Being “in Touch”: The Role of Daily Empathic Accuracy and Affectionate Touch Fulfillment in Shaping Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The receipt of affectionate touch from a relationship partner has been found to influence one's social, personal, and physical well-being.However, simply receiving a hug or a kiss from a spouse may not be enough, as recent research suggests that the benefits of affectionate touch may only be realized when a person receives the amount of affectionate touch that they desire.This implies that a relationship partner must recognize the extent to which a person desires touch for that person to reap the relational and personal benefits of affectionate touch.Using data collected from a sample of community couples (N = 144) across 21-days, the current study assessed whether having more accurate perceptions of a partner's desire for affectionate touch (i.e., empathic accuracy) would be associated with the partner, and self, experiencing greater relational and personal well-being.It was hypothesized that at the within-and between-persons levels having a partner who experiences more empathic accuracy for a person's desire for affectionate touch would be associated with a person reporting greater affectionate touch fulfillment, which would consequently be related to that person experiencing greater relational and personal well-being.The nuances of this association were also examined to determine whether these associations were more important on certain days (i.e., stressful vs. non-stressful) and for certain people (e.g., those who are less avoidantly attached vs. those who are more avoidantly attached).Multilevel modeling in combination with actor partner interdependence modelling was used to test the hypotheses of the current study.Overall, the findings suggested that a partner's empathic accuracy is important for person's relational well-being, and that a person's affectionate touch fulfillment plays a pivotal role in explaining the association between a partner's empathic accuracy and a person's relational and personal well-being, especially on stressful days.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".