what degree touching behavior

is currently being utilized by teachers in elementary schools.

Population and Sample

The local school districts within a large Intermediate
School District in Michigan, provided a cross-section of
urban, suburban and rural schools. The following figures
provided by the Intermediate Office reflect the diversity within

the county.

K—12 school districts, 1975 - 76

20 public school districts
4,573 employed educators
99,964 students enrolled

Private and parochial schools

898 employed educators
18,784 students enrolled

45

46

Urban setting
1,691 employed educators
38,894 students enrolled
Suburban setting
324 employed educators
6,965 students enrolled
Small rural setting
75 employed educators
1,602 students enrolled

This intermediate school district provided an oppor-
tunity for surveying teachers from urban schools, where
420 or approximately 25% of the county's elementary
teachers work, as well as suburban and rural schools. The
suburban school districts provided the largest number of
teachers for the survey. Approximately 50% (750) of the
total population of elementary teachers are employed by
the suburban school districts. The remaining 437 teachers
are employed by the districts in the outlying farm country
and work in schools in that rural setting.

The actual total size of the population is 1,594
elementary teachers. The goal was to select a sample of
approximately 400 representing 252 of all public elementary
school teachers in the Intermediate School District. In an
effort to maintain the cross-sectional make-up of the county,
50: of the sample was selected from the suburban schools 25%
from the rural schools and 252 from the urban school district.

Two factors limited the actual size of the sample. The
first was the refusal by the urban school system to participate

in the survey. The second limiting factor was a result of the

sampling procedure. For organizational purposes it was decided

47

to limit the number of local school districts to be involv-
ed, identify a few districts to represent the others and
survey the entire staffs in those elementary buildings.
Districts were selected from different areas of the county
that would provide the approximate numbers for the sample.
The limiting oversight was that not all of the professional
educators in a school are classroom teachers. Consequently,
the total number of classroom teachers was greatly reduced.
Included as supplementary data, however, will be the
responses of principals, additional professional educators
such as special education teachers, as well as a small sample
of urban teachers who volunteered to participate on their
own.

The geographical location of the school districts which
comprise the sample and the actual number of participating

classroom teachers were:

Rural 86 teachers
Suburban 136 teachers
Urban* 16 teachers

It should be noted that although the sample of classroom
teachers is smaller than originally hoped for, the addition

of a substantial amount of supplementary data contributes

to an understanding of the attitudes and behaviors of teachers

in a more generic sense.

 

*Offered as a supplement in Appendix C

48

The additional people included in the survey were:

 

Urban classroom teachers 16
Principals 8
Counselors 4
Special education teachers 10
Multi-grade teachers i.e., PE 4
Remedial instruction 9

total 51

The entire sample utilized in the study includes, therefore,
222 elementary classroom teachers representing 14% of the popula-
tion in the county public schools and 51 additional respondents
bringing the total to 273 or 172 of the professional elementary
school educators within the Intermediate School District.

Although the existence of limiting factors is not insignifi-
cant in this sample, it is felt that it will still sufficiently
reflect the attitudes and behaviors of an adequate number of
teachers. Although a wide range of variables have not been
accounted for, it is reiterated that the intention is to generate

hypotheses and for this purpose the sample was considered adequate.

Develppment of the Survey Instrument

The instrument utilized in this research was self-designed
and titled "A Survey of Touching Behavior and Attitudes" (Appendix).
A.wide range of items was included in an effort to generate as
much general information as possible. The intention of the instrument
was to assess teacher attitudes regarding touching between elementary
teachers and their students in general as well as to identify their

own actual behavior with their students.

49

The instrument is actually a combination opinionnaire and
questionnaire. It is an opinionnaire in that it solicits the
opinions of teachers regarding other teachers and it is a question—
naire in the assessment of actual behavior via self report.

Developed in 1975, the instrument was field tested by selected
teachers and reviewed by additional educators following several
revisions.

It was understood that the data gathered would surpass that
which was necessary to respond to the specific research questions
of this study, but that in a seminal study such as this one, the
additional data were considered relevant for their potential heur-
istic value.

One serious flaw in the instrument was fortunately discovered
by a respondent during the first administration. The teacher noted
that current teaching assignment was requested and yet many questions
related to the previous year when the teaching assignment may have
been different. Fortunately, the teacher's astute observation
prevented a serious validity problem from occurring. Verbal instruc—
tions subsequently included the direction to designate the previous

year's assignment if different from the current year.

Administration of the Survey

The survey was conducted during the last three months of 1976.
In October initial contact was made with the central office of each
identified school district. Contact was made on a face to face

basis and in each case additional meetings were arranged with the

50

elementary building principals. In each case, with the exception

of the urban school district, permission to proceed was received.

Procedure for Treatment of the Data

In January the completed questionnaires were individually
coded and delivered to the computer laboratory at Michigan State
University where arrangements had been made for the data to be
programmed and computerized.

In addition to a tabulation of all reSponses to the questions
cross tabulations were developed for all questions with the following
demographic data.

Sex

Marital Status

Age

. Education

. Teaching Experience
. Tenure Status

. Teaching Assignment

\JO‘UIwafi—I

The original intention was also to examine the data for
differences related to rural, urban and suburban schools. The
subsequent lack of sufficient data from urban teachers negated

that possibility.

Summapy_of the Chapter

This chapter includes the research procedure for the survey
component of this study. The survey described was undertaken to
ascertain if teacher behaviors and attitudes were consistent with

the apparent importance of tactile communication as presented in

the review of the literature.

51

Also included in the chapter are the population and sample
for the study, a description of the instrument utilized and the
process for administering the survey. In addition a number of
difficulties encountered and the possible limiting effect of

those difficulties are included.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction

This chapter is organized into four sections. The first
section includes a description of the sample based upon their
responses to ten demographic questions included in the survey
instrument. The second section includes frequency tables for the
twenty-nine questions requiring specific, single responses. In
addition, this section includes selected responses to three
questions calling for written elaboration and the respondents
personal statement. Section three includes selected cross-tabulations
bearing directly on the problem and the major questions of the study.
The fourth section is a review and summary of the chapter.

The data are presented in the form of tables, discussion and
pertinent respondent comments. It should be noted that due to the
tendency of the respondents to skip some questions, there is
occasionally a discrepancy in total frequencies. The word "blank"

indicates the item.was unanswered.

52

53

SECTION I

Description of the Sample

Presented in this section is a description of the survey
participants based upon their responses to the first ten items

on the survey instrument.

Sex of the Respondents
Although females outnumbered males by a ratio of more than
six to one this is generally reflective of elementary school

teaching staffs.

TABLE 1

SEX DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE

 

 

Sex Frequency Percent of Total
Male 30 13.5
Female 192 86.5

Total 222 100.0

 

Marital Status
Four classifications having potential bearing on tactual
behavior were utilized.
TABLE 2

Marital Status Distribution

 

Marital Status Frequency Percent of Total
Married 167 75.2
Single 36 16.2
Divorced 16 7.2
Widowed 3 1.4

 

Total 222

 

Age of the Respondents

The sample age range was from 23 to 64 years with a mean age

of 36 years and a median age of 32.5 years.

54

the categorized age distribution of the sample.

TABLE 3

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE

 

Table 3 illustrates

 

‘Agg Interval Frequency Percent of Total
23 - 3O 95 45.2
31 - 4O 50 23.8
41 - 50 37 17.7
51 and over 28 13.3
Total 210 100.0
Blank 12

 

Education of the Respondents
Respondents were asked to indicate their highest earned degree
and credits beyond. For the sake of simplification only the highest
degree will be considered here.
TABLE 4

DISTRIBUTION or was DEGREE

 

 

Earned Degree Frequency Percent of Total
Bachelors 154 69.4
Masters 65 29.3
Specialist 1 .5

Total 220 100.0

Blank 2

 

55

Years of Teaching_§§perience
The Egg giof teaching experience was from 1 to 38 years
with a gggq of 10 and a median of 8 years. The five respondents
leaving this item blank were probably first year teachers with
no prior years of experience. Table 5 illustrates the categorized
distribution of years of experience.
TABLE 5

DISTRIBUTION BY TEACHING EXPERIENCE

 

 

Years Frequency Percent of Total
1 - 3 37 17.1
4 -10 103 47.4
11 -20 52 24.0
21 and over 25 11.5
Total 217 100.0
Blank 5

 

Teacher Tenure Status

Due to the potentially controversial nature of touching behavior
it was considered important to determine the existence or nonexistence
of tenure. Two hundred, nearly 902 of the respondents indicated they
did have tenure. Twenty, nearly 102 of the respondents did not have
tenure. Two people did not respond to the question.
Teaching Grade Assigqgent

Respondents were asked to indicate the grade that they taught.
In the case of a change in assignment from the previous year, they
were asked to indicate the prior year (1975-76). Those people teaching

multiple ages or having special assignments were separated from the

56

sampling and their responses are offered later as supplementary

data. Classroom teaching assignments are presented in Table 6.

TABLE 6

DISTRIBUTION BY TEACHING ASSIGNMENT

 

 

Grade Frequency Percent of Total

K 22 10.2

1 42 19.4

2 34 15.7

3 36 16.7

4 29 13.4

5 42 19.4

6 11 5.1
Total 216 100.0
Blank 6

 

Questionnaire items 8-10 attempted to determine the relative
size of the school and the number of students in the respondents
classrooms. Due to a wide range of inconsistent responses to
question #8 (Number of teachers in your school) and question #9
(Approximate number of students in your school) the data were con-
sidered invalid. Figures utilized were provided by the Inter-

mediate School District office.

Comparative Buildipg Size and Geographical Location

It was suspected that a relationship might exist between

smaller schools and classes and degree of tactile communication.

57

TABLE 7

COMPARISON OF BUILDING STAFF AND ENROLLMENT

Buildipg District Area Staff Pupil
1 A Rural 17 291
2 A Rural 24 593
3 A Rural 21 499
1 B Rural 28 730
2 B Rural 15 505
1 C Sub. 14 339
2 C " 14 338
3 C " 14 345
4 C " 11 267
1 D " 20 420
2 D " 25 488
3 D " 19 399
4 D " ‘ 18 292
5 D " 22 449
6 D " 19 369
7 D " 22 419

 

Size of Classes
Class sizes ranged from 10 to 32 with the mean size 24.5

and the median 25.

Geographical Distribution

The respondents were categorized as teaching in rural or
suburban schools. An additional small sample of teachers in
urban schools was taken and is considered as a supplement to
these data. There were 86 (38.72) of the respondents
who taught in rural school districts. There were 136 (61.3%)

who taught in suburban school districts.

58

SECTION II

Freqpency Distributions

This section includes the data generated from the main
questions in the survey. The data are presented as frequency
distribution and percentages. The word plppk indicates no
response was made to the question.

Respondents Opinions were asked for by the first six
questionnaire items (no.'s 11-16). In each case they were asked

to respond according to the following scale:

1) Never

2) Seldom

3) Occasionally
4) Usually

5) Always

ngstiop number 11
Question #11 asked: If expressing positive feelings for

students, how often do you think teachers should make use of

physical tOUCh? Responses are presented in the table below.

TABLE 8

Touch and Positive Feelings

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 0 O
Seldom 1 .5
Occasionally 84 38.4
Usually 118 53.8
Always 16 7.3

Total 219 100.0

Blank 3

 

59

Qpestion Number 12
Question #12 asked: If expressing negative feelings for

studepts, how often do you think teachers should make use of

physical touch? Responses are presented in Table 9.

TABLE 9

Touch and Negative Feelings

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 8 3.6
Seldom 89 40.5
Occasionally 88 40.0
Usually 32 14.5
Always 3 1.4

Total 220 100.0
Blank 2

 

Qpestion Number 13
Question #13 asked: Dopyou thinkpphysical touch is important

for ipprovipg a student's self-concept? Responses are presented
in table 10.
TABLE 10

TOUCH AN_1_)_ SELF-CONCEPT

 

 

Respgnse Frequency Percent of Total
Never 2 .9
Seldom 2 .9
Occasionally 48 22.6
Usually 121 57.2
Always 39 18.4

Total 212 100.0

Blank 10

 

60

Question Number 14
Question #14 asked: How important do you think physical

touch is for creatingspositive student attitudes toward school?

Responses are presented in Table 11.

TABLE 11

TOUCH AND POSITIVE ATTITUDES

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 3 1.4
Seldom 5 2.4
Occasionally 64 30.5
Usually 100 47.6
Always 38 18.1

Total 210 100.0
Blank 12

 

Qpestion Number 15

Question #15 asked: If punishing students,_how often do

you think teachers should use physical touch? Responses are
presented in Table 12.

TABLE 12

TOUCH AND PUNISHMENT

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 16 7.2
Seldom 117 53.2
Occasionally 71 32.3
Usually 13 5.9
Always 3 1.4

Total 220 100.0

Blank 2

 

61

Qqestion Number 16

Question #16 asked: How often, would you think, do your
stpdgpts like to be tppghed by you? Responses are presented
in Table 13.

TABLE 13

STUDENTSyLIKING TO BE TOUCHED

 

Resppnse Frequency Percent of Total
Never 0 0.0
Seldom 6 2.7
Occasionally 77 35.0
Usually 119 54.1
Always 18 8.2

Total 220 100.0
Blank 2

 

Questions #17 through #31 deal with teacher attitudes
and behaviors regarding specific situations.
ngpgion Number 17
Question #17 asked: How ofpgpsdo you likepyour students
to touch you to demonstrate positive feelings? Responses are
presented in Table 14:
TABLE 14

TEACHERS LIKING TO BE TOUCHED

 

Resppnse Frequency Percent of Total
Never 3 1.4
Seldom 21 9.5
Occasionally 108 48.8
Usually 72 32.6
Always 17 7.7

Total 221 100.0

Blank 1

 

62

Qpestion Number 18

Question #18 asked: How often do you encourage students

to touch_you? Responses are presented in Table 15.

TABLE 15

ENCOURAGEMENT TO TOUCH

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 19 8.7
Seldom 50 22.8
Occasionally 87 39.7
Usually 53 24.2
Always 10 4.6

Total 219 100.0
Blank 3

 

Question Number 19
Question #19 asked: When speaking to my students inpprivate,

I put my hapd(s) on them. Responses are presented in Table 16.

TABLE 16

TOUCHING IN PRIVATE

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 1 .5
Seldom 19 8.6
Occasionally 78 35.3
Usually 100 45.2
Always 23 10.4

Total 221 100.0

Blank 1

 

63

Qqestion Number 20

Question #20 asked: Duringfthe last school_year, how

often, on a typical day, didsyou hug your students? Responses

are presented in Table 17.

TABLE 17

TEACHERS HUGGING STUDENTS

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 21 9.8
Seldom 68 31.6
Occasionally 80 37.2
Usually 35 16.3
Always 11 5.1

Total 215 100.0
Blank 7

 

Question Number 21
Question #21 asked: During the last school year, how

oftenI on a typical day; did_you kiss any of your students?

Responses are presented in Table 18.

TABLE 18

TEACHERS KISSING STUDENTS

 

Resppnse Frequency Percent of Total
Never 156 72.9
Seldom 36 16.8
Occasionally 19 8.9
Usually 2 .9
Always 1 .S

 

Total 214 100.0
Blank 8 r:

 

64

Qqestion Number 22
Question #22 asked: During the past year, how oftep; on

a typical day, did you put your arm around a student affecting:

 

ately? Responses are presented in Table 19.

TABLE 19

ONE ARM SHOW OF AFFECTION

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 5 2.3
Seldom 22 10.3
Occasionally 89 41.8
Usually 80 37.6
Always 17 8.0

Total 213 100.0
Blank 9

 

Qpestion Number 23

Question #23 asked: On a typical day, during the last
school year, how frequently did a student sit on your lap?

Responses are presented in Table 20.

TABLE 20

SITTING ON TEACHER'S LAP

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 108 49.8
Seldom 52 24.0
Occasionally 44 20.3
Usually 9 4.1
Always 4 1.8

Total 217 100.0

Blank 5

 

65

Qpestion Number 24
Question #24 asked: When students talk to you, do they
put their band‘s) on you? ReSponses are presented in Table 21.

TABLE 21

STUDENTS TOUCHING TEQCHERS

 

 

 

Res use Frequency Percent of Total
Never 8 3.7
Seldom 44 20.1
Occasionally 125 57.0
Usually 39 17.8
Always 3 1.4

Total 219 100.0
Blank 3

 

‘ngppion Number 25
Question #25 asked: During the last school yearlsdid students
kisssyou? Responses are presented in Table 22.
TABLE 22

STUDENTS KISSING TEACHERS

 

 

 

Response Frgquency Percent of Total
Never 77 36.5
Seldom 62 29.4
Occasionally 69 32.7
Usually- 2 .9
Always 1 .5

Total 211 100.0

Blank 11

 

66

Qpestion Number 26
Question #26 asked:

Duripg the last schoolsyear, did

students hug you? Responses are presented in Table 23.

TABLE 23

s'rppms HUGGING TEACHERS

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 18 8.5
Seldom 45 21.1
Occasionally 100 46.9
Usually 43 20.2
Always 7 3.3

Total 213 100.0
Blank 9

 

Qpestion Number 27

Question #27 asked:

How often, duripg the last year, did

 

students askpyou not to touch them? Responses are presented in

 

 

 

 

Table 24.
TABLE 24
STUDENTS ASKING NOT TO BE TOUCHED
Requnse Frequency Percent of Total

Never 157 72.4
Seldom 51 23.5
Occasionally 7 3.2
Usually 2 .9
Always 0 0.0

Total 217 100.0

Blank 5

 

67

Qpestion Number 28

Question #28 asked: How frequently do you ask students

not to touch you? Responses are presented in Table 25.

TABLE 25

TEACHERS ASKING NOT TO BE TOUCHED

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 163 74.0
Seldom 45 20.5
Occasionally 12 5.5
Usually 0 0.0
Always 0 0.0

Total 220 100.0
Blank 2

 

Qqestion Number 29
Question #29 asked: How often during a typical week last

year did you spank at least one student? Responses are presented

in Table 26.

TABLE 26

TEACHERS SPANKING STUDENTS

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 150 69.4
Seldom 57 26.4
Occasionally 9 4.2
Usually O 0.0
Always 0 0.0

100.0

 

Total 216
Blank 6

 

68

Qpestion Number 30
Question #30 asked: With what did you spank the student?

(refers to question #29) Responses are presented in Table 27.

TABLE 27

METHOD OF SPANKING

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Hand 69 74.2
Object 12 12.9
Both hand 8 object 12 12.9

Total 93* 100.0
Blank 129

 

Qpestion Number 31
Question #31 asked: How often duripg a week lastsyear did

you slap at least one student? Responses are presented in Table 28.
TABLE 28

TEACHERS SLAPPING STUDENTS

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Never 190 88.4
Seldom 24 11.1
Occasionally 1 .5
Usually O 0.0
Always 0 0.0

Total 215 100.0
Blank 5

 

*

Discrepancy of frequency in comparison with previous Table is noted
here: An apparent misunderstanding of Question #30 contaminated
these data.

69

Questions #32 through #34 deal with the issue of
complaints regarding teacher touching behavior. Each of
the three questions is related to the others. Question #32
asks about frequency of complaints. Question #33 identi-
fies the complaint. Question #34 asks the respondent to
elaborate on the nature of the complaint.
ngpgion Npmber 32

Question #32 asked: How often has anyone complained

aboutsyou touching students? Responses are presented in Table 29.

TABLE 29

COMPLAINTS ABOUT TOUCHING

 

Response Frgquency Percent of Total
Never 190 87.6
Seldom, 27 12.4
Occasionally 0 0.0
Usually 0 0.0
Always 0 0.0

Total 217 100.0
Blank 5

 

Question Number 33
Question #33 asked: Who, ifsgpyone1 Egg complained?
Multiple responses to this question created the increased

frequency of responses. Responses are presented in Table 30.

70

TABLE 30

COMPLAINANTS ABOUT TOUCHING

 

 

 

Reaponse Frequency Percent of Total
Student touched 20 9.0
Other student 8 3.6
Teacher 5 2.3
Principal 7 3.2
Superintendent 5 2.3
Parent 16 7.2
Others 6 2.7

Total 67

 

Question Number 34

Question #34 asked: Please elaborate on the nature of the
complaints. Some selected responses are presented.

"Mother complained that student was hit on

ear when she ducked to get away from being hit

on shoulder."

"Student had misbehaved and was being reprimanded.
I had a hold of his arm/shoulder and he objected."

"Jealousy"

"'Don't touch me!'"

"Birthdays are not spanking affairs."

"Did not want their child touched-~I was to tell
them if anything occured. I was to contact them

and they would spank at home!"

"One boy will not hold my hand in line--he says
it's baby stuff."

"Parents only, are allowed to spank. But after
I had just cause-~no problem."

It is interesting to note that nearly all of the responses
to question #34 described complaints regarding punitive touching

and not affectionate touching.

71

One additional response to question #34 is present-

ed.

"Before recess students were told to stay on (the)
sidewalk because of (the) mud and (they) were told
they would be spanked if they tracked in mud.
Becuase everyone had to live with their mud. Two
(children) deliberately went into the mud and were
spanked. The day of the Christmas party, a mother
came in to pick up her son who couldn't stay for
the party. (She) said that they (parents) almost
came up to see me and were mad about it (spanking).
I told her what had happened, invited her to ask
the class about directions that day, which were
stressed, and told her I would be happy to meet
with both her husband and herself to discuss this
at any time. At this point, she backed off and
changed the subject."

Questionnaire items #35 through #39 were general
questions calling for yes or no responses.
Question Number 35
Question #35 asked: Do you think that students respond
favorably ifyyou ppysically express affection or caring for
M Reaponses are presented in Table 31.
TABLE 31

STUDENTS RESPONDING FAVORABLY TO TOUCH

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Yes 215 99.1
No 2 .9
Total 217 100.0
Blank 5

 

Qqestion Number 36
Question #36 asked: Do you ever respond fayorgbly

72

if students physically express affection toward you?

Responses are presented in Table 32.

TABLE 32

TEACHERS RESPONDING FAVORABLY TO TOUCH

 

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Yes 212 97.2
No 6 2.8
Total 218 100.0
Blank 4

 

Question Number 37
Question #37 asked: Do you think there is a need for
more research on the effects of physical:touching in schools?

Responses are presented in Table 33.

TABLE 33

NEED FOR MOR§_RESEARCH

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Yes 162 78.6
No 44 21.4
Total 206 100.0
Blank 16

 

Question Number 38
Question #38 asked: Which, dosypu think, desire the

‘more frequent physical contact? Responses are presented in

Table 34.

73

TABLE 34

SEX DIFFERENCES AND DESIRE FOR CONTACT

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Girls 60 27.4
Boys 1 .5
Both the same 158 72.1
Total 219 100.0
Blank 3

 

AQuestion Number 39
Question #39 asked: Are you most likely to touch
students of your same sex, ppposite sex or both sexes

equally? Responses are presented in Table 35.

TABLE 35

TOUCHING ACCORDING TO SEX OF STUDENT

 

Response Frequency Percent of Total
Same sex 15 6.9
Opposite sex 3 1.4
Both equally 198 91.7

Total 216 100.0
Blank 6

 

Question Number 40

Question #40 raises the question of inhibition or
restraint in asking: How often during the lastyyear did
you want to tough a student in a positive manner and_yet

did not? Responses are presented in Table 36.

74

TABLE 36

RESTRAINT IN TOUCHING

 

 

 

Response Frequency_ Percent of Total
Never 90 42.5
Seldom 82 38.7
Occasionally 38 17.9
Usually 2 .9
Always 0 .0

Total 212 100.0
Blank 10

 

Question Number 41
Question #41 related directly to question #40 and asked:

What factors, if any, influenced your decision? The entire
range of responses are presented in appendix B. Some selected
responses are presented below.

"Child's reaction"

"I feel that I was touching too much and that I
shouldn't."

"Told not to touch students."

"Possibly a carry over of past beliefs or mind
sets about 'touching persons' as having a sexual
connotation to the act."

"I was afraid I'd lose control, behavior-wise."

"Parent's reactions"

"Wanted to keep the 'student-teacher' relationship
in force."

"Usually it's just taking the time."

"Holding back from getting myself or the student too
emotionally involved."

75

Qpestion Number 42

Question #42 asked: Please use the remainipg;space...

 

to_ppke your own statement in regard to the importance or
unimportance of touchipg between elgmgpppry teachers and
students. The entire range of responses is presented in
Appendix B. A few selected comments are included here.

"I think it is extremely important. My kids
know I love and care about them and touching
is a super way to show it."

"I often feel a little spanking would be helpful
for some discipline for some children. It seems
to be very seldom used by parents in our school

and never by the teachers or administration."

"The importance of touching lies in its value
as an alternative or additional method of
communication.

"I was never a 'touchy' person before I spent a
lot of time with a touchy person. I personally
enjoy touching and being touched. Before, I was
too inhibited to do so. This may be true of most
people."

76

SECTION III

Selected Cross Tabulatiggs

This section includes selected crosstabulations which
explore resltionships between responses to the questionnaire
items and the demographic differences within the sample.
Because of the large amount of data generated by the survey
only those crosstables felt to be most pertinent to the problem
and major questions are presented. The relationships relative
to seven variables were sought: sex, marital status, age,
education, teaching experience, tenure status and teaching

assignment. Each variable is considered separately.

_S_e_:_t_
The examination of the differences between the responses
of male teachers and female teachers yielded some interesting
results. (The data indicate that male teachers feel that
physical touch is more important for improving a student's
self-concept and creating positive attitudes than do female
teachersv In response to questions #13 and #14, males
responded "usually" or "always" at a greater frequency
(82.81 and 79.3%) than females (74.3% and 63.51). The
complete crosstabulations for both questions are included in
tables 37 and 38.
Question #13 asked: Do you think physical touch is

important for improving a student's self-concept?

77

TABLE 37

SEX or TEAlejR AND OPINIONS ON SELF-CONCEPT

 

 

 

Sex Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always
Male 0.0% 3.4% 13.8% 62.1% 20.7%
(29)

Female 1.1% .5% 24.0% 56.3% 18.0%
(183)

 

Question #14 asked: How important do you think physical

s for creatin ositive student attitudes toward school?

TABLE 38

SEX OF TEACHER AND OPINIONS ON POSITIVE ATTITUDES

 

Sex Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always
Male 0.0 . 0.0 20.7 55.2 24.1
(29)

Female 1.7 2.8 32.0 46.4 17.1
(181)

 

In contrast to the figures above, responses to several

questions indicated that male teachers were less inclined to

be overtly demonstrable in the expression of affection through

physical touch. The following three tables present the

responses to three questionnaire items which identified three

specific kinds Of touching behavior.~

78

Question #20 asked: Duringythe last school year,
how oftep, op_p typical day, did you hug your students?
Male teachers responded never two and one half times
more frequently than female teachers, although combining
the never and seldom responses equalizes the difference.

The complete response is presented in Table 39.

TABLE 39
SEX OF TEACHERS AND HUGGING STUDENTS

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always

Male 21.4 21.4 39.3 14.3 3.6
(28)
Female 8.0 33.2 36.9 16.6 5.3
(187)

 

Question #21 asked: During the last school‘year, how
often, on a pypical day, did you kiss any of_your students?
The data showed that male teachers kiss students far less
frequently than female teachers. Responses are presented
in Table 40.

TABLE 40

SEX OF TEACHERS AND KISSING STUDENTS

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always

Male 93.1 3.4 3.4 0.0 0.0
(29)
Female 69.7 18.9 9.7 1.1 .5

(185)

 

79

Question #22 asked: During the past year, how often,

SnL1LIEI1Sfl1_dE1aJflELJEBLJnuLJEBHLJEJLJEEEEELALEEBQSEE
.gffggfiigngggly? At a ratio of better than two to one male
teachers responded more frequently that they never or

seldom express affection in this manner toward their students.

The complete response to the question is presented in Table 41.

TABLE 41
SEX OF TEACHERS AND AFFECTIONATE GESTURES

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always

Male 3.4 20.7 44.8 24.1 6.9
(29)
Female 2.2 8.7 41.3 39.7 8.2
(184)

 

The questions regarding student expression of affection
indicated that male elementary school teachers receive less
physical communication as well. Question #25 asked: During

the last school year, did students kiss you? The complete

response is presented in Table 42.

TABLE 42

STUDENTS KISSING TEACHERS '

 

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always

Male 65.5 20.7 13.8 0.0 0.0
(29)
Female 31.9 30.8 35.7 1.1 .5

(182)

80

Question #26 asked: During the last school_year,
dig sguggngs hug you? Examination of the data indicates that
male teachers are hugged less frequently by elementary school
students than their female counterparts. Table 43 presents

the comparison.

TABLE 43
STUDENTS HUGGING TEACHERS

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always

Male 10.3 31.0 44.8 6.9 6.9
(29)
Female 8.2 19.6 47.3 22.3 2.7
(184)

 

In contrast to the lesser frequency of tactual expres-
sion Of affection by male teachers, the men were more likely to
have had physical contact with students of a punitive nature.
The data revealed that nearly 72% of the female teachers did not
spank any of their students as Opposed to nearly 57% of the men.
This was in response to question #29 which asked: How often

during a typical week lastsyesp,did you spank at least one student?

The copplete response is presented in Table 44.

81

TABLE 44

TEACHERS SPANKING STUDENTS

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always

Male 56.7 40.0 3.3 0.0 0.0
(30)
Female 71.5 24.2 4.3 0.0 0.0
(186)

 

The responses to question #38 (WhichLdo you think,,desires
the more frequent_physical contact,_g;pls, boys or both the same?),
yielded some interesting data. It is indicated that male teachers
(90%) recognize more readily the desire for physical contact in
male students than do their female colleagues (69%). Mere than
30% of the female teachers felt that girls desired more contact
than boys as compared to 7% of the male teachers. The complete

response to this question is presented in Table 45.

TABLE 45

SEX OF STUDENT AND DESIRE FOR CONTACT

 

Girls Boys Both the Same
Male 6.7% 3.3% 90.0%
(30)
Female 30.7% 0.0% 69.3%
(189)

 

The examination of the data for'relationships between the sex
of the teacher and attitudes and behaviors regarding touching

between themselves and their students indicate that some district

82

differences do exist between male and female teachers and touching
behavior and attitudes in school classrooms. A study of early
child rearing practices as well as the effect of cultural norms

and taboos might explain the descrepancies.

Marital Status

Four categories were established which identified the respond—
ents marital status; married, single, divorced and widowed. Because
only three people were in the widowed category their response were
not considered.

From the examination of the data, several trends are noted
that establish the existence of some relationships. I; regard to
attitudes toward touching, teachers who were divorced tended to.
place greater value on the importance of touching students than
did married teachers and Single teachers placed less value on
touching students than either married or divorced teachersy

In regard to actually engaging in touching students, the
married teachers were more likely than the others to demonstrate
touching behaviors and more likely to receive touch from students.
The single teachers were least likely to either give or receive
touch.

The following tables are indicative of the responses which

remained quite consistent throughout the questionnaire along the

previously mentioned trends. Question #11 asked: If expressing

positive feelings for students, how Often do you thipk teachers

 

83

should make use of physical touch? The responses are presented
in Table 46.

TABLE 46

MARITAL STATUS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD TOUCHING

 

 

 

Never Seldom. Occasionally, Usually Always
Married 0.0 0.0 38.2 55.9 6.7
(165)

Single 0.0 2.9 40.0 51.4 5.7
(35)

Divorced 0.0 0.0 37.5 43.8 18.8
(16)

 

Question #20 asked: Duripg the last school year, how oftep,

 

on a typlcal day, did you hug your students? The responses

according to marital status are presented in Table 47.

TABLE 47

MARITAL STATUS AND HUGGING STUDENTS

 

 

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always
Married 8.6 30.1 36.8 20.2 4.3
(163)

Single 19.4 30.6 41.7 2.8 5.6
(36) '

Divorced 0.0 38.5 38.5 7.7 15.4
(13)

 

The data, in regard to relationships between touching and

marital status,were by no means conclusive. As stated previously,

however, there did appear to be a rather clear trend that single

teachers gave and received less physical touch than teachers who

84

were currently or had been previously married.

‘égp

The survey respondents were grouped into four categories
according to age; 23-30, 31-40, 41-50, and 51+. Examination
of the data indicates the existence of a number of differences
between the age groups.

Teachers in the two older age groups are more likely to
demonstrate, physically, affection for their students. Teachers
in the 41-50 group are the most demonstrative of all the groups.
Several crosstabulations verify this observation. The table
below is indicative of the trend.

Question #20 asked: During the last school year, how often,

on a typical day, did you hug your students? The responses are
presented in Table 48.

TABLE 48
AGE AND TEACHERS HUGGING STUDENTS

Never Seldom. Occasionally Usually Always

 

23-30 13.0 29.3 40.2 13.0 4.3
(92)
31-40 12.2 26.5 42.9 12.2 6.1
(49)
41-50 5.4 29.7 21.6 32.4 10.8
(37)
51+. 4.0 36.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

(25)

 

85

An interesting relationship appears to exist in regard to
spanking students. The youngest and the oldest groups are the
most likely to spank children. The table that follows presents
the responses regarding teachers spanking students.

Question #29 asked: How Often during a typical week last
year did you epgnk at least one student? Table 49 presents the

reaponses.

TABLE 49

AGE AND TEACHERS SPANKING STUDENTS

'Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always

23-30 65.9 29.7 4.4 0.0 0.0
(91)
31-40 76.0 20.0 4.0 0.0 0.0
(50)
41-50 80.6 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
(36)
5L+ 55.6 33.3 6 11.1 0.0 0.0
(27)

 

Question #31 adds support that the youngest and the oldest
teachers tend to touch students more frequently in order to punish

them. The question asked: How often during a week last year did

 

you slap at least one student? The responses are presented in

Table 50.

86

TABLE 50
AGE AND TEACHERS SLAPPING STUDENTS

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always

23-30 87.9 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
(91)
31-40 92.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(50)
41-50 94.4 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
(36)
51+' 73.1 23.1 3.8 0.0 0.0

 

Education

Examination of the data yielded nothing to indicate that any
relationship exists between amount of education on the part of the
teacher and attitudes or behaviors involving physical touching

between teachers and students.

Years of Teaching Epperience

Years of teaching experience were arbitrarily divided into
four categories; 1-3,4-10, 11-20 and 21+. Crosstabulation of
the data using these categories did not indicate any clear
relationships existing between teaching experience and attitudes

or behaviors of teachers in regard to touching students.

Teacher Tenure
It was suspected that the security of the tenure would increase
the tactile communication of caring and affection. The data did

not indicate that any relationship existed between tenure and touching.

87

In regard to punitive touching the data did indicate a
positive relationship between tenure and spanking or slapping
students. MOre non-tenured teachers (84.2%) indicated that they
never spanked during the last year than did tenured teachers
(67.7%). In regard to slapping, more non-tenured teachers (94.7%)
indicated that they never slapped a student during the last year

than did tenured teachers (87.7%).

Grade Assignment

Very definite relationships existed in regard to the grade
that teachers were assigned and attitudes and touching behavior.
:ln general, as would be suspected, the older the student the less
affectionate physical contact he/she received), Attitudes and
touching behaviors divided along some very distinct lines according
to grade level. The teachers who worked in kindergartens, first,
second and third grades, consistently indicated greater importance
to touching and engaged in touching behavior most frequently. The
teachers working in fourth and fifth grades represented a second
distinct group, touching considerably less than the sixth grade
teachers who represented the third distinct group.

The following figures are indicative Of the beliefs held by
the teachers in regard to the importance of touch. Teachers
responded either usually or always at the following frequencies
to question #11 which asked: If eypresslpggpositive feelipgs for
pppgents, how Often do_you thlpk_teachers should make use of

physical touch?

88

Kg. 68% Fourth 46% Sixth 9%
First 71% Fifth 54%

Second 68%

Third 75%

 

Examination of additional crosstabulations provides support
for the trend indicated by the previous figures.

Question #13 asked: Do you think physical touch is important
for improving a student's self concept? The response is presented

in Table 51 (in percentages).

TABLE 51
GRADE LEVEL AND TOUCH TO IMPROVE SELF CONCEPT

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always

Kg. 0.0 0.0 18.2 31.8 50.0,
(22

First 0.0 0.0 14.6 70.7 14.6
(41)

Second 6.1 3.0 9.1 66.7 15.2
(33)

Third 0.0 0.0 17.6 61.8 20.6
(34)

Fourth 0.0 3.6 39.3 46.4 10.7
(28)

Fifth 0.0 0.0 30.0 ' 55.0 15.0
(40)

Sixth 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0

 

Teachers perceptions of whether or not their students like
being touched follow the same trend. They perceive positive
reception decreasing with the increasing age of the child and
distinct divisions between third and fourth grades and between
fifth and sixth grades. Table 52 presents the responses to

question #16.

89

Question #16 asked: How ofppn,,wou1d_you think, do

your sgpdepts like to be touched by you?

TABLE 52

GRADE LEVEL AND STUDENTS LIKING TO BE TOUCHED

 

Eggs; Sold—om Occasionally My Alypyp
K8. 0.0 0.0 18.2 59.1 22.7
First 0.0 0.0 31.7 61.0 7.3
Second 0.0 3.0 21.2 69.7 6.1
Third 0.0 0.0 27.8 66.7 5.6
Fourth 0.0 3.4 48.3 41.4 6.9
Fifth 0.0 7.1 47.6 38.1 7.1
Sixth 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 0.0

 

It appeared in the data that teachers liked to be touched
by their students according to the same grade level trend.

Question #17 asked: How often dogyou llke your students to touch

you to demonstrate positive feelings?

TABLE 53

GRADE LEVEL AND TEACHERS LIKING TO BE TOUCHED

 

KEYS}. _S_e_l_c_l_o_m Occasionally Usually film
Kg. 0.0 4.5 36.4 50.0 9.1
First 0.0 4.8 50.0 38.1 7.1
Second 3.0 3.0 45.5 42.4 6.1

Third 0.0 16.7 41.7 36.1 5.6

90

[Ngypp Seldom Occasionally Usually Always
Fourth 0.0 17.2 48.3 24.1 10.3
Fifth 2.4 14.3 57.1 19.0 7.1
Sixth 9.1 0.0 72.7 9.1 9.1

 

The questions which sought information regarding teachers

touching behavior yielded data which reflected the same trend as

the teachers'attitudes. The tables which follow present the
responses of a representative selection of the survey questions.
Question #19 asked: When speaking to my students in

private, I put my_hand(s) on them.

TABLE 54

CRAP; LEVEL AND TOUCHING IN PRIVATE

 

£13pr m Occasionally Usually _A_l_vLa_y_s_
Kg. 0.0 4.5 13.6 54.5 27.3
First 0.0 4.8 28.6 54.8 11.9
Second 3.0 9.1 21.2 51.5 15.2
Third 0.0 8.3 38.9 44.4 8.3
Fourth 0.0 3.4 34.5 51.7 10.3
Fifth 0.0 19.0 47.6 31.0 2.4
Sixth 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 0.0

 

91

Question #20 asked: During the last schoollyear, how often,
ppLa typical day,,did you hugfyour students? Table 55 presents
the responses.

TABLE 55
GRADE LEVEL AND TEACHERS HUGGING STUDENTS

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always

Kg. 0.0 4.5 50.0 31.8 13.6
First 2.4 35.7 28.6 21.5 11.9
Second 3.2 22.6 45.2 22.6 6.5
Third 8.3 16.7 50.0 22.2 2.8
Fourth 14.3 53.6 28.6 3.6 0.0
Fifth 19.8 41.5 34.1 4.9 0.0
Sixth 36.4 54.5 9.1 0.0 0.0

 

Question #22 asked: During;the past year, how often, on a

 

typical day,,did,you put your arm around a student affectionately?

Table 56 presents the responses.

TABLE 56
GRADE LEVEL AND TEACHERS SHOWING AFFECTION

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always

Kg. 0.0 0.0 22.7 50.0 27.3
First 0.0 9.5 28.6 50.0 11.9
Second 0.0 9.4 37.5 46.9 6.3

Third 0.0 8.3 47.2 38.9 5.6

92

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually, Always

Fourth 0.0 10.3 48.3 37.9 3.9
Fifth 13.5 10.8 56.8 16.2 2.7
Sixth 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0

 

The responses to question #24 indicate how the enculturation
*
process decreases the incidence of touch as children get Older.

Question #24 asked: When studepts tglk to you, do they put

their band‘s) on you?

TABLE 57

GRADE LEVEL AND STUDENTS TOUCHING TEACHERS

 

 

.Ngygp .Sglggp. Occasionally Usually Always
Kg. 0.0 .0.0 59.1 36.4 4.5
First 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 0.0
Second 3.1 12.5 59.4 25.0 0.0
Third 5.6 19.4 52.8 19.4 2.8
Fourth 6.9 20.7 .65.5 3.4 3.4
Fifth 7.1 35.7 54.8 2.4 0.0
Sixth 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0

 

Question #26 asked: Duripg the last school year did students

hug you? Table 58 presents the responses.

 

*
This process is described in chapter Two, pp. 22.

93

TABLE 58

GRADE LEVEL AND STUDENTS HUGGING TEACHERS

Never Seldom Occasionally Usually Always

Kg. 0.0 0.0 59.1 27.3 13.6
First 0.0 9.8 51.2 34.1 4.9
Second 3.1 15.6 50.0 28.1 3.1
Third 0.0 13.9 50.0 33.3 2.8
Fourth 13.8 37.9 44.8 3.4 0.0
Fifth 25.0 37.5 35.0 2.5 0.0
Sixth 30.0 40.0 30.0 0.0 0.0

 

Questions #27, #32 and #33a sought information regarding
students not wanting to be touched by their teachers. The data
indicated the highest incidence at the fourth and fifth grade
levels. Generally twice as many students in the fourth and fifth
grades requested not to be touched than in the other grades, as

reported by their teachers.

Summapy

This section included the data from selected crosstabulations
of the data according to seven variables. The variables were: sex,
marital status, age, education, years of teaching experience, tenure
and grade assignment. Relationships were found to exist with four of
the variables: sex, age, marital status and grade assignment.
Evidence of a slight relationship between teacher tenure and puni-

tive physical contact was in evidence.

94

SECTION IV

REVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER

This chapter included the results from the survey of
222 elementary classroom teachers in an effort to identify
their attitudes and behaviors in regard to physical touch
between themselves and their students. Several questions had
been posited regarding the nature and the extent of touching
in elementary classrooms.

The data indicated that the majority of the teachers in
the sample felt that touching between students and teachers
was important. In actuality, overt expression of affection
between teachers and students such as hugging or kissing was
limdted and therefore the most common form of contact involved
only the teacher's hands.

It was discovered from the data that seldom do either teachers
(5.5%) or students (4.1%) request not to be touched. More than 87%
of the teachers had never received a complaint about their touching
students and the majority of the complaints that were received
were concerned with punishment.

The teachers surveyed were highly receptive to the issue of
physical contact, 97% indicating that they responded favorably to
being touched affectionately by their students. In addition 78%
of the teachers felt that the subject of touching needed more

research.

95

Some interesting results were Obtained in regard to sex
differences of students and how teachers perceived their desire
for contact, twenty-seven percent of the teachers felt that girls
desired greater amounts of touching as opposed to only one teacher
(.5%) who thought boys desired more. The comparative examination
of the crosstabulation indicated that it is primarily the female
teachers who hold this perception (30% as Opposed to 6%).

Relationships were found to exist between touching behavior
and four variables: sex, marital status, age and teaching assign-
ment. In regard to sex differences it was discovered that although
male teachers indicated greater importance for touching behavior,
they engaged in touching their students less frequently than the
female teachers. The incidence of touching generally follows the
cultural norms of North America. The only type of contact where
male teachers exceeded the females in frequency of contacts was
when the physical touch was of a punitive nature.

In regard to marital status it was discovered that married
and divorced teachers are more inclined to have physical contact
with their students. Teachers who have never been married clearly
did the least amount of touching. The teachers who attributed the
most importance to touch behavior were the divorced teachers.

Relationships were found to exist in regard to the age of
the teachers. There appeared to be a directly proportionate progres-
sion between the age of the teacher and the amount of overt expression»

of affection. The Older the teachers the more likely they are to hug

96

and kiss their students. Interestingly in regard to punitive
physical contact, the youngest and the Oldest were most likely
to spank or slap their students.

Significant relationships were not discovered in regard to
amount of education, years of teaching experience or whether or
not the teacher possessed tenure status. In regard to tenure there
was some indication that physical punishment was less likely to
be used when the teacher did not have tenure. This is somewhat
speculative, however, and additional research is required before
any conclusion could be drawn.

The teaching assignment of the teachers clearly indicated
relationships with touching behaviors and attitudes. It was
noted that teachers in the early elementary grades (k-3) believed
and engaged in touching behavior more frequently than the teachers
of older students. The sixth grade teachers clearly engaged in
the least amount of physical contact with their students although
they indicated recognition of the importance of touch.

Presented in this chapter are the results of "A Survey of
Touching Behavior and Attitudes" (appendix A). The survey was
conducted in order to acquire information regarding the existence
and nature of touching between elementary shcool age students and
teachers. Chapter two included a review of the literature which
formulates the apparent importance of human physical contact. This
chapter included data indicating that elementary teachers do feel

that the behavior is important and established evidence as to the

nature of touching between students and teachers.

97

The following chapter includes the information and data
from this chapter as well as chapter two in establishing some
initial hypotheses as to the importance of touching behavior
and its significance and utility as a form of communication

between human beings in elementary schools.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY,_CONCLUSION§, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This chapter provides a summary of the work incorporated
in the previous chapters including a presentation of pertinent
findings regarding the effect of tactile behavior on interpersonal
communication between elementary school teachers and students.
General conclusions and hypotheses based upon perceived relation-
ships identified in the literature review and those data generated
by the survey of teacher attitudes and behaviOrs are also presented
in this chapter. Additionally included are some recommendations
for further research based upon the apparent relationships and

hypotheses generated by this study.

Summapy of The Design

The study was designed to generate some initial hypotheses
regarding the potential significance of touching behavior between
elementary school teachers and students. The intention was to pro-
vide a substantial review of existing research in a wide range of
related disciplines in order to establish the potential importance
of touch gestures for teacher-student communication. Having provided

substantial verification of the potential importance of the human

98

99

touch, a survey of teachers was undertaken to ascertain the
existence and nature of touching between teachers and their students.
The self designed instrument "A Survey of Touching Behavior
and Attitudes" (Appendix A) was utilized in surveying 222 class—
room teachers in a metropolitan, Michigan area. The data gathered
via the survey, in addition to the theoretical support provided
by the literature, establish some insight into the significance
of an inadequately investigated phenomenon.
Examined in this study were six major questions:

1. Can the messages conveyed through touching
contribute to the positive development of
elementary school children?

2. Can the messages conveyed through the
withholding of touch contribute to the
lack of positive development of elementary
school children?

3. Do elementary school teachers believe
that tactile communication is important?

4. To what extent does tactile communication
exist between elementary teachers and students?

5. What is the nature of tactile communication
in schools?

6. Is further research warranted?

These questions were intended to provide a general focus
for the study and by no means were they desired tO restrict
the generation of additional questions during the course of

the study. It is reiterated that the purpose of the study

100

was to raise questions and generate initial hypotheses which

would hopefully possess heuristic value.

The study was based upon a number of assumptions which

were considered to be important:

1.

4.

There exists insufficient knowledge of
the significance of tactile communications
between elementary teachers and students.
It was important to provide a theoretical
foundation preparatory to generating
initial hypotheses regarding the touching
phenomenon.

The expression of positive feelings via
touching is an important behavior for
elementary school teachers to possess.
Many elementary school teachers are
Uncomfortable with tactile communications.
Tactile communication may be a factor in
the affective development of children.
Tactile communication may be a factor in
the cognitive development of children.
Tactile communication may be a factor in
the psychomotor development of children.
Information regarding the significance of

touching is desired by classroom teachers.

101

The following limitations were considered to have signifi-

cant bearing upon the study:

1.

When seeking the Opinions of classroom

teachers only limited effort was extended

to isolate touch from other variables that

might affect their opinions. In addition

the instrument itself may have precipatated

a perceived "appropriate" response.

The survey instrument utilized was self-
designed and field tested with a rather small
group of twelve selected teachers. The survey
instrument also could reflect some bias on the
part of the researcher.

Conclusions drawn from the supportive literature
are necessarily limited due to the limited amount
and unscientific nature of some of the research.
A lack of participation from teachers in urban
schools provides insufficient data to generalize
regarding geographical, socioeconomic, and cross

cultural differences.

102

The data gathered through the survey were analyzed
utilizing frequencies, distributions and the calculation
of percentages. In some instances means, medians, and
ranges were provided. Cross tabulations were utilized in
some cases in order to investigate anticipated relationships.
Summapy of the Survey Data

The sample of elementary teachers participating included
136 females and 30 males ranging in ages from 23 to 64 with a
mean age of 36 years and a median age of 32.5 years. One
hundred sixty seven of the teachers were married, thirty six
were single, sixteen divorced and three widowed. Of the
participants, the bachelors was the highest degree attained
by 154 of them while 65 had earned a masters degree and one
teacher held the specialist degree. The range of teaching
experience was from 1 to 38 years with a mean of 10 years and
a median of 8 years. Ninety percent of the participants had
attained tenure status. The teachers taught in grades kinder-
garten through sixth.

The sample of 222, included teachers from rural and suburban
schools in a Michigan metropolitan area; selected from four
different school systems. In addition a supplemental sample of
sixteen teachers from the urban schools in the area and a group
of administrators, counselors, and special assignment teachers
is provided (Appendix C)-

The major findings of the survey included:

5.

6.

103

Mare than 75% of the teachers felt
that touching was usually to always
important for improving a student's
self-concept.

Overt expression of affection between
teachers and students, such as hugging
and kissing was limited and therefore
the most common contact involved only
the teacher's hands.

Seldom do either teachers (5.5%) or
students (4.1%) request not to be
touched.

Mbre than 87% of the teachers had never
received a complaint and complaints
received usually were in regard to
punitive touch.

Teachers were receptive to touch,
ninety—seven percent indicated they'
responded favorably to being touched

affectionately by their students.

Of the teachers in the sample of 222,
78% felt that the phenomenon of touch
between teachers and students merited
greater research.

In regard to sex differences and touch,
27% of the teachers felt that girls

desired more touching as Opposed to

8.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

104

one teacher (.5%) who thought boys

desired more. (primarily female

teachers held this view)-

A higher percentage of male teachers
attributed greater importance to touch
than did females, however females en-
gaged in touching behavior more frequently
than,males.

Males were more likely to use touch
punitively than were females.

Teachers who have never been married

are least likely to touch their students.
Older teachers are more likely to express
affection through touching than are younger
teachers.

The youngest and the oldest teachers are
most likely to spank or slap their students.
There was no relationship between touching
and the amount of education of the teacher.
Teachers of kindergarten through third
grade believed and engaged in touching
more frequently than teachers of older

students, although they (uppergrade teachers)

indicated recognition of the importance of

touching.

105

Conclusions

In the course of examining the theoretical writing and

previous research of others from the fields of psychology,

anthropology, communications, medicine and education, and

surveying professional educators in regard to their attitudes

and behaviors it became apparent that the phenomenon of touching

behavior is a potentially significant one. The data compiled

in this study in regard to the six main questions of the study

suggest a number of conclusions:

Question 1 Can the messages conveyed through touching contribute

 

to the positive development of elementary school

 

children?

1.

‘73 3 s

It is likely that the messages conveyed
through touching do contribute to the
positive development of elementary

school children. (derived from the literature)
Evidence exists as a result of research on
human infants to establish the importance of
touching behavior upon the growth and healthy
development of human beings in the first two
years of life. (derived from the literature)
No evidence exists to indicate that the need
for human contact between humans does not
continue throughout life. (derived from the

literature)

106

Question 2 Can the messages conveyed through the withholding

 

of touch contribute to the lack of positive deveIOp-

 

ment of elementary school children?

 

1. It is uncertain whether the withholding of
touch by teachers contributes to the lack
of positive development of elementary
school children. It does appear that this
phenomenon does exist during the first two
years of life. (derived from the literature)
2. There is insufficient data available regarding
the effects of touch gesture utilization or
deprivation. (derived from the literature)
3. The encoding and decoding of tactile
communication is difficult and uncertain.

(derived from the literature)

Question 3 Do elementary school teachers believe that tactile

communication is important?

 

:X1. Elementary classroom teachers generally believe
in the importance of touching their students.

(derived from the survey)

7’

Question 4 To what extent does tactile communication exist between
elementary teachers and students?
1. A wide range of touching behavior exists between
teachers and students in elementary schools.

What messages are conveyed by specific touch

107

gestures and the encoding accuracy has
not been determined. (derived from the

survey)

Question 5 What is the nature of tactile communication in

 

schools?

1.

3.

Female elementary teachers more frequently

express affection toward their students by

touching them than do male elementary teachers.
(derived from the survey)

Male teachers are more likely to punish their
elementary students physically than are female
teachers. (derived from the survey)

There is a direct relationship between children
getting older and lesser amounts of tactile
communication with teachers. (derived from the survey)
In general, touch behavior is seldom overtly
expressive of affection through gestures such

as hugging and kissing. In some rare cases
teachers of early elementary children do frequently
hug and kiss them. In most cases, touch is
restricted to contact of the teacher's hands

with the childrens bodies. ( derived from the

survey).

Question 6 Is further research warranted?

 

\311. There is little doubt that research into

108

the effects of the giving and withholding

of physical touch between elementary teachers
and students is warranted. The behavior is
of potentially high significance and there
has to this date, clearly, been no research
that can negate its importance. In addition
the survey revealed that a substantial number
of teachers (78%) believed that more research

was needed.

The question of additional research suggests a number of
additional studies that might shed significant light upon the
issue of tactile communications between teachers and students.
Some studies which would be helpful are included in the next

section.

Recommendations

On the basis of the supportive foundation provided by
previous research on the early develOpment of human infants
and the lack of evidence to diaprove the significance of
tactile behavior on the continued develOpment of elementary
age children; the potential significance of tactual gestures
between elementary teachers and students is considered to be
strongly supported. In light of the potential importance of
touching and the existence of a considerable degree and range

of touching in elementary schools as evidenced by this study,

109

the following recommendations for additional research are made:

1.

6.

A study should be conducted in order

to establish either the existence or
non-existence of universal touch gestures.
Research should be undertaken to establish
the degree of accuracy in the encoding and
decoding of tactile messages.

Research of a more empirical nature should
be attempted in an effort to establish
scientifically the effect of tactile commun-
ication on cognitive, affective, and psycho-
motor development of elementary age children.
Research which reports the reactions of
students to touch gestures from teachers
would provide important insights.
Observations should be made and recorded of
touching behavior in the school setting.
Additional educational research should be
conducted to explore relationships between
different racial and cultural groups and
behaviors in schools.

Studies should be undertaken to identify the
factors that enable some teachers to be "com-
fortable" with touch gestures and apply them

readily to their students.

110

Studies should be conducted to establish
the significance of close physical contact
between parents and their children and the

effect on pre-school learning.

On the basis of this study and related research and infor-

mation the following recommendations are made to Colleges of

Education:

Pre—service teacher education programs should
recognize the potential significance of tactile
communication as well as the significance of
nonverbal communication in general in preparing
prospective teachers.

Courses should be developed which include the
study of touch behavior along with other non-
verbals as an integral factor in establishing
affective interpersonal relationships between
teachers and students.

Practicing teachers should be provided with
information and instruction to develop aware-
ness into the potential importance of the use,
misuse or lack of use of tactile communications.
Encouragement and support should be extended
for increased research into the touch phenomenon
and in addition the entire area of nonverbal

communication as it pertains to education.

111

Generated Hypotheses

The previous recommendations suggest a number of studies
which might expand the amount of knowledge and information in
existence regarding tactile communication and the touching
phenomenon. One additional recommendation is offered.

This inquiry into the significance of tactile communication
offers strong support for the importance of touching between
elementary teachers and students but tests no hypotheses. Sub-
sequent researchers may choose to test a specific hypothesis.
The following hypotheses generated by this study are offered as

suggestions:

1. The communication of caring attitudes
via teachers' tactile contact with their
students will enhance student self concepts
and positive attitudes toward school.

2. Knowledge of the importance of the human
touch and utilization of tactile communi-
cation will enhance teacher effectiveness.

3. Pre-service and Inrservice teacher education
regarding the effective utilization of tactile

communication will increase teacher effectiveness.

112

Reflections

 

This study was undertaken as an inquiry into the phenom-
enon of touching between teachers and students. Because touching
behavior has rarely been researched in the educational setting
little knowledge existed regarding the potential importance of the
behavior. This effort will hOpefully serve as a beginning for
additional investigation into an apparently significant behavioral
activity.

The literature provides considerable support to establish the
necessity of physical contact for the healthy development of human
infants. There is evidence to suggest that positive touch remains
very important for the first two years of life. Although research
on human touching behavior is sparse on later growth and develop-
ment there is no evidence to indicate that touching does not remain
a factor in the continuous growth of human beings.

It is apparent that an enculturation process limits the degree
of interpersonal physical contact as infants become children and
children become adults. This cultural phenomenon is reflected
in the schools. The Survey of Teacher Behavior and Attitudes
established the relationship between frequency of tactual gestures
and grade level of the student. Does the need for touch contact
actually diminish with age or is it suppressed by cultural normative

pressure?

113

A wide range of variables apparently affect an individual's
touching behavior. A number of relationships were identified in
the Survey of Touching Behavior and Attitudes.

Female teachers are more likely to touch although males
attribute higher importance to touching. Married teachers are
more likely to touch although divorced teachers attribute higher
importance to touching. It seems that those people who are
denied physical contact are more likely to feel the loss and
therefore more likely to recognize its importance.

Apparently the degree of touching behavior in schools reflects
the norms of society. The question comes to mind regarding
whether the role of schooling is to reflect society or develop and
generate change within it? If it is to develOp society,is the
legitimstization of affectional expression which has historically
been restricted.important enough for educators to consider?

The existence of society's sexual taboos are reflected by
the diminishing frequency of touch contacts as students approach
puberty. This study was intentionally limited to elementary teachers
in order to avoid the suspected additional restrictions of teachers'
touching students who are arriving or have arrived at physical woman-
hood-or.manhood. Although the complexities of touch gestures between
teachers and students are greater in the secondary schools it is
suspected that they may also be of significant importance in estab-

lishing the kind of interpersonal relationships conducive to learning.

114

A substantial amount of data has been generated by this

study. Analysis and interpretation of these data cannot be

considered conclusive to the subject§however a number of inter-

esting relationships have been identified. Responses to some

previously unanswered questions have been provided. A great

many additional questions are raised by the study. Among these

questions are the following:

1.

2.

5.

What factors precipitate touch gestures?
Should touch gestures be spontaneous

or should people be instructed in their
"usage".

If touch is a basic need which has been
repressed is it within the scape of the
schools to rectify the matter?

What do parents think about physical
contact between teachers and their
children?

How important is tactile communication
in secondary schools?

Is it possible through training to
change a person's behavior in regard

to tactile communication.

Answers to questions like these are not readily avail-

able although many people have strong feelings and opinions

regarding touching behavior. It is a behavior that is ever

present in some form and in spite of strong feelings little

115

is really known about its impact upon learning. It is
suggested that it is an area that researchers cannot
afford continuing to avoid.

Teachers in the field need re-education in the area of
human interpersonal communication and teacher education programs
need to supply prospective teachers with interpersonal skills
before they get into the field.

It is a strange ordering of priorities that teachers have
as many as ten to fifteen courses in what they will teach but
only one or two in how to teach. Schools spend millions of
dollars on buildings, books, materials, supplies, all "things"
and so very little on the type of training and inservice exper-
ience that would aid people in their human relationships and en-
hance the learning process.

Observations and discussions in schools regularly reveal
students who feel that certain teachers do not like them and
treat them discriminately. In some cases the teachers verify the
story, they don't like the student but they had tried not to show
it. How does the student know? In other cases teachers are
shocked for they indicate that they do indeed like that student
and made every effort never to discriminate against any student.
Where does the negative message come from? The answer must be,
through some form of nonverbal behavior. Perhaps proxemics play
a part in communicating like or dislike as Mehrabian has indicated.
As an integral part of proxemics, tactile behavior, it would seem,

also plays a part.

116

The entire area of tactile communication, along with the
rest of nonverbal communication, needs to be widely researched.
It is apparent that the schools may be an important place to
focus the research. There is no doubt that the need is there.
There is little doubt that teachers are interested in better
ways to teach. They are interested in the effect and use of
tactual gestures. Parents regularly communicate their desire
for better schools. State boards of education are calling for
accountability. It is submitted that the potential answers for
all of this are not with the "what" of education but with the
"how" of education. Learning is a process and communication is
an integral, in fact the most important, part of that process.
Nonverbal communication is a crucial portion of the total spectrum.
In schools, with.many children, tactile communication may be the
most important of all the nonverbals.

The research is obviously inadequate, particularly as the
entire communications field relates to education. But the issues
have been raised and it seems that they are sufficient to warrant
increasing amounts of study by communications scholars and educators
alike. There are many unanswered questions and many students and
teachers who await the answers.

Teachers need supportive information and reassurance to over-
come the cultural norms that restrict normal and healthy human
contact. They need to know the results from a pat on the back,

an arm around the shoulder or a hug. They need to know the results

117

when human contact, tactile contact, is desired and yet withheld.
There is much to do.

There is little doubt that tactile communication can make
a difference. Teachers have seen the difference a hug makes.
They have felt the difference an arm around the shoulder makes.
They have wiped away tears and held a trembling hand, touching
does make a tremendous difference. It is an extremely effective,
expressive and reassuring form of communication. It is impera-
tive that we learn more about it and apply that knowledge to all
of our human relationships, including the student-teacher rela-

tionship. It may make all the difference in the world.

APPENDIX A

118

APPENDIX A

A SURVEY OF TOUCHING BEHAVIOR
AND ATTITUDES

This questionnaire is intended to gather data regarding the significance of
touching between elementary school teachers and their students. Little
research has been conducted to this date as to the relationships of physical
contact to the develOpment of students. It is expected that these data will
provide some insight into the extent and nature of physical touching in the
classroom and attitudes toward the behavior.

The study is intended to be conducted anonymously--please do not sign your
name.

Please respond to the following questions by either checking or writing
your answer in the space provided.

1. Sex: male female
2. Marital status: married single divorced widowed
3. Age

4. Education (highest degree earned and credits beyond, i.e. BA +12)

 

5. Years of teaching experience_____

6. Do you have tenure?

7. Grade assignment

8. Number of teachers in your school

9. Approximate number of students in your school

10. Number of students in your class

Use the following scale when responding to the statements below:
1---never
2---seldom
3----occasiona11y
4---usually
5---always

11. If expressing positive feelings for students, how Often do you think
teachers should make use of physical touch?

12. If expressing negative feelings for students, how often do you think
teachers should make use of physical touch?

13.

14.

119

Do you think physical touch is important for improving a student's self-
concept?

How important do you think physical touch is for creating positive
student attitudes toward school?

Use the following scale when responding to the statements below:

15.

16.

17.

18.
19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.
25.
26.

27.

28.

29.

le---never

2 ----- seldom
3----occasionally
4—---usually
5----always

If punishing students, how often do you think teachers should use
physical touch?

How often, would you think, do your students like to be touched by
you?

How often do you like your students to touch you to demonstrate positive
feelings?

How Often do you encourage students to touch you?
.When speaking to my students in private, I put my hand(s) on them.

During the last school year, how often, on a typical day, did you hug
your students?

During the last school year, how often, on a typical day, did you kiss
any of your students?

During the past year, how often, on a typical day, did you put your
arm around a student affectionately?

On a typical day, during the last school year, how frequently did a
student sit on your lap?

When students talk to you, do they put their hand(s) on you?
During the last school year, did students kiss you?
During the last school year, did students hug you?

How often, during the last year, did students ask you not to touch
them?

How frequently do you ask students not to touch you?

How often during a typical week last year did you spank at least one
student?

30.

31.
32.

33.

34.

120
With what did you spank the student(s)? (please check) Hand
Object .___
How often during a week last year did you slap at least one student?
How often has anyone complained about you touching students?
Who, if anyone, has complained? (please check)
a. Student touched c. teacher e. superintendent
b. other student d. principal f. parent

3. other (specify)

Please elaborate upon the nature of the complaint(s):

Please respond to the following questions by checking the desired answer space.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

Use

40.

41.

42.

Do you think that students respond favorably if you physically express
affection or caring for them? yes no

 

Do you ever respond favorably if students physically express affection
toward you? yes no

 

Do you think there is a need for more research on the effects of physical
touching in schools? yes no

 

Which, do you think, desires the more frequent physical contact?
girls boys both the same

Are you most likely to touch students of your same sex opposite
sex both sexes equally ?

the following scale when responding to the statement below:

1--—-never

2 ----- seldom
3-----occasionally
4----usually
5----always

How often during the last year did you want to touch a student in a
positive manner and yet did not?

What factors, if any, influenced your decision?

Please use the remaining space and the back of this sheet to make your
own statement in regard to the importance or unimportance of touching
between elementary teachers and students.

APPENDIX B

121

APPENDIX B

Responses to Survey Questions
Requiring Subjective Reaponses*

Question #34 Please elabo a o .
Rural Group

Mather complained that student was hit on ear when she ducked to
get away from being hit on shoulder.

Student had misbehaved and was being reprimanded. I had ahold
of his arm/shoulder and he objected.

Jealous

Before recess students were told to stay on sidewalk because of
mud and were told they would be spanked if they tracked in mud.
Because everyone had to live with their mud. Two deliberately
went into the mud and were spanked. The day of the Christmas
Party a mother came in to pick up her son who couldn't stay for
the party. Said that they (Mr. 8 Mrs.) almost came up to see me
and were mad about it. I told her what had happened, invited
her to ask the class about directions that day (they were stressed)
and told her I would be happy to meet with both her husband, and
herself to discuss this at any time. At this point, she backed
Off and changed the subject.

Did not want me to touch him or her.

Suburban Group

Birthdays are not spanking affairs.
"Don't touch me!"

Did not want their child touched-—I was to tell them if anything
occured. I was to contact them and they would spank at home!

One boy will not hold my hand when in line--he says it's baby stuff.

Mbther said I had hit him in the face which was untrue. I had held
his face as I was scolding him.

Parent upon hearing child's story was upset. After conferring with
parent usually gave permission if needed. Mbst parents whose child
was punished usually referred their next child to me.

Parents only are allowed to spank. But after I had just cause,
no problem.

 

*Responses are presented as written by the teachers.

122

Already did some 33g. Used lot of terms without understanding.
(Wrote letter) -- Middle child-~hurt ego, etc.

Parent wanted to handle his own child's discipline-~just let him
knowb-but he had previously stated "He's your problem when he's
at school, make him mind."

Some say, "Don't touch me."

Urban gggng

"Don't touch me, I will do it" or they will pull away instead of
complaining verbally.

Pushed on child's head to put it down-child's behavior-had called
her several times-she came to school very angry and used every-

thing she could think of to express her anger. "I don't think
this touching belongs in school. Home it's okay!"

Special educ. Teachers

I have never had a complaint about this.

Multi-grade teachers
Birthdays are not spanking affairs.

Principals

Parents felt the child was above reproach and should never be
physically corrected.

Parents (few) have said that they prefer I do not spank.

Parent did not agree with spanking.

Parent wanted to handle his own child's discipline - just let
him know - but he had previously stated "he's your problem when
he's at school, make him mind."

Counselors

"Don't touch Me" -- shrug away

123

Question #41 What factors, if any, influenced your decision?
Rural Group

Attitude of student at that moment.

Individual daily circumstances

Probably was too busy handling another situation.

Fear of student reaction--time wasn't right.

Type of classroom I had.

I always am emotional; therefore, I demonstrate physically.
Child's reaction

I feel that I was touching too much and that I shouldn't.
Interruption by others.

Some children do not wish to be touched at all/resent such expres-
sions.

Fourth graders have trouble accepting touching. I used to teach
first and used it much much more--so I have to think sometimes.
I don't want to embarass the child. It takes a while for the
class to get used to my touching.

Whether or not I walked over to him privately or from afar.

Told not to touch students.

Tends to turn 6th graders off.

Past reactions of students (pulling away)

Possibly a carry over of past beliefs or mind sets about "touching
persons" as having a sexual connotation to the act.

I usually refrain from hugging girls. But I do usually put my arm
around their shoulders.

It may have been the situation we were in.

His or her reactions.

Time did not permit it, or the students was across the room.
Anticipated reception by the student.

I didn't want to show partiality.

Child's attitude-pulled away seemed unsure how to accept my touch
or bug.

124

Question #41 Rural

Presence of other children-possible negative reaction on part
of child-—presence of teachers.

Large group-~not close enough.

If they didn't want it!

If the child was very upset and I felt touching would affect him
adversely. This happened on only one occasion--usually a child

that is upset responds favorably to touching.

Time--number of students. They seem to have to rub my legs when
reading a story.

Don't remember.

None

Age level

The nature of the child.

The student's own manner or drawing away

Did it as frequently as I felt would indicate my concern and
interest.

The typical guardedness that seems to overwhelm Americans.

Question i.e. Was it necessary? Would the situation be improved?
Would it enrage or settle?

Other people in room proximity.

I was afraid I'd lose control, behavior wise.

125

Question #41

Suburban ngnn

When I felt like it, I did. This age, student enjoy and appreciate
it. So do I!

He stood away from me very defensively.
HOw the student might perceive the response.
Some students might feel teacher playing favorites.

The emotional factors of the student at that time and response to
touching in the past and the personality of the particular student.

Child's reaction.

Didn't know if the sobbing student could accept my emotional
sincerity under such a traumatic situation.

I did not want to embarrass them.

Child's own feeling or needs for it. Social taboo concerning
males.

If I thought the child would not have a positive reaction to
touching.

Situation
I did it.

Some children are embarrassed, some children don't like to be
touched.

Parent's reactions

I don't appreciate them hanging on me so I don't hang on them either.
It is just my way when I encourage or praise-—whatever--it is natural
for me to touch their shoulder-arm around them. I usually don't

think about it.

Probably fear of being taken the wrong way inhibits teachers (as
well as other adults in society) from touching another human being.

Physical distance.
Wanted to keep the "student-teacher" relationship in force.

I would do so if I felt drawn. The situation would decide it for you.

.5 I 0". I1 I‘
.. l I 1111
. l "

126

Question #41 Suburban

Lack of time-distance (physical) between myself and the child.
Usually it's just taking the Elmo.

It is natural for me to touch the people I am relating to.

My English heritage.

Whenever they've done something well or when they try and don't
quite succeed, I put an arm around them, pat their shoulder or

put my hand on their head. If I feel like it, I touch.

WOuld have had to walk over to them in front of the others. Thought
it might cause embarrassment.

Might embarrass the student.

I do not feel inhibited when touching children positively. I only
refrain if the child feels uncomfortable.

Third grade boys are easily embarrassed. Girls like an occasional
hug but boys are apt to be teased.

My previous knowledge about the child's background.
I started to and the child stepped back although did not say anything.
Some kids have grown a fear of touch due to bad experiences before.

Sometimes children are stand—offish until they know it's "safe" or
"0.x." to be affectionate.

Physical distance from the child during a group situation.

Too many children present and then they all want a turn and that
takes too much time.

Often I notice certain boys would withdraw if I touch their head or
put my hand on their shoulder.

Mbod of the student. Mbod of the teacher.

The child's feelings about being touched. If he or she was extremely
uncomfortable.

?thought of it too late.

Not being familiar with any of them long enough. I didn't know how
they'd respond.

Was not sure how the student would respond.

Student didn't want me to.

127
Question #41 Suburban

Lice

The child would be embarrassed in front of his peers. Some boys
pull away when being reached out to, indicating they wish to avoid
contact.

If I felt the child did not want to be touched, I didn't.

Their feelings toward being touched. Some children get embarrassed
by it in the presence of other students.

If I wanted to touch I did.

The child would withdraw from physical touch.

Fear of embarrassing student.

Age; maturation of a girl; situation which may or may not have
embarrassed a student i.e. classroom; think I may be overdoing

a "good thing;" Not being in good tasueas to what other teachers
may think especially not knowing the background for hugging or
touching.

A touch-if they need affection. No touch--if they had to learn
to mature.

If I wanted to, I did.

The only factor in not touching student in positive manner would
be distance in room from student at time.

If I feel that touching is in their best interest, I do it.
-Partially, not wanting to show favoritism.

-Also, holding back from getting my self or the student too
emotionally involved.

I didn't want to cause a riot in my class.

Comfort of open affection for the student.

128
Question #41

Urban Group_

The child's unwillingness to be touched!

Distance from the student.

Proximity, opportunity, time, peer-response—evaluation

Contagious diseases (impetigo, lice)

The child did not seem to like affection or someone touching them.
There were none. I use a great deal of disgression when I use
this method of communication.

Remedial Instruction Teachers

Some students seem to pull away or act uncomfortable if touched—
that makes me feel uncomfortable touching them, so even if I

want to touch, I may not.

Student's age---Location in room-during lectures it is very hard
to touch for positive reinforcement.

Reading Teachers

Probably fear of being taken the wrong way inhibits teachers
(as well as other adults in society) from touching another
human being.

Because on previous occasions, child was very embarassed when
I touched so I waited until he knew me better.

Special Education Teaohers

If I felt the student did not like being touched.

The child's reaction-~if it was negative I didn't push it.

Sometimes it was the child-—their age and how they felt about
being touched (or how I didn't know how they felt!)

Reactions of other students, in other words, embarassment on the
part of the recipient.

Situation/other people present.

A bad behavior that is going on with a good behavior—leaning back
in chair, tapping pencil.

129

Multijgpade Teachers

I didn't want to cause a riot in my class.

Principals
The time and place were not "right."

If I choose to touch a child I do. It has to be a sincere rather
than a weak effort to show affection.

Never happened.

I must be sure that my physical contacts with children are appro-
priate and used in good taste. Physical contacts can easily be
misinterpreted by parents.

Counselors

My own inhibitness

The level of anxiety expressed and shown by the child as well as
his/her openness and/or willingness to receive and give touching.

Child's attitude very unapproachable, hostile —- previous experience
with the child when they did not want to be touched.

Didn't think student wanted to be touched.

130

Question #42 Please use the remaining Space and the back of
this sheet to make your own statement in regard to the import-
EfiEE'Bf:unimportance of'tOGEhing between Elementary teachers
and students.

 

Rural Group

I think it is very important and some children need more than
others. Usually it is the same children who rush up to sit
next to me at the reading table or to hold my hand when we are
going out. I'm always glad when a shy quiet child takes the
initiative and concerned when a child does not want to.

Child that is upset responds favorably to touching. Touching
is especially effective when dealing with an emotionally
disturbed child. A quiet voice and touching usually quiets
the child down.

Depends on circumstances-~it can be a real security for some
students.

I think touching is very important for teacher and students at
all levels of achievement and behavior. Sometimes with so many
children and so many different needs some tend to be overlooked.
Just a simple pat on the head lets them know they haven't been
forgotten.

I feel most humans respond to physical contact in a positive way.
Touching imparts a feeling of caring. Children who draw away
from contact usually respond in a short time and even seek a
touch as if it strengthens their security.

Important if it is a natural response. Too much can sometimes
break down the teacher/student relationship. (Some begin to
think of you only as a friend--the "teacher" must be there).

I feel many children who come from broken homes need love and
affection (not overdone). Children do much better work if they
are praised and loved.

For the last few years, about the third week of school I inform
them they can get my attention by asking for it rather then by
being bad. All they have to do is say, "I need a hug", "give me
a tap", "Give me five," whatever. It's amazing how many are col-
lecting just before they go home this year along with other times.

The importance of touching lies in its value as an alternative or
additional method of communication.

Very important.

Younger children (4 yrs - 8 yrs) desire touching. Older children
Spend time on baseball and football and "telling".

131
Question #42

Rural Group

"I feel that touching is a natural, spontaneous response for me
in expressing positive feelings towards students. I feel that
it helps convey a warm, friendly, caring relationship to my
students. Many children don't get the physical attention they
need at home so they especially need it at school."

"Sometimes it is required to touch a student to hold him from
walking away when you are talking to him-or it is necessary to
hold his attention for a scolding. I don't think it makes a
great deal of difference, circumstances alter the situation."

"Students need to feel that peOple care for them and all too
often they do not get this feeling at home. Elementary teachers
are often a parent-substitute and touching to show praise or
displeasure does not seem unreasonable."

"I feel that it's important for a student to gain good feelings
and concepts of himself. Usually a child will resist touching
only when he has a poor attitude or self-concept. I think it
is easier to express feelings to younger children because they
have not yet gained incorrect feelings about physical Contact
from their environment."

"I feel that it's important, but like many areas it hasn't been
explored or talked about. It's an area you have to be made
aware of."

"I really think it is important for-students to feel a teacher's
caring for them. The students respond more favorably to me and
the classroom when I have shown physical attention."

"An importance, I feel, has to do with boys at this particular
age (4th grade) level that would rather not be touched. The
'wanting to touch' varies from year to year with the groups. It
has seemed that the more immature group needs and demands more
touching."

"6th graders see themselves as being grown up and not wanting the
physical reinforcement younger children have."

"Touching between elementary teachers and students is desireable in
building relationships of trust and in eliminating fear and threat
from relationships. It seems to me that the habit of touching must
come from within, without thinking rather than be a premeditated
act for some objective."

This year I have changed and feel that touch can mean the difference
between teacher and student and students and teachers-during punish—
ment it can reassure the student that you are supportive yet punish
the undesired behavior.

132

Question #42

Rural Group

In physical education I feel there is a large need for touching
between teachers and students--both positive and negative.

Some students crave it due to lack at home--divorce, etc.

I love you a bushe and a peck and a hug around the neck and a kiss
for you and me. Everyone tends to learn this as time goes on.

Good behavior often will develop if you give a child an extra hug
or let him sit next to you or on your lap. That way he knows you
care for him and he is special to you. He is important.

First grade students apparently feel a need for a closeness that
comes with a feeling that you care.

I think it is important and especially fulfilling for young children.
Older ones I suppose don't like it as much any longer but if had they
are getting better self concepts., etc.

Extremely important-—has tremendous impact on behavior and child's
self concept if he knows you care. It's sometime easier for a child
to understand a touch than a word.

Touching is extremely important especially at the primary level.

I was never a "touchy" person before I spent a lot of time with a
touch person. I personally enjoy touching and being touched. Before
I was too inhibited to do so. This may be true of most people.

Small children really respond to physical contact. They feel secure
if they can hug and be hugged in return.. Physical touch is also a
good form of reward. A pat on the head or a squeeze on the shoulder
means a lot.

I feel that it is extremely important to touch either to reinforce
positive or negative attitudes.

Students will feel good about themselves knowing that someone cares.
Some students feel teachers dislike them and a touch or a positive
name such as honey etc. really helps.

"Touching" is a very important means of nonverbal communication
especially noticeable for those students whose parents work...Good
way to stop unwanted verbal discussion during large group discussions.

A hug, a pat on the back, shaking a hand, all are personal contacts
where one individual reaches out to another. Contact--"touching".
is a warm way of reaching other people to share or discuss whatever
is of importance to you.

When the children are very young, they seem to enjoy the physical
contact between teacher and child. However, by 4th or 5th grade,
they seem to value their independence or are afraid of peer pressure
so don't like it much.

133

Question #42

Rural Group

I think the touching between elementary teachers and students is
very important and can definitely affect their attitudes and
feelings for thier teacher and toward the school itself.

This depends on the child--depends how much affection they get
at home and they need or want more.

I feel that children should be touched often. It is a way of
letting them know your positive feelings for them.

I just began to touch students in an affectionate manner--often
never having done it much. I feel it expresses my concern and
interest and affection admirably.

I feel that it is important to touch a child only if you feel
positively toward that child. Touching without affection would
be useless. I find students who are too physical overwhelming.
I feel stiffled by them.

I feel it is extremely important to have physical contact--in
our society (presently) children are ignored and more or less
tolerated rather than loved. Sometimes the teacher might be the
only contact the student ever has-«parents are often too busy.

Many little children need love which seems to be lacking in the
home. A teacher can often supply in some way so that the child
has more self worth and is happier.

I feel that the children in lower grades especially desire physical
touching and affection. It usually gives them a feeling of security
and quiet. They are more apt to believe you care and want them.
There have been children who pulled away from me. If the situation
was relaxed, I would let go. If I was attempting to control a

child in a problem situation I would not let go.

Many students look to their teachers for the need to be loved. Due
to the lack of love shown towards them at home.

Students who are neglected at home need attention. They work better,
behave better and do more work when they think someone cares.

Mast students will not want to be touched unless there is some
insecurity. Depends on parents action toward student.

I think touching is important; too many of our students today don't
get this sort of contact at home.

I feel touching helps the child know you care about them, Specifi-
cally, as an individual.

134

Question #42

Suburban Group

I think it would lose its effectiveness if used more than occa-
sionally.

I happen to believe in "touching". I feel that if I say to a
student "You're doing this well" or "Don't hurry", the stroke
on the head or shoulder is more reassurring than the words.
Yes, I touch even those who withdraw.

There is a lot of touching going on in my classroom. I feel it
reassures all of us. We discuss feeling openly.

I think it is extremely important. My kids know I love and care
about them and touching is a super way to show it.

If there were more touching, feelings of love and caring in our
schools we would have less problems. The most criminal thing

I can think of is for a child not to know his teacher cares for
him. This is essential to good learning experiences.

Eye contact is a must with touching.

This is a subject that interests me greatly. I believe strongly
in touching. It is necessary for strong communication. Teachers
should be schooled on its positive affect on children.

Some students need to feel the closeness. If not overdone,
provides closer relationship between teacher-students. In
discipline situations, touChing need to gain attention of student
or to let student know you're serious about what's said.

I do not think you have to touch students to show approval or
disapproval of their actions.

I think you have to consider the group when you take a position

or attitude. Some very mature groups at upper elementary level
can respond to physical touch in a negative manner. Their parents
report the same. This year the group is a little immature and seem
to react relatively positively to touch. I feel that this subject
is a highly individual preference on the part of the student.
Parents have often commented that some of their children are
buggers and kissers, others aren't. I don't believe a teacher
should force physical touch, (affection) touch on a child who is
not-Comfortable with it. I have also used touch to get attention
by placing my hand on the shoulder. This seems to work well in
communicating "I am speaking just to you." I have used this both
7 in scolding and giving directions or saying something of gravity
and great significance to the child.

I often feel a little spanking would be helpful for some discipline
for some children. It seems to be very seldom used by parents in

135

Question #42

Suburban Group

 

our school and never by the teachers or administration.
The questions were too vague.

I really feel that touching has been overemphasized to the point
of insincerity. Children can tell how you feel about them with-
out having to continually reinforce this. As children become
older, unless they have a real emotional need, I feel they prefer,
"hands off" policy.

--never in anger--never harshly especially punishment-~only for
positive reasons or for a more personal attention device.

It's an intuitive thing. Some children are trying deSperately
to grow up and don't want the physical touch. It's fairly easy
indifferent, which ones object.

Each year I feel I achieve a deeper emotion involvement with my
student. I feel a limited expression of touch can be most help-
ful. However, the rapport I have developed beforehand with

that child will govern the extent of my touching that individual
in emotional situation.

It's up to the individual!

I feel a great bond can be nurtured through respectful touch--
when there is sincerity and genuine caring shown physically.

Teachers at these grade levels are often viewed as parent substi-
tutes more so than in secondary schools. Touching, like a pat on
the back, a hand on the shoulder or ruffling hair helps create a
"cordiality" and warmth, which I think is a necessary ingredient
in schools.

Touching is a natural expression for me and I use touch quite a
bit in a positive way. If I am personally upset with a child I
deliberately refrain from touching.

Touching is not for everyone. Some children reSpond, paricularly
to an arm around them for reassurance. As they mature, this is
less necessary. Younger children seek to hold my hand as we go
down the hall while older ones might recoil (looks "babyish").
The times I discourage touching are when I have to be mobile-
i.e., not hold my hand when I must cross playground to discipline
another child. I like to go alone. My touching is generally

the arm around type.

136

Question #42

Suburban Group

As I mentioned before, on some kids it works well and the accep-
tance is good. Some of my kids do not like to be touched. Maybe
they would if it was done more. Further, it has to be a comfort-
able situation.

I do touch my kids a lot. I am a (touchy) type of person, so it
comes natural for me. I teach K and therefore I feel that age
group tends to express feelings more Openly. I am sincere with
my feelings and they know and understand that. As far as

spanking a child and touching them in a negative way, I might
shake them but I have never spanked them. I feel touching is
very important. I also feel that a teacher must take in consider-
ation the age of the child.

Children, especially K thru 2nd grade, need a little more expression
of approval or love thru touch. Occasionally grades 3 thru 5 also
need a touch of approval such as hand on shoulder or shake hands

for a congratulations for a special fete done. All individuals

from 10 to 100 need some type of personal touch also when being
consoled or special problems arise.

Some students get no physical attention at home. They need this
kind of attention to feel that someone really cares about them.

Unfortunately, this puts the male teacher in difficult position

because of possible parent reaction.

I suspect touching is much more important to younger children than
it is to 5 graders. I tend not to do it for either positive or
negative support.

I think it is important-many times a physical gesture can mean
so much more than anything you can say that is positive. When
I am angry at/or with a child I try not to touch them.

Physical touching can be very reassuring to a child to let them
know you a£a_aware of them. It can also help settle a somewhat
hyperactive child down without disturbing the entire class.
Sometimes, though, the kids that "hang on you" need to be some-
what discouraged so they can be a little more independent.

I feel that some touching is important. Children of different
ages respond differently to a teacher's touch. I believe a man
has to be more careful of who and where he touches his students.
Some parents may feel that a male has no right to touch their
child, whereas a woman would be seen more as a mother figure
and would be able to touch a child. I guess this is a cultural
thing.

137

Question #42

Suburban Group

I feel there is more of a need for touching at K and early elemen-
tary level than later.

I believe children can learn best from a teacher who is "warm" to
them. They have to feel that they are worthwhile individuals.
Children reflect our attitudes. They truly reflect us. We teach
kindness by treating them with kindness. I'm not convinced that
"touching" is an essential demonstration of warmth. Anything which
doesn't come naturally can fall flat and phoney.

I think physical touch is important. It can be used for both
negative and positive vibes. Children need and desire physical
contact.

Gives child a sense of belonging. A child needs to feel wanted
and welcome and if permissiveness is used the child does not
understand what is really expected of him or how anyone feels
about him. There must be positive gestures.

Some children seem to need physical closeness more than others.
This seems to happen when a child is from a home where the parent
is not home often-more frequently.

It is highly important. If the child wants to hug or touch a
teacher, the teacher should always reapond favorably. The amount
of touching depends on each child's personality and teacher's
personality. If a teacher feels uncomfortable, then most likely
that teacher will not touch as often. The world is filled with
different peOple and children need to learn this and respond
accordingly.

#12, 15 are ambiguous to me because they imply "negative" touching,
however, touching often shows caring even though negativeness

needs to be expressed. Some with punishment-verbal punishment
could be used with physical touching that was "positive." Teachers
that are peOple who are inclined to touch, but if not one should
probably not go against ones natural feelings for children feel
it's not genuine.

I think children like to be touched occasionally-for positive affect.
Often this makes them feel they are wanted and "belong" to the group.
This varies with grade level. I don't think children should hang

on any teacher regardless of grade level. I don't think kissing

is necessary for a means of feelings. This intimate gesture should
be reserved for their parents, etc.

I feel children should know you care about them but it must be
sincere. As children grow older, I believe this comes in other
ways than physical contact. I also feel that not all people
(teachers) are "hugging type" and people need not be to express
affection. Hopefully, the physical contact expression of affection

138
Question #42

Suburban Group
should come from the parents and family.

I am a mother. I think this helps in knowing how to respond in
this area. I feel you can seldom go wrong in the expression of
a positive feeling. Children love to feel close to you and the
expression of this feeling makes you feel closer to them. I
believe it's a more natural expression from child to teacher.
Teachers have to practice to be perfect somewhat. Children are
naturally perfect intheir expression of a positive feeling.
Negative expressions sometimes need to be channeled-depending on
how they were expressed at home.

The feeling of someone caring is needed by everyone and touching
is one of the best ways to show you care. I feel the students
need it and enjoy it.

With physical touching, the students know immediately the
teachers feeling and attitude toward them; and will often
respond immediately with pleasure and assurance.

As stated before, I feel it is important and have always done
it in some form. I have had some children sit in my lap over
the years. However, I rarely negatively touch a child-—and
then only to grab or maybe pull away. I touch positively often
when disciplining or discussing a negative behavior.

If a child initiates the touching in positive way, I am always
willing to recipitate, but only occasionally feel it is absolute-
ly necessary, as I'm sure the class, feels my positive affection
for them without physical contact.

I think a lot of it depends on the teacher's personality and the
student's personalities. Some need more physical touch.

I think it's important to show affection by touching especially
in the lower grades. It is also important for comforting. Some-
times it should be done in front of the other kids if the child
is embarassed. It is sometimes important for discipline to hold
a child's arm but not hand.

Being a K teacher, I find I am also a mother substitute. I feel
very close, affectionate and loving toward them. I really become
quite attached to them. I always give a hug, "love tap" on the
behind or a tickle when they come up for "show and tell". I feel
touching in K is probably more prevalent than any other grade.

I love these kids and they know it. However, I also on occasion
touch for unaccepted behavior and I feel this makes for a much
better group.

I feel children need to be touched. They are sensitive and feel

139

Question #42
Suburban Group

close when touched, hugged and loved. The child who has been
physically punished by a slap, spanking by hand or a small
object has no resentment if he feels he has it coming and it
is fair and that the teacher still loves him.

I am not a very affectionate type of person and I would not feel
comfortable in doing a lot of touching of my students especially
older ones in 5th grade.

I think it is an important way of expressing affection.

I feel it is a necessary expression of friendship and love which
makes a student feel wanted and worthwhile.

I really believe it is vital for teachers and students to touch
each other to develop a good feeling of self. Children-especially
on a lower level-need to feel loved and that you care for them as
people. A simple loving touch helps a great deal.

I think it is very important to touch elementary children. I
think a "positive" touch (not for discipline) means "I like you."

I think it is important. Kindergarten children usually ask for
physical attention--they naturally touch the teacher and are
touched py the teacher-in work situations, play times-lining up
times-entering and leaving times.

Warm fuzzies won't hurt anyone. My experience with younger
children lends itself to lots of hugs. Children respond to this
show of love and caring.

At my grade level-a touch is most important-and all reinforcement
is positive-therefore, it plays an important part of the "aura"
in.my room.

Kg., firezand second grade children really seem to respond and
need a friendly touch.

Often when they're leaving I'll be saying have a good day and I
guess (illegible) touch several individuals as they leave the gym
class.

Kids need the affection shown thru touch. It helps the kid realize
that teachers do care about them. Touch is a positive response
which is totally for that person.

At age 7-8, kids are hesitant, already to be held on the lap for
a little child-teacher conference-I wonder what is the cause.

140

Question #42

Suburban Group-

 

It is an effective and perhaps necessary means of transmitting
positive feelings. Touching appears to be natural and Spontaneous
in young children. I feel that the need to be touched is also
present in adulthood. Perhaps if it were presented to the elemen-
tary child as acceptable behavior it would become acceptable later
in life.

In my own experience I find girls find it easier to hug me or hold
my hand, perhaps because I am a female too. Boys have a tendency

to take it but not respond back or to not like it and withdraw. I
think this is a cultural trait since boys are supposed to hold in

their emotions or sometimes I think when I reach out to touch

them they flinch because someone's touching, in the past, has hurt
them. Even at 5th grade I think nOuching can be a secure feeling

but for Others an awkward moment. This age group is just starting
to become conscious of their body and they are sometimes hesitant

because of that, I think.

I feel that touching, particularly in a positive sense is very
important for both students and teachers. Students can be made

to feel important by this touching. It is easy to know that

someone is talking directly to you when they have a hand on your
shoulder and maintain eye contact. Discipline can be maintained

by touch in ways other than Spanking. (i.e. face between hands

to talk to student or arm around a beligerent student.) The feeling
of love or concern expressed by touch can make the job of teaching
easier. Students respond more readily to someone with whom they
feel comfortable.

Students need to be shown affection, at any age. They need to be
Shown that someone cares about them. Therefore, I feel it is very
important. Touching can express feelings more than talking can
sometimes.

The importance of touching between people especially to express
affection and caring to me seems very great and I am glad to see
research being done in this area.

Student response to touching varies with the student's personality.
Some children do not wish to be touched.

I feel that it is important to have physical contact with the children.
It helps to build a better relationship between me and the child. I
have noticed that children who don't like to be touched, usually,

have a poor attitude toward something. (school, work, parents, or

me, etc.)

141

Question #42

Suburban

In my level (K) I feel that it is important for the teacher to
communicate in this way. It gives a positive approach to communi-
cation and shows the child that you care for them. I don't
approve of touching in a negative way (i.e. spanking)

It is important for the student to realize he/she can trust and
rely on you whenever the situation deems it necessary. Many
students at the beginning of a school year are reluctant to con-
fide in you. I have found a physical demonstration of caring for
a child (putting your arm around them, etc) helps them to be more
comfortable around you and opens communication much more readily
than just talking to him/her.

I feel it could be an important factor if both the teacher and
the child feel comfortable about it. However, if either is
"forced" into it then it becomes an unnatural situation.

It happens naturally. Personalities affect the amount of "touching."

I feel that when (it) physical touching comes naturally it's a
great way of showing a teacher's positive feelings. I'm not sure
of my feelings toward spanking-they certainly are not positive.

Touching is something that depends a lot on the personality of the
teacher. To some peOple touching comes natural. To others touching
is not.

I think touching is often a basis for a good solid and secure
relationship between children and an adult. In teaching a very
low level I found it to be a beginning-~learning could come after
but seldom before. If you can't really love them and touch them
.they are losing a great deal of their education.

Should be whatever you are natural and comfortable with.

I think it is important enough especially with low self—concept
children to need a ruling in which a teacher could feel sure of
no negative results from outside the situation.

For some children, physical contact seems to be quite important
and I experience physical Contact with this kind of child quite
often. Many others are embarrassed by touching and do not seem
to profit by positive physical contact. In general I keep a
hands off policy towards children if I feel negative towards them.

I don't see the importance of this.

Very important for small children to feel liked, accepted, needed,
and comfortable in their "home away from home."

142

Question #42

Suburban Group

I feel the degree of touching depends upon how the child responds
to it. It's something that can be gradually worked up to as the
child gets used to the teacher. A child may withdraw from physical
contact at the beginning of the year but then become more comfort-
able with it and actually like it as he gets used to the teacher.
This is great.

Depends heavily on age of students. A pat on the head, arm placed
around shoulders or hand on arm are my most frequent physical expres-
sions of affection without being offensive.

It's important-natural, but why do a study? Certain people are
touchers others are not.

Touching between students and teachers is important, but it should
be a natural act. It also depends on how comfortable the teacher
feels.

Touching is very important in my kindergarten room! Shy children
need a quiet hug during their show and tell time. A special
birthday kiss is very important to the children.

I feel it is very important.
Touching is tangible proof you care. Touching can also direct a

student's attention to the subject at hand; turn his head to you;
look in his eye.

 

Since I was a teacher in a building where one teacher was fired

for "touching" the students-and another teacher should have been
but was not I shy away from intimate touching. Innocence of youth--
first graders accept it if it is positive and true. ’

Reactions should be spontaneous resulting from experiences felt by
child and teacher.

I think there is definite place for touching both for affection
and discipline.

I love the children in my class in much the same manner that I
love my children at home. It would be impossible for me not to
touch children. I think it is very important to have a physical
communication between children and teachers. It creates a close
relationship--A learning loving relationship.

Children need your approval. Physical contact, smiling, mannerisms
very much help in this.

143

Question #42

Suburban Group

I feel "touching" in student-teacher relations can be very
effective as a quiet manner of reassuring student of his or her
self concept and also acceptance by you the teacher. I do feel

it should never become ail overdone habit with no thought involved.

I feel that touching is an important communicative way to let
students know how I feel about them. Touching inspires self-
confidence as it tells them that they are "ok" or that I like
them. Touching stimulates a willingness to perform socially
and academically.

For me, touching is often the only way I can soemtimes reach some
students who are discipline and emotional problem students.

Touch can be a very beneficial thing in establishing teacher-pupil
rapport. I use it both for positive and negative feelings.

It is very important for it initiates a closeness-a rapport which
helps in all areas of development.

Actions speak louder than words.

When we use touching in the classroom situation we must create an
atmosPhere in the room.where the children are comfortable--many
times, at home, touching occurs only in a negative manner and the
children adjust to touching as a positive means of classroom
behavior.

I feel it's very important to have physical touch or contact with
my students. I work with the six grade levels and I feel they
know me and how I react when expressing affection.

It is important. The children know you care. It brings you
closer together.

Touching is a good reinforcer to shape positive behaviors. Some
children seem to seek positive physical contact. Touching appears
to help develop a good self concept.

I feel the frequency of touching in a positive way depends upon
the situation and the individual child.

I feel it is important just as it is important for touching between
parent and child.

I believe itis very important, and with each year that I teach, I
do it more and more.

144

Question #42

Suburban

A touch on the arm or shoulder, putting an arm around a child
gives them a calming effect. It also shows that I care about
them. I do not think a teacher should go to kissing or allow
her students to.

It often helps to gain a students attention by touching rather
than speaking without creating a negative feeling.

I feel touching is important between elementary teachers and
students. Some students need the secure feeling they receive
from being "touched." This is lacking in a lot of the homes.

I feel it is important to touch students in a positive way.

It shows more warmth in feelings than just a voice praising or
responding to them. It can relax the anxious,nervous or fearful
child. A negative touch is also effective (not necesarily a
punishment type) for reinforcement of a verbal reprimand. Students
should feel free to touch a teacher if they feel the need to , even
though this might just be a temporary need.

I think touching between people ( and especially children in a
learning situation) often bridges a gap that means the difference
between trust and fear, attention and inattention, motivation and
lack of motivation. In other words, I believe that touching is
very important--it shows a person cares for and about the other
person. I have found that if I touch a child when speaking to
that child the child listens and responds better.

I have always been the type. of person who does touch other people
often in conversation. I have found this an excellent way of com-
municating with my pupils in a way that tells them that I approve

of them and what they are doing or in letting them know I disapprove.

We were just discussing this a couple of days ago in my classroom.

There are many students from broken homes with no father image. My

boys need this without feeling it's'hueer" to be touched. 5th graders
are at that age of "independence" and don't wish to be kissed by

anyone, but they do need a touching way that students need and desire
touching very much and often. A touch can often say more than many words;

I think it is important if children need to be shown love. For
discipline is needed when they fail to listen and follow instructions.

I believe that touching is important. It creates a closeness and a
sense of caring. Touching a child signifies individuality in that
you're not Speaking to a mass of children but that particular one.

145
Question #42

Urban

Touching is great - a pat, squeeze, etc.!!! Hugging and kissing
one can start an epidemic which easily gets out of control!

Some children seem to need it and others don't need or encourage
any-either positive or negative.

Touching is an extremely important form of communication. It's
a natural thing that conveys warmth, caring, protection, love as
well as discipline. The relationship between my children and
myself is warmer and more personal because we hug and touch each
other. To some children it's the only "mothering" they get. A
final thought-the affectiveness of this teacher is affected by
the number of children in the class.

I think it is extremely important to have a physical contact with
students through touching. It gives a child a sense of security,
importance, and being cared for. My classes always work more for
this type of reward. To have success with young children, it is
very important that they know you like them. This has always
proved an effective way for me to work with children successfully.

I feel to touch a student is important but it certainly must be
done in discreet manner. I firmly believe a touch on the cheek
with an index finger or a touch on the top of a student's head,

a touch on the shoulder lets a student know that there is a
feeling of caring by the teacher and you do have their interest
in mind whether it be positive for something done will or perhaps
to straighten out a slight problem. A slight touch used properly
I feel is a means of positive communication to most students.

But the best way to know how to communicate is to know each
student as an individual their likes and dislikes.

I've found positive results when touching children. They are
much more apt to respond and interact.

Children of this age like to feel loved and want to know that
people care about them. If treated in a positive manner they
respond readily and appear more willing to try to do their best.

I think you really have to look at each child individually and

their age. Also very important is the child's home environment.

I feel there are also degrees of touching; hugging, kissing or
tapping. All children can handle it depending on the degree.

Some children love the hugs while others prefer the tapping or
putting a hand on the shoulder. Touching shows you care and

usually brings out a good relationship between the child and teacher.

Yes-touch! Gently, positively, calmly, but app "using the child,
psychologically manipulating." I also believe and practice a
certain amount of'parenta absentia" (if that's the phrase) for the
child who needs it, in my estimation.

146

Question #42

Urban

0n the lower elementary level it is essential to have physical
contact with the children. A child or adult will feel very
alone and apart if they feel the people around them are cold.

A child should be free to show positive feelings toward other
people. They develop a much better self-concept when shown they
are loved and accepted by their peers and teachers.

Special Education Teachers

I feel that touching is a very important factor in strengthening
a relationship between students and teachers. You must be care-
ful in how you do the touching. Ex. - a hug for younger ones -
a pat on the back for Older ones!

I teach 5,6,7, year old special education students. At this age,
they love physical touching, in fact crave it. It is one of my
primary reinforcers. It helps me establish a caring and safe
environment for learning.

I feel it's very important--it's a valuable means of communication
and I also feel that a lot of teachers are afraid to use it!

I feel touching is necessary in establishing positive feelings
towards students; however, I feel kissing on the part of the teacher
is not necessary. Kissing on the part of the students has to be
considered in terms of age, sex, mental and emotional levels.

Touching is a good way to positively reinforce student and also
helping a child have a more positive self-concept. I believe
touching is necessary in teaching!

I would draw a correlation-the more troubled or disturbed a child
is the greater the need for touching.

I feel that touching is very important with L.D. children at the
elementary level. They need attention which is more Significant
when paired with physical Contact.

The kids I work with need physical touching along with social
rewards. I find it gives them a better self-concept and healthy
attitude toward school.

I think touching is important to emphasize how you feel a Student
is doing. It reinforces the position.

Think more of it needs to be done.

147

Question #42

Multi-Grade Teachers

Touch can be a very beneficial thing in establishing teacher-
pupil rapport. I use it both for positive and negative feelings.

In my experience with children in many school districts I have
seen a real response and a turn around in attitudes and feelings
of self when there has been a Show ofwemotion or feeling on my
part toward them. Many times just a bug or a squeeze can show
them that they are loved or have real worth. They feel appreci-
ated and can begin to communicate Often times their needs to me.
Doors can be Opened by beginning with a simple thing as a touch
or hug.

Children, especially Kgn. thru 2nd grade, need a little more
expression of approval or love thru touch. Occasionally grades
3 thru 5 also need a touch of approval such as hand on shoulder
or shake hand for a congratulations for a special fete done.
All individuals from 1 to 100 need some type of personal touch
also when being consoled or special problems arise.

Principals

 

I feel "self-concept" is enhanced. A touch expresses love,
concern, care.

If touching is to be done, it has to be an honest and sincere
touch. A child usually knows how one really feels about him
whether or not he is touched. All educators should have warmth
toward all people and be sincere about it.

Feel it very positive-~seems helpful in an attempt to get
attention of child. Also, gives him a feeling of self-worth.

I believe physical touch should be used to display affection,
happiness, pride etc. for students in many situations. I do

not agree that it should be used constantly - but used as an
effective way to make your point. I also think physical touch -
other than punitive spanking, slapping, etc.-such as a hand on the
shoulder is an effective way to discipline a student. I believe
if the teacher touches the student he/She gets the complete
attention of that student.

I believe the appropriate use of touching and showing affection
are very important in the teaching-learning process.

On occasion the more mature 5th grade girl misinterprets the
adults' contact. In these cases such contact is limited.

What is your hypothesis?

148

Question #42

Principals

I do not believe in slapping or hitting in any way above the
neck. I only believe in spanking by telling the parent the
situation that has brought you to the place where you feel you
should spank the child and then wait for his answer. In most
instances they'll give permission or spank the child themselves.
Only occasionally I run into a parent who "just talks" and I

may have to tell the parent something more.drastic must be done
as your "talks" are doing nothing. Mainly I believe in a "hands
off'policy when it comes to a naughty child. Any spanking should
be on the seat of the pants before a witness and parent notified
(preferably before). Occasionally grabbing a child by shoulder
or seating him hard works or tipping head up and looking into

his eyes as you talk to him. I believe an elementary child likes
a stroke on the cheek, a pat on the head, a hand on the shoulder,
some Show of affection and response as well. I believe an in-
attentive child responds well without words by just a tap on

the shoulder, a tap on his paper, a shake of your head, a touch
to remind him to quit day dreaming. I believe as a whole we may
be too COLD and could well get better results by warmth in touching
and showing of affection.

Counselors
I think it's very important to enhance a positive self-concept.

I see touching as always important and use it as a means of
communicating caring for a child. The timing of the touching
depneds upon the relationship I have with the child as well as
his willingness to recieve it. A child can back away fast if he/
she is not ready for touching.

I feel it is very important to touch children. My experience
with it has give me a closer relationship with most children.

It brings the child into focus when you touch and talk about

a concern or an experience they are sharing with you. It is more
personal for them and I feel they can recognize that you truly
care for them as a person —- a one of a kind individual. It also
helps them to build caring relationships with others.

I think it needs to be researched more. I think it's important
as a means of communicating acceptance of students.

Remedial Inst. Teachers

I strongly believe that touching for positive communication is
important. It has its place and time during the day, but always
seems to create a bond between student and teacher. Touching

can consist of anything from a hand rested on a shoulder to
holding hands to a hug. All are (at least seem to be appreciated)
by students.

149

Question #42

Remedial Inst. Teachers

I think it's extremely important to touch or put an arm around

a student. It's a way of saying "I like you", and acceptance

of them as a person. To be touched by a student is also important
because we usually don't bother touching those we don't like.

This touching shows affection on the part of the student toward
the teacher. Some students may be lacking affection at home, and
to at least feel liked at school will help in their concept of
self.

ReadingyTeachers

 

I feel it is very important.

I feel that teachers need to be more touching and that children
need to feel freer to touch the adults in school. I'm sure it
has something to do with positive self-concept which is so impor-
tant to learning.

Younger children are more demanding of physical contact. I
feel that those who wish to touch should not be denied unless
it is physically harmful. Occasionally older students reapond
favorably to touching so I do more. Students with whom I work
need to improve self-concept.

I feel teachers of elementary students are a substitute parent
for seven hours a day and children should feel close to teachers
and vice versa.

APPENDIX C

150

APPENDIX C

Supplementary Data From The Survey

In addition to the 222 classroom teachers surveyed, 51
additional surveys were completed by other educators in a wide
range of positions. A review of the data gathered from those
people is presented here as a supplement to the study.

The additional people surveyed included:

16 teachers in urban schools

8 elementary principals

4 elementary counselors

10 special education teachers

4 multi-grade teachers

9 remedial instruction teachers
51 total

Urban Teachers

Although the urban school district would not participate in
the study, sixteen individual people from a number of different
elementary buildings chose to complete the questionnaire on their
own. The data were not examined in depth for geographical differ-
ences however a cursory examination did not indicate any significant
relationships in regard to geographical variables.

In general the urban teachers responded similarly to the
suburban and rural teachers. The data from the urban group were
consistent with the data from.the other classroom teachers. It
is unlikely that the addition of the sixteen questionnaires from
the urban teachers to the main sample would significantly affect

the percentages.

151

Elementary Principals

In general, the elementary principals attributed the same
high degree of importance to touching as a means to communicate
positive feelings as did the teachers. It was anticipated that
administrators would be "politically" cautious due to the contro-
verSial nature of the behavior and to some extent their subjective
answers did reflect this concern but not significantly more than
the teachers. The principals did receive complaints from parents
more frequently as would be expected. These complaints were
usually in regard to physical punishment. Only one of the eight
principals indicated that corporal punishment was never used. In
regard to giving and receiving tactile messages there appeared to

be no difference between teachers and principals.

Elementary70ounselors

As a group, the counselors attributed very high importance
to touching behavior and tactile communication. Their behavior
however was not significantly different from the classroom teachers.
It was anticipated that counselors would be more physically express-

ive than the teachers; this was not the case.

Special Educatlop_Teachers

The Special education teachers, as a group, were more suppor-
tive and accepting of touch than the classroom teachers as a whole.
They attributed very high importance to the behavior and in addi-
tion engaged in touching behavior more frequently with their
students. To some extent this greater frequency could be attri-
buted to smaller class size but in addition there seems to be
some additudinal differences between Special and regular classroom

teachers.

152

Multl:g;ade Teachers

This group of teachers includes those that work with all of
the children of the school for brief periods of time. For the
most part they are art, music and physical education teachers.
The reaponses of this group of teachers were consistent with
those of other regular classroom teachers. Their limited exposure

did not seem to diminish their tactual contact with their students.

Remedial Instruction Teachers
This group included remedial math and reading teachers. Their 1
responses to the questionnaire items were similar to the regular
teachers. Their answers reflected the same belief in importance
and support for tactile communication. Within the group existed
the same wide ranges from little tactual expression to a great

deal between different teachers.

Summapy

It is apparent that the nature of an educators position does
not significantly affect either the belief in importance or tactile
behavior of the person. Variables such as the age of the student,
class sizes and the attitudes of the teacher do make a difference.
In the case of principals, the higher incidence of corporal punish-
ment was the only significant difference from teachers. Special
education teachers attributed high importance and engaged in tactual

behavior more frequently than any other group.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aguilera, Donna Conant, "Relationship Between Physical Contact
and Verbal Interaction Between Nurses and Patients, "Journal
of Psychiatric Nursing, 5, 1967, pp. 5-21.

Bardeen, J.P., "Interpersonal Perception Through the Tactile,
Verbal, and Visual Modes," (paper presented at ICA convention,
Phoenix 1971). '

Bernstein, L, "A Note on Christie's 'Experimental Naivete and
Experiential Naivete,' "Psychological Bulletin, vol. 49,
1952, pp. 38-40.

Bettelheim, Bruno, Love is not Enough. New York, The Free Press,
1950 p. 330.

 

Bijou, Sidney W. and Baer, Donald M., Child Development II Universal
Stage of Infancy. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New YorE;I965, p. 91.

 

Bindrim, Paul, "Nudity: As a Quick Grab for Group Intimacy"
Psyohology Today, vol. 3 no. 1 June 1969, p. 28.

Carlova, John, "Even M.D.s Have Faith in This Faith Healer," Medical
Economics, Sept. 1973, pp. 98-114.

Cashar, Leah and Dixson, Barbara Keller, "The Therapeutic Use of
Touch", Journal of Psychiatric Nursing and Mental Health Service,
5, 1967, pp. 442-451.

Clapp, Thomas B., "A Study of Physical Touch as an Enhancement to
Student Perseverance," (unpublished dissertation) University
of Maryland, 1969.

Cowen, Emory, "Mothers in the Classroom," Psychology Today, Vol. 3
no. 7, Dec. 1969, pp. 36-39. '

DeAugustinis, Jane, Isani, Rebecca 8., and Kumler, Fern R.,
"Ward Study: The Meaning of Touch in Interpersonal Communica-
tion", Some Clinicalyapproaches to Psychiatric Nursing; Burd
and Marshal (ed.), New York; The MacMillan Company, 1963 pp.
271-306.

Fast, Julius, Body Language. New York; M. Evans & Company, Inc. 1970.

Frank, Lawrence K., "Tactile Communication," Genetic Psychology
Monographs, vol. 56, 1957, pp. 209-255.

153

 

154

3811. Edward T., "A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior,"
American Anthropologist, 65, 1963, pp. 1003-26.

Harlow, Harry F., "The Nature of Love", The American Psychologist,
Volume 13, 1958, pp. 673-685.

Heath, Douglas H., Humanizing Schools: New Directions, New
Decisions. New Jersey: Hayden Book Company, 1971, p. 22.

Hymes, James L., A Child Development Polpg of View. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1955, pp. 25-26.

James, Muriel and Jongeward, Dorothy, Born to Wlp; Transactional
Analysis with Gestalt Experiments. Reading Mass. Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co. 1971. P- 55-

Johnson, Betty Sue, "The Meaning of Touch in Nursing," Nursing
Outlook, 13 2, February 1965, pp. 59-60.

Jourard, Sidney M., "An Exploratory Study of Body-Accesibility,"
British Journal of Social and Clinical Payohology, 5, 1966:
pp. 221-310

Jourard, Sidney M., and Rubin, J.E., "Self-Disclosure and Touching:
A Study of Two MOdes of Interpersonal Encounter and Their
Inter-Relation," Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 8, 1968:
pp. 39-48.

Knapp, Mark L., Nonverbal Commualcation in Human Interaction.
Chicago: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. 1972 p. 11.

Leboyer, Frederick, Birth Without Violence. New York; Alfred A.
Knopf, 1975.

Lewis, Michael, "Culture and Gender Roles: There's No Unisex in

the Nursery", Psychology Today, vol. 5, no. 12, May 1972, pp.
54-57.

Maslow, Abraham H., The Psychology of Science. New York, Harper &
Row, 1966.

Mehrabian, Albert, "Orientation Behaviors and Nonverbal Attitude
Communication", Journal of Communication, 17, pp. 324-32.

Montagu, Ashley, Touchipg; The Human Significance of the Skin.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.

Murris, Desmond, Intimate Behavior. (Bantam Books Edition), New
York, Random House, Inc. 1971, pp. 121-2.

Provence, Sally, and Lipton, Rose 0., "Infants in Institutions"
New York: International Universities Press, 1962.

Ribble, Margaret A., "Infantile Experience in Relation to Personality
Development", J. Hunt (Ed.)_Personali§y_and the Behavior
Disorders, New York, Ronald Press, 1944, pp. 621-651

155

Rice, Ruth D., "The Golden Touch", American Baby, Volume 37,
Number 12, 1975, p. 24

Schutz, William C., Here Comes Everybody, Evanston, Harper and
Row, 1971, pp. 128-9.

Spitz, Renee A., "HOSpitalism: An Inquiry into the Genesis of
Psychiatric Conditions in Early Childhood," Psychoanalytic
Studysof the Child, 1945, Vol. 1. pp. 53-74.

Thompson, James J., Beyond Words: Nonverbal Communication in
the Classroom. New York: Citation Press, 1973.

Weininger, 0., "Mbrtality of Albino Rats Under Stress as a Function
of Early Handling", Canadian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 7,
1953, pp. 111-114.

Wong, Harry K., "Dear Class, I Love You," Learnipg, Vol. 1, No. 2,
Dec. 1972, p. 22.

GENERAL REFERENCES

156

GENERAL REFERENCES

Burton, Arthur and Heller, Louis C., "The Touching of the
Body," The Psychoanalytic Review, 51:122—134. Spring
1964.

Clynes, Manfred, "The Seven Passions at Your Fingertips,"
Psychology Today, 5, 1972,59-60.

Critchley, MacDonald, The Languago of Gestures. London,
Edward, Arnold & Co., 1939.

Davitz, Joel R., "The Communication of Emotional Meaning,"
Communicaglon and Cultupe: Readings in the Codes of
Human Interaction. Alfred G. Smith (ed.) New York:
Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1966.

Felipe, Nancy, "Interpersonal Distance and Small Group
Interaction," Cornell University Journal of Social
Relations, Vol. I No. I, 1966.

Felipe, Nancy and Sommer, Robert. "Invasions of Personal
Space," Social Problema, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1966, p. 206.

Jourard, Sidney M., Disclosing Man to Himself. Princeton,
New Jersey, D. Nostrand Company Inc., 1968.

Jourard, Sidney and Friedman, R., "Experimenter-Subject
'Distance' and Self-Disclosure, " Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 1970, p. 278-82.

King, MAJ., "Interpersonal Relations in Pre-School Children
and Average Approach Distance," Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 109, 1966, pp. 109-116.

 

Langer, Suzanne K., Feeling and Form. New York: Scribner,
1953.

. Philosophy in a New Key. Cambridge: Harvard
Press, 1942.

Little, Kenneth B., "Personal Space," Journal of Experimental

 

Social Psychology, Vol. I, No. 3, 1965, pp. 237-247.

157

Martin, B., Lundy, R., Lewin, M., "Verbal and GSR Responses
in Experimental Interviews as a Function of Three
Degrees of 'Therapist' Communication," Journal of
'appormal and Social Psychology. Vol. 60, 1960,
pp. 234-240.

McBride, C., King, M.G., James, J.W., "Social Proximity
Effects on GSR in Adult Humans," Journal of Psychology.
V01. 61’ pp. 153-1570

Medley, D.M., and Mitzel, H.E., "Some Behavioral Correlates
of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Education Psychology,
Vol. 50, 1959, pp. 239-248.

Mercer, Leanne 8., "Touch: Comfort or Threat?" Perspectives
in Psychiatric Care, 4:3:20-24, 1966.

Piaget, Jean, Science of Education and The Psychology of
the Child, New York: Orion Press, 1970.

Sommer, Robert, Personal Space. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,
Prentice Hall, 1969.

. "The Distance for Comfortable Conversation: A
Further Study," Sociometry, Vol. 25, 1962.

Triandis, H.G., Davis, E. and Takezawa, Shin-Lchi, Some
Determinates of Social Distance Among American, German,
and Japanese Students," Journal of Personalirygand
Social Psychology, Vol. 2, 1965, 540-551.

Williams, T. "Cultural Structuring of Tactile Experience in

a Borneo Society," The American AnthrOpologist, Vol.
68, 1966, pp. 27-39.

 

"I1'11llllfllllllllllflllllI