Touch as a Stress Buffer? Gender Differences in Subjective and Physiological Responses to Partner and Stranger Touch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interpersonal touch buffers against stress under challenging conditions, but this effect depends on familiarity. People benefit from receiving touch from their romantic partners, but the results are less consistent in the context of receiving touch from an opposite-gender stranger. We propose that there may be important gender differences in how people respond to touch from opposite-gender strangers. Specifically, we propose that touch from an opposite-gender stranger may only have stress-buffering effects for men, not women. Stress was induced as participants took part in an emotion recognition task in which they received false failure feedback while being touched by a romantic partner or stranger. We measured subjective and physiological markers of stress (i.e., reduced heart rate variability) throughout the experiment. Neither stranger’s nor partner’s touch had any effect on subjective or physiological markers of stress for men. Women, however, subjectively experienced a stress-buffering effect of partner and stranger touch, but showed increased physiological markers of stress when receiving touch from an opposite-gender stranger. These results highlight the importance of considering gender when investigating touch as a stress buffer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".