Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Julia Leonard
Class of 2011
TableofContents
Page
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 4
Introduction 5
Methods 24
Results 29
Discussion 36
References 52
Tables 58
FigureCaptions 62
Figures 63
AppendixA 68
AppendixB 70
3
Acknowledgements
Firstandforemost,IwouldliketothankProfessorAnnaShustermanfor
herconstantsupport,sincerededication,andenthusiasticguidancethroughout
thisproject.ProfessorShustermanhasshapedmeintotheresearcher,student,
andpersonIamtodayandIcannotthankherenough.Iwouldalsoliketothank
theBlueLabmanagerextraordinaire,TaliaBerkowitz,forhelpingmeonevery
stepofthisproject.ThankstoallthestudentsintheWesleyanCognitive
Development(Blue)Labfortheirtoleranceofmymusictaste,candyaddition,
andgeneralgoofiness.Specifically,thankyoutomyfellowthesiswriters
ChristianHoyosandLaurenFeld.Iamsoluckytohavebeenabletobearound
suchsmart,creative,andmotivatedpeopleyoutwoaretrulyinspiringpeople.I
wouldalsoliketothankeveryprofessorIvehadatWesleyanIamconstantly
amazedbyhowdedicatedyouaretoyourstudentsandIamfortunatetohave
beenabletolearnfromallofyou.Thankyoutomyhousematesforprovidingme
withconstantpositivetouch.Finally,thankyoutomyfamily.Sarah,thanksfor
beingmy#1fan.Dad,youintroducedmetothemagicoftouchthroughallyour
amazinghugs.Mom,youareatruerolemodelandIhopeonedayIcanbehalf
theresearcheryouare.
4
Abstract
Themajorityofpastresearchontouchhasfocusedonadultsorinfants
andnotonpreschoolagechildren.Thisstudyaimedtoreplicatetherobustadult
findingthattouchincreasescomplianceusingadelayofgratificationtaskina
sampleof30preschoolagechildren(M=58.9months).Childrenwererandomly
assignedtotheinterventionorcontrolcondition.Childrenintheintervention
conditionreceivedafriendlytouchonthebackbeforetheywereinstructedon
thelaboratorytasktowaituntiltheyreceivedpermissionfromtheexperimenter
tolookfororeatacandy.Resultsshowedthattouchincreasedcomplianceby
increasingtheamountoftime(inseconds)childrenwaitedtoeatthecandy.
Childreninthetouchconditionwaited144.53secondslongertoeatthecandy
thanchildreninthenotouchcondition.Thisfindinghasimplicationsforhow
touchcouldbeusedtopromotepositivebehaviorandincreaseselfcontrolin
youngchildren.
5
Introduction
Recentheadlinesaboutclergymembersandteacherssexuallyharassing
childrenhaveignitedconcernoverthewayAmericanstouchoneanother.These
days,somethingascommonplaceasafriendlypatontheback,orahug,canbe
lookedatwithsuspicion.In2006,afouryearoldboyinTexaswassuspended
fromschoolforhugginghisteacher(AssociatedPress,2010).Whiletheteacher
thoughtthechilddisplayedinappropriatephysicalbehavior,theboysfather
arguedthattheyoungboydidnotunderstandthatwhathewasdoingwas
consideredwrong.ManyschoolsarenowimplementingNoTouchpoliciesthat
forbidnotonlyteachersfromtouchingtheirstudents,butalsostudentsfrom
touchingoneanother.Itisnolongeracceptableinschoolsforchildrentoreceive
apatonthebackforencouragement,orahugwhentheyarecrying(Glod,2007;
Belkin,2009).Inshort,touchhasbecometaboointheUnitedStates.
TheUnitedStatesfearofphysicalcontactisevidentinallaspectsoflife.
Thiscanbedemonstratedthroughcomparisonswithothercultures.For
example,astudybyField(1999)showedthatAmericanadolescentstoucheach
othersignificantlylessthanFrenchadolescents.Yetthislackoftouchmayhave
someunintendednegativeconsequences.Scientificresearchhasshownthat
interpersonaltouchhasmanypositiveeffects,includingloweringstress
hormones(HoltLunstad,Brimingham,&Light,2008),increasingemotional
attachment(Weiss,Wilson,Hertenstein,&Campos,2000;Hofer&Shair,1980),
increasingcompliance(Kleinke,1977;Crusco&Wetzel,1984;Hornik&Ellis,
1988;Willis&Hamm,1980)andinthecaseofprematureinfants,increasing
6
growth(Dieter,Field,HernandezReif,Emory,&Redzepi,2007;Beachy,2003,
Vickers,Ohlsson,Lacy,&Horsley,2004).Inasocietywhereanxietyand
depressionareincreasinglyprevalent(Twenge,2000;Klerman&Weissman,
1989)touchmaybeaninexpensiveandeffectiveintervention.
Mostoftheresearchconductedontheeffectsoftouchhasfocusedmainly
onprematureinfantsandadults,whiletheimpactsoftouchonchildrenhas
remainedlargelyunexploredduetothesensitivenatureofissuesconcerning
touchandchildreninourculture.However,withoutlookingathowchildren
understandandrespondtotouch,wemaybeignoringthepossiblepositive
benefitsofdecreasedstress,increasedinterpersonalconnectionandincreased
compliance.Furthermore,agreaterunderstandingofhowtouchaffectschildren
willleadtoamoreinformedanalysisandexplanationofadultfindings.
Exploringtouchinchildrenisanessentialsteptofillinginthelargegapin
developmentalliteratureinthisfield.
Whiletouchcouldhavepotentialimpactsonmultipledomainsof
behavior,aparticularoutcomeofinterestischildrensabilitytoselfregulate.A
plethoraofadultstudieshaveshownthattouchincreasescompliance(e.g.
Kleinke,1977;Crusco&Wetzel,1984;Hornik&Ellis,1988;Willis&Hamm,
1980).Ifthetouchandcomplianceoutcomesdemonstratedinadultscouldbe
replicatedwithchildren,thenteachersandparentscouldusetouchtofoster
complianceandpossiblyincreaseselfcontrolinchildren.Thecurrentstudy
aimstoexploretheeffectoftouchoncomplianceinpreschoolagechildrenand
isoneofthefirststudiestolookattouchandchildreninalabsetting.
7
PositiveEffectsofTouchonCognition
Pastresearchhasshownthatafriendlytouchcanaffectonescognitionin
profound,multifacetedways,supportingthehypothesisthattouchmayinfact
helpchildreninmanyareasoftheirlife.Touchhasbeenfoundtoincrease
attachment(Weissetal.,2000;Hofer&Shair,1980),lowerbothperceivedand
psychologicalstress(HoltLunstadetal.,2008;Coen,Schaefer,&Davidson,
2006),activateemotionandexecutivecontrolareasofthebrain(Rollsetal.
2003a;Olaussonetal.,2002)andcommunicatediscreteemotions(Hertenstein
&Keltner,2006;Hertenstein,Holmes,McCullogh,&Keltner,2009).Touch
clearlyhasstrong,positiveaffectsonhumansemotionalandcognitive
processes.
DevelopmentandAttachment.Oneofthemainwaysthattouch
positivelyimpactscognitionisthroughitseffectonattachmentindevelopment.
InaclassicstudyconductedbyHarlowandZimmerman(1958),amonkeyhada
choicebetweentwosurrogatemothers:onemadeoutofterryclothandone
madeoutofwiremesh.Forsomeofthemonkeys,thewiremeshmother
providedmilkandtheterryclothmotherdidnot,whileforothermonkeys,these
conditionswerereversed.Harlowfoundthatthemonkeyspreferredtheterry
clothmotherevenwhenshedidnotprovidemilk,suggestingthatcontactwas
justasnecessary,ifnotmoreso,thannourishment.Thisstudyopenedthedoors
toresearchconcerningthenecessityoftouchinnormalhumandevelopment.
Touchhasbeenfoundtobeparticularlyimportantduringthebeginning
stagesoflife.Specifically,touchintheformofmassagehasbeenshowntohave
8
profoundmedicalbenefitsforprematureinfants.Thesepositiveeffectsinclude:
improvedweightgain,improvedsleep/wakestates,decreasedstress,early
dischargefromtheNICU,improvedskinintegrity,increaseddevelopmentofthe
sympatheticnervoussystem,andenhancedparentinfantbonding(Dieteretal.,
2007;Beachy,2003;Vickersetal.,2004;HernandezReif,Diego,&Field,2007,
2005;Kuhnetal.,1991;Field,2003).
Inadditiontothephysiologicalbenefitsoftouchinthecareofpreterm
infants,touchhasalsobeenshowntobeanemotionalnecessityindevelopment.
Oneexampleofthisisthestrongbondtouchcreatesbetweenparentandchildin
development(Field,2003).Weissetal.(2000)observedthisrelationship
betweentouchandparent/infantbondinginmoredetail.Intheirstudy,Weisset
al.observedmothersfeedingtheirlowbirthweightinfantsandcodedfor
maternaltouch,maternalsensitivity,andinfantresponsiveness.Attheendofthe
infantsfirstyear,theresearchersfoundapositivecorrelationbetweenthe
amountofnurturingtouchthemotherdisplayedandthesecureattachment
betweenthemotherandlowbirthweightinfant.
AnimalstudiesconductedbyHoferandShair(1980),similarlyshowed
thattouchstronglyaffectsattachment.Inaseriesofstudiesonrats,they
examinedwhichcomponentsofmotherpupinteractionscouldmosteffectively
downregulatepupsnaturalseparationresponses,suchasultrasoniccries.
Usingartificialsurrogatemothers,theresearchersfoundthatonlytextureand
thermalwarmth,whenpresentedalone,couldeffectivelydownregulate
separationbehaviors.Thus,HoferandShairsuggestedthattouchalone,
9
specificallyintheformoftextureandwarmth,couldfacilitateattachment
behaviors.
TouchandStress.Anotherareawheretouchhasbeenfoundtobe
beneficialisasameanstoreducebothphysiologicalandperceivedstress.Touch
candecreasethereleaseofthestresshormonecortisolandincreasetherelease
ofthesocialbondinghormoneoxytocininbothadultsandinfants(HoltLunstad
etal.,2008;Feldmen,Singer,&Zagoory,2010).Further,animalstudieshave
shownthatearlytouchaffectsthegeneticmakeupofratshypothalamic
pituitaryadrenalaxis(apathwaythatcontrolsresponsestostress),causing
themtobemoreresilienttostresslaterinlife(Meaneyetal.1991;Liuetal.
1997).Coen,Schaffer,andDavidsonsfMRIstudy(2006)showedthatbrain
regionsthatareactivatedbytheanticipationofastressfuleventcouldbe
attenuatedbythetouchofalovedone.Alreadymassagehasstartedtobe
implementedincertainworkplacestolowerthestressofemployeesand
increaseproductivity,withpositiveresults(Field,2003).Iftouchhassimilar
effectsinschoolagechildren,thentouchbasedinterventionscouldsupport
reducedstressandassociatedpositiveoutcomes,suchasincreasedself
regulation.
TouchandNeuralSystems.Inrecentyears,researchershavestartedto
exploretheneuralsystemsforencodingtouch.Specifically,researchershave
lookedatthedifferentmodesofprocessingpleasanttouch.Inastudyconducted
byFrancisetal.(1999),pleasanttouch,intheformofvelvet,andneutraltouch,
intheformofawoodendowel,wereappliedtoaparticipantshandwhilean
10
fMRIwastaken.Theresearchersfoundthattheorbitofrontalcortexwas
activatedbypleasanttouchwhiletheprimarysomatosensorycortexwas
activatedmorebytheneutraltouch.Rollsetal.(2003a)expandedonthisstudy,
includingadirectcomparisonwithbrainareasactivatedbypainfultouch.The
samemethodswereappliedwiththeadditionofpainfultouchintheformof
sandpaper.Regionsoftheorbitofrontalcortexwereactivatedmorebyboth
pleasantandpainfultouchthanbyneutraltouch.Withintheorbitofrontal
cortex,painfulandpleasanttouchactivateddifferentareas.Painfultouch
activatedtheposteriordorsalpartoftheanteriorcingulatecortexandpleasant
touchactivatedtherostralpartoftheanteriorcingulatedcortex.Sincethe
somatosensorycortexwaslessactivatedbypainfulandpleasanttouchthanby
neutraltouch,theorbitofrontalcortexactivationwasmostlikelyrelatedto
affectiveaspectsoftouch(Rollsetal.,2003a).Theorbitofrontalcortexhasalso
beenassociatedwithrewardfunctionsinthebrain,specificallyrapid
reinforcementassociationlearning(Rolls,2003b).
Overall,theorbitofrontalcortexisamainareaofthebrainactivatedby
pleasanttouch.Buttheorbitofrontalcortexisnotactivatedbytouchtojustany
partofthebody.InastudydonebyMcCabe,Edmund,Bilderbeck,andMcGlone
(2008),moisturizingcreamwasappliedtotheforearmandhand.Thehandis
madeofglabrousskinthatdoesnotcontainconductivetactile(CT)fiber
afferents,whiletheforearmdoescontainCTfiberafferents.Thetouchappliedto
theforearm,whichcontainedCTfiberafferents,activatedtheorbitofrontal
11
cortexmorethantouchappliedtoglabrousskinonthehand.Thus,CTfiber
afferentsmayspeciallyactivatetheorbitofrontalcortex.
CTfiberafferentsareaclassofconductivefiberswhichare
unmeylinated,slowconductingfibersthatarepartoftheanterolateralsystem
andhavebeenspecificallycorrelatedwithpleasanttouch.InastudybyLoken,
Wessberg,Morrison,McGlone,andOlausson(2009),microneurography
techniquewasusedtorecordafferentactivityinasingleCTfiberafferentanda
singlemyelinatedafferentinahumanreceivingtactilestimulation.Thetactile
stimulationconsistedofasoftbrushmovingwithconstantspeedoveracertain
skinreceptivefieldarea.Inaseparatesession,subjectsratedthepositive
hedonicqualityofthebrushstroking.Theresearchersfoundalinearcorrelation
betweenmeanfiringratesandmeanratingsofpleasantnessofCTfiberunits,
butnotformyelinatedunits.Themeanpleasantnessratingsweresignificantly
lowerinthepalmwheretherearenoCTfiberafferents,thanintheforearm,
wherethereareCTfiberafferents.Therefore,touchthatactivatesCTfiber
afferentscanbethoughtofaspleasanttouch.
OnereasonthatCTfiberafferentactivatingtouchcouldbeprocessedas
positiveisbecauseitactivatesthelimbicareainthebrain,whichisrelatedto
emotion.Olaussonetal.(2002)studiedCTfiberafferentsinauniquepatient
lackinglargemyelinatedafferents.ThispatientfoundthatactivationofCTfiber
afferentsproducedafaintsensationofpleasanttouch,despitetheirlackof
normalsensoryreceptors.Further,fMRIanalysisduringCTfiberafferent
stimulationshowedactivationoftheinsularregion(partofthelimbicsystem),
12
butnottheprimary(S1)orsecondarysomatosensory(S2)areas.Innormal
subjects,CTfiberafferentstimulationactivatedS1,S2,andtheinsularcortex.
TheseresultsindicatethattheCTsystemspecificallyactivatesthelimbicarea
andthisactivationmayunderlieemotional,hormonaloraffiliatedresponsesto
touch.
Insummary,pleasanttouchactivatesCTfiberafferents,foundinnon
glabrousskin,whichactivatetheorbitofrontalcortexandthelimbicareaofthe
brain.Sincefriendlytouchactivatestherewardpathwayandemotionalareasof
thebrain,itmaybethattouchbasedinterventioncouldprovetobebeneficialin
childrenforpromotingontask,rewardrelatedbehaviorandbetteremotional
understanding.
TouchandEmotions.Touchisalsoasignificantfactorinour
understandingofinterpersonalemotions.Mostpeopleagreethatahugfeels
good,whileapunchhurts.Howeverobviousitmayseemthattouchelicitsand
communicatesemotion,thisareaofresearchremainslargelyunexplored.
HertensteinandCamposconductedoneofthefirststudiesexploringthis
relationshipin2001.Theyhadmotherseithertensetheirfingersaroundtheir
infantsabdomen,relaxtheirgriparoundtheirinfantsabdomen,orremain
neutralwhiletheirinfantwaspresentedwithnovelobjects.Theresultsrevealed
thattheinfantswaitedlongertotouchtheobjectandtouchedtheobjectless
whenthemothersfingersweretensethanintheneutralcondition.No
differencewasfoundbetweentheconditioninwhichmothersfingerswere
relaxedandthecontrolcondition.Thus,infantsemotionscanbeaffectedby
13
theirmotherstouch.HertensteinandKeltnerexpandedonthistopicwithadults
in2006and2009.Theystudiedwhetherornotpeoplecouldidentifyemotions
fromtheexperienceofbeingtouchedonthearmbyastrangertheycouldnot
see.Theresultsshowedthatpeoplecouldactuallyidentifymanydistinct
emotionsfromtouch(Hertenstein&Keltner,2006).Specifically,peoplecould
decodeanger,fear,disgust,love,gratitude,sympathy,happy,andsadbasedon
thefeelofdifferenttouches(Hertensteinetal.,2009).Thesesameresultswere
replicatedinSpain(consideredamorephysicalculturethantheU.S.),socertain
emotionsmaybeuniversallyconveyedbytouch,althoughthisareaofresearch
needstobefurtherexplored.Findingsfromthesestudiessupportthatpeople
areinfactabletodifferentiatebetweengoodandbadtouch.Thisshould
somewhatalleviatepeoplesfearthatchildrenwillmisunderstandtheemotional
intentionsofsupportivetouch(e.g.confusingsupportivetouchwithsexual
touch).
Inconclusion,paststudieshaveshownthattouchaffectscognitive
processesinvariouspositiveways.Touchincreasesfeelingsofattachment,
lowersstresshormones,activatesthelimbicareaandorbitofrontalcortex,and
communicatesdiscretefeelings.Givenallthesepositiveeffectsandtheir
beneficialimplications,itseemsonlynaturalthatonewouldcontinuetoexplore
howtouchimpactscognitionduringdevelopment.
TouchandCompliance
14
EarlyStudies.Inadditiontothepositiveeffectsoftouchonstress,
attachment,andemotionalunderstanding,manystudiesshowthattouch
robustlyincreasescomplianceinadults.Someoftheearlieststudiesontouch
exploredtherelationshipbetweentouchandcompliancetoarequestinadults.
Kleinke(1977)conductedthelandmarkstudyinthisarea,introducingtheidea
thattouchcouldincreasecompliance.Inthisstudy,experimentersposedaslay
peopleandapproachedsubjectsthatwalkedoutofaphoneboothinwhicha
dimehadstrategicallybeenplaced.Theexperimentersaskedthesubjectsifthey
hadfoundadimeleftinthephonebooth.Interestingly,subjectswhowere
touchedbytheexperimenterweremorelikelytoreturnthedime.Afollowup
studybyKleinkeshowedthatpeopleweremorelikelytolendanexperimentera
dimeinashoppingmallwhentheexperimentertouchedtheirarm(Kleinke,
1977).Inbothcases,touchseemedtoincreasetheparticipantscompliancetoa
request.
Inanotherstudy,CruscoandWetzel(1984)foundthatifwaitresses
touchedtheirpatronsbrieflyontheforearmorpalm,theywouldreceivealarger
tipthaniftheydidnottouchtheirclient.Thisphenomenonhasbeenlabeledthe
MidasTouch,inreferencetoKingMidas,acharacterfromGreekmythology
famousforturningeverythinghetouchedintogold.StephenandZweigenhaft
(1986)replicatedCruscoandWetzelsstudy,buthadonlywaitressestouchmale
andfemaledyadsdiningtogethertolookattheeffectofgenderontouch.
ThoughCruscoandWetzelfoundnogendereffects,StephanandZweigenhaft
foundthatfemalestouchedbyfemalewaitressestippedmorethanmales
15
touchedbyfemalewaitresses.SimilarlyHornik(1992)foundthattouchingcould
notonlyleadtoahighertip,butalsoincreasedthecustomersevaluationand
reactiontowardsthewaiter.
Thistouchandcompliancephenomenonwasalsostudiedinrelationto
asupermarketwereapproachedbyanincognitoexperimenterwitharequestto
sampleanewfoodproduct.Thepatronswhoweretouchedbytheexperimenter
weremorelikelytobothtrythefoodandbuythefoodthanpatronswhowere
nottouched.Surprisingly,thetouchandnotouchgroupsdidnotdifferintheir
tasteratingoftheproduct.Furthermore,thepatronsgenderdidnotaffecthisor
herresponse.HornikandEllis(1988)foundthatsubjectsapproachedinamall
whoweretouchedbyanexperimenterposingasastoreassistantweremore
likelytofilloutamallsurveythensubjectswhowerenottouched.Inaddition,
thesubjectsperceivedburdenoffillingoutthesurveywasdecreasedwhenhe
orshewastouched.Inthissamesituation,touchhasalsobeenfoundtoimprove
theinterpersonalfeelingsbetweenthesubjectsandsolicitors(Hornik,1987).
Lastly,Hornik(1992)lookedattheinterplaybetweentouchandtimespent
shopping.Hefoundthatshopperswhoweretouchedbyexperimentersposingas
storeclerksshoppedlongerandpurchasedmore.
Theabovestudiesprovideastrongindicationthattouchincreases
complianceinsimpletasks.Additionalstudiesshowthatthesamerelationship
maybetrueformoredifficult,longertasks.InastudydonebyPatterson,Powell,
andLenihan(1986),experimenterseithertouchedordidnottouchparticipants
16
whenaskingthemtohelphandscoreboguspersonalityinventories(aboring,
hardtask).Inthiscase,touchincreasedcompliancebyincreasingtimespent
scoringtheinventories.WillisandHamm(1980)lookedattouchand
compliancewithtwotasksoftwolevelsofdifficulty.Inthefirsteasytask,
subjectswereaskedtosignapetitionsupportingapopularcauseonacollege
campus.Inthesecond,moredifficulttask,participantswereaskedtocompletea
briefratingscalethattookafewminutestofillout.Inbothconditions,being
touchedincreasedcompliance,buttouchhadagreatereffectoncompliance
whenthetaskwasmoredifficult.Onthedifficulttaskoflookingafteralarge,
exciteddogfortenminutes,GueguenandFischerLoku(2002a)alsofoundthat
touchincreasedcompliance.NannbergandHansen(1994)foundthatevenwhen
asubjectwastouchedonlyafteragreeingtotakealong,difficultquestionnaire,
therewasstillanincreaseinthesubjectswillingnesstocompletethedifficult
task.
Touchhasbeenfoundtonotonlyincreasecompliance,butalsoaltruistic
behaviorinanunrelatedtask.InastudybyGueguenandFisherLokou(2003),
anexperimenteraskedpeopleonthestreettohelphimfindafamousplaceina
nearbytown.Inhalfofthecases,theexperimentertouchedtheparticipant.After
thequestionwasanswered,theexperimenterwalkedawayandthenproceeded
todropmanydiskettesontheground.Touchwasshowntobothdirectly
increasecompliance(byhelpingtheexperimenterfindthefamousplace)and
alsoindirectlyincreasealtruisticbehaviorinsubsequentinteractions.Thisstudy
17
showsthatthecomplianceeffectcanspreadintofurthersituationswiththe
toucher.
UnderstandingtheInteractionBetweenTouchandCompliance.
Recentstudieshavebeguntounpackthecorrelationbetweentouchand
compliance.Inonestudy,Gueguen(2002b)lookedattheeffectsofdifferent
typesoftouchoncompliance.Inthisexperiment,menandwomenwere
approachedatrandomonthestreetandaskedformoneytopayforaparking
meter.Inthedrawattentiontouchcondition,theexperimenterwouldtaptwice
ontheshoulderofthesubjectwhenaskingformoney.Inthetouchforneed
condition,theexperimenterwouldholdthesubjectshandforonetotwo
secondswhenaskingformoney.Touchoverallincreasedcompliance,butthe
touchforneedelicitedmorehelpfromsubjectsthanthedrawattentiontouch.
However,itshouldbenotedthatthisstudywasconductedinFrance,acountry
withamorephysicalculturethantheU.S.(Field,1999).Perhaps,thetouchfor
needtouchwouldcomeoffaspresumptuousanduncomfortableincultures
suchastheU.S.wherestrangersdonotoftenholdotherstrangershands,
causingtheoppositeeffectoncompliance.
Gueguen(2002c)alsolookedattheeffectsofawarenessontouchand
compliance.Experimenterspretendedtobemarketingstudentsandapproached
subjectsinamall,askingthemtofilloutamarketingsurveythattheyhadto
completeforschool.Attheendofthesurvey,participantswereaskedifthey
wereawarethattheexperimentertouchedtheirforearmwhenaskingtheir
request.Interestingly,only27.7%ofparticipantsinthetouchcondition
18
answeredthattheyknewtheyweretouched.Overall,peoplewhoweretouched
weremorelikelytofilloutthequestionnairethanpeoplewhowerenottouched,
butconsciousnessofthetouchhadnoeffect.
Thestatusofthetoucheralsoeffectshowpeoplereacttotouch.Ina
studybyGueguen(2002d),experimentersdressedupeitherinelegant,
conventional,orveryneglectedclothing.Hence,clothingcomprisedthe
manipulationoftheperceivedstatusoftheexperimenter.Theexperimenters
thenaskedpeopleinamalltoansweraquestionnaireabouttelevision
programs.Inallthreeconditions,theexperimentertouchedonlyhalfofthe
participantswhensolicitingrequests.Overall,touchincreasedcompliance,but
touchbyahigherstatuspersonincreasedcompliancethemost.
Culturealsoplaysalargeroleintheperceptionoftouch.Themajorityof
thestudiesontouchhavebeendoneinFrance(e.g.Gueguen&Fischer-Loku,
2002a; Gueguen, 2002b; Gueguen, 2002c; Gueguen, 2002d; Gueguen & Fischer-
Hornik, 1992)andtheUnitedStates(e.g.Klienke,1977;Crusco&Wetzel,1984).
Whilethesestudiesshowapositivecorrelationbetweentouchandcompliance,
othercountrieswithdifferentviewsontouchmaynotfindthistobetrue.For
example,Dolinski(2010)conductedastudyontouchandcomplianceinPoland.
HefoundthatmaletomaletouchinPoland,anotablyhomophobicculture,
actuallydecreasedtherateofcompliancetoarequestandthiswasstrongly
correlatedwiththedegreeofhomophobiaoftheparticipant.
19
Overall,thekindoftouch,thetouchingpersonsstatus,andthecultural
contextcanallaffectcompliance.Interestingly,touchdoesseemtoincrease
complianceregardlessoftheawkwardoruncomfortablenatureofthetouch.As
Gueguen(2002d)pointsout,thiscouldbebecausemostpeopleactuallyarenot
awareofbeingtouchedatallinthesestudies.
TouchintheClassroom.Touchhasalsobeenshowntobebeneficialina
classroomsetting.In1973,evenbeforeKleinkesexperiment,astudydoneby
KazfinandKlockexaminedtheeffectoftouchintheclassroomonstudents
behavior.Thirteenmoderatelydevelopmentallychallengedchildren,ages712
yearsold,wereobservedforinattentiveandattentivebehaviorthroughoutthe
30daystudy.Thefirstninedaysconsistedofbaseline,inwhichtheteachers
andchildrensbehaviorswerecoded.Thenextninedaysconsistedoftheteacher
increasinghernonverbalencouragement(touchandsmiling)following
attentivestudentbehavior.Thefollowingninedayswereareversalperiodin
whichtheteacherwastoldtoreturntopreviousclassroompractices(not
increasingnonverbalbehavior).Thelastsixdaysofthestudyconsistedofthe
teacheronceagainincreasingnonverbalencouragementfollowingattentive
studentbehavior.Theresultsofthisstudyindicatedthatstudentattentive
behaviorincreasedduringperiodsofincreasednonverbalencouraging
behaviorfromtheteacheranddecreasedduringthereversalphase.Thisstudy
showsthatnonverbalbehaviors,includingtouch,canreinforceappropriate
classroombehavior,suchasattentiveness,butdoesnotsingleouttouchasthe
mainpredictivevariable.
20
Thispositiveeffectoftouchonattentivebehaviorwasalsodemonstrated
withnormallydevelopingchildreninapreschoolandfirstgradesetting.
Wheldal,Bevan,andShortall(1986)lookedattheeffectoftouchfromateacher
on56yearoldstudentsinrelationtoappropriateclassroombehavior.Thisage
rangewaschosenbecausetheresearchersfeltthatteachersofyoungerchildren
weremorelikelytousetouchthanteachersofolderchildren.Afterabaseline
phaseinwhichtheteachersandchildrensbehaviorsandinteractionswere
coded,aninterventionphasewasinitiated.Intheinterventionphase,classroom
teacherswereinstructedtotouchchildrenonlywhenpraisingthemfor
academicand/orsocialbehavior(theywerenotinstructedtoincreasepraise
frombaseline).Theyfoundthatateacherspraisingtouchcouldreinforce
appropriateclassroombehavior.Amajorlimitationinthisstudyisthatthe
researchersdidnotdifferentiatetheeffectsofpraisingtouchvs.praisingtalk.It
ispossiblethatthecombinationofthepraisingconditionsisadditiveand
strongerthaneachconditionseparately.
Gueguen(2004)alsolookedattheeffectoftouchinaclassroomsetting,
butincollegeagedstudents.Gueguenaimedtotestthehypothesisthattouch
increasesbehaviorexpectedbythetoucher.Inthisexperiment,thesubjects
werestudentsinanundergraduatestatisticsclass.Inthisclass,students
volunteeredtocomeuptotheboardtosolvemathproblemsinfrontoftheclass.
Theteacherinthisstudyselectivelytouchedsomestudentvolunteersonthe
forearmwhiletheywrotetheiranswersontheboard.Thestudentswhowere
touchedweremorelikelytovolunteerlaterinclasstowriteanswersonthe
21
board.Basedontheseresults,itseemsasthoughtouchnotonlyincreases
compliance,butalsofostersfeelingsofencouragementandcomfort.
Touchhasalsobeenshowntoincreaseperformanceonatask.Inastudy
conductedbyClementsandTracy(1977),tenemotionallydisturbedboyswitha
normalIQ,aged911,weregivenarithmeticworksheetsalongwitheither
verbalpositivefeedback,tactilepositivefeedback,oracombinationofthetwo
fromateacher.Thepositivetactilecueandthetactileandverbalcuetogether
increasedattentiontothetaskandperformanceonthetaskmorethanthe
controlandtheverbalfeedbackaloneconditions.
AlthoughclassroomsareinstatingNoTouchpolicies,manystudiespoint
tothepositiveeffectthattouchcanhaveinaclassroomsetting(Kazfin&Klock,
1973;Wheldalletal.,1986;Gueguen,2004;Clements&Tracy,1977).These
studiesshowthattouchincreasesattentive,ontaskbehavior,feelingsof
comfort,andperformance,pointingtotheveryrealbenefitsoftouchused
appropriatelyinschools.
TheCurrentStudy
Thecurrentstudyaimstoexploretherobustfindingthattouchincreases
complianceinadultstoseeifthissamerelationshipextendstopreschoolage
children.Themotivationforthisstudyistoreconsideroursocietysattitudes
towardstouchinchildren,giventheremarkablepotentialpositiveeffectsof
touch.Specifically,wemaybeoverlookingthebeneficialoutcomesthattouch
mayhaveinapreschoolclassroom.Preschoolagechildrenareatakeyagefor
22
earlyinterventionforconductdisorders(WebsterStratton,Reid,&Hammond,
2001,2004).Inatimewhereagrowingnumberofchildrenaredeveloping
externalizingdisordersthereismajorconcernoverhowtoteachchildren
impulsecontrol(Lavigneetal.,1996;BriggsGowan,Horwitz,SchabStone,
Leventhal,&Leaf,2000).Understandingtheconnectionbetweendelayof
gratificationabilities,selfregulatoryabilities,anddifferentformsof
interventionisimperativefordetectingwaysthatsocialsupportsystems(such
asschools,parents,andcommunities)couldhelpfosterselfcontrolinyoung
children.Ifsomethingassimpleastouchcouldincreasecomplianceandthus
helpinhibitorycontrolinchildren,thiswouldhaveimmediateimplicationsfor
therapeutictechniquesaswellasinunderstandingsofparentingandteaching.
Sincethisisoneofthefirststudiesinthenewdomainofresearchon
touchinchildren,acompliancetaskwaschosenwiththehopeofreplicatingthe
robustfindingthattouchincreasescomplianceinadults.Totargetthegrowing
concernaboutselfregulatorybehaviorinpreschoolagechildren,the
compliancetaskusedinthisstudyaskschildrentowaitforareward.Hence,the
currentstudyusesataskthatrequireschildrentoexerciseselfcontrolinorder
tosucceedatbeingcompliant.Thisisaseparate,butrelatedskilltocompliance,
andthereforemayalsobeaffectedbythetouchmanipulation.
ThetaskinthecurrentstudyusesavariationofWalterMischelsoriginal
bettermanipulatecompliance.Intheoriginaltask,childrenweregiventhe
optiontoeithereatonemarshmallowimmediately,orwaitandeattwo
23
marshmallowsafterafewminutes.Inthecurrentstudy,modifiedfromVaughn,
Kopp,andKrakow(1984),childrenaretoldthattheycannotlookfororeata
hiddencandyuntiltheyreceivepermissionfromtheexperimenter.Halfthe
childrenaretouchedonthebackbytheexperimenterwhengiventhis
instruction.Theexperimenterthenleavestheroomfortenminutestoseehow
wellthechildcanwaitandhowwelltheyfollowthedirectionstonottouchor
eatthecandy.Thus,childrenscomplianceismeasuredbyiftheywaittoreceive
permissiontolookforandeatthecandyandhowlongtheywaittoeatthe
candy.Thisstudyaimstoemulatethecomplianceproceduresthatwereusedin
adulttouchandcompliancestudies,butgearedmoretowardchildren,and
focusedoninhibitorycontrol.
Inadditiontothistask,childrenwerealsotestedonexecutivefunction
priortothetouchintervention.Onereasonexecutivefunctionwastestedwasto
ensurethatsampleswererandomlyassignedtoconditionbycheckingthatthe
distributionofexecutivefunctionscoreswasequalinbothconditions.
Furthermore,sinceexecutivefunctionscoresarerelatedtodelayofgratification
performance(Eigstietal.,2006),butnotidenticaltotheselfregulatoryabilities
inthisparticulartask(Miyakeetal.,2000;Garonetal.,2008),executivefunction
scoreswereusedtoensurethatthedifferencesbetweenconditionswerereallya
functionofthetouchmanipulationandnotasideeffectofsampling.
Basedonpreviousadultfindings(e.g.Kleinke,1977;Crusco&Wetzel,
1984;Hornik&Ellis,1988;Willis&Hamm,1980),itwashypothesizedthat
childrenwhoweretouchedwhengivendirectionswouldcomplywithdirections
24
betterthanthosechildrenwhowerenottouched.Specifically,childrenwho
weretouchedwerehypothesizedtobemorelikelytonotsearchfororeatthe
candywithoutpermissionandtowaitalongeramountoftimebeforeeatingthe
candy.Childreninthetouchconditionwerealsohypothesizedtohavebetter
delayofgratificationbecausetouchispredictedtoincreasecomplianceand
complyinginthistaskrequiresgoodselfcontrol.
Methods
Subjects
Participantswere304and5yearoldchildren(range=49to71
months;meanage=58.9months;18femaleand12male).Threeadditional
childrenweretestedbutnotincludedinthefinalanalysesbecausethey
expressedfearand/orsadnessatbeingaloneintheroomandthusdidnot
completethestudy.AllparticipantswererecruitedfromcentralConnecticutand
testedattheCognitiveDevelopmentLaboratoryatWesleyanUniversity.
Procedures
AllprotocolsreceivedIRBapprovalthroughtheWesleyanUniversityIRB.
InformedconsentwasobtainedinaccordancewithIRBpolicies.
Setting.Forthewholeexperiment,thechildwasseatedinasquareroom
withfewdistractions.Therewasatripodwithavideocameraandcurtains
againsteachwall.Thechildwasseated,facingthevideocamera,infrontofa
small,lowtable.Intheexecutivefunctiontask,theexperimentersatacrossthe
25
tablefromthechildandinthefoodrewardtask,theexperimentersatcaddy
cornertothechild.Twoexperimentersadministeredthetasks;bothwere
womenofsimilarageanddemeanor.
ParentSurvey.Beforechildrenweretested,parentsweregivena
questionnairedevelopedforthisstudy(seeAppendixA).Thequestionnaire
includedquestionsaboutbasicdemographicinformation,parentsratingoftheir
childscomfortandexperiencewithtouch,andparentsratingoftheirchilds
waitingbehavior.Theseratingsweremadeona17Likertscale(7beingvery
comfortable/oftenand1beingveryuncomfortable/notoften).The
questionnairewasadministeredtogainbackgroundinformationonthechilds
physicalityandselfcontrolinordertobetterinterpretthefindings.
ExecutiveFunctionTask.Thistaskwasadaptedfromproceduresused
byDavidson,Amso,Anderson,andDiamond(2006)andCarlsonandMoses
(2001).Theagegroupusedinthisstudysometimesreachesceilingeffectson
simpleexecutivefunctiontaskswithincongruentblocks.Awaytoavoidthisisto
useamoredifficultmanipulationwithmixedblockswithcongruentand
incongruenttrials.Themodifiedexecutivefunctiontaskusedinthisstudywas
basedonAdeleDiamondsDotstask(Davidsonetal.,2006).TheDotstask
consistsofthreeconditions:congruent,incongruent,andmixedblock.Inthe
congruentcondition,childrenlearnedarule.Intheincongruentcondition,
childrenlearnedanewrule,requiringinhibitionofthepreviouslylearnedrule.
Inthemixedblocktrial,congruentandincongruenttrialswereintermixed,
requiringmemoryofthepreviousrules.
26
TheDotstaskwasmodifiedforthisstudywithouttheuseofacomputer.
Twopuppetcharacterswereintroducedtothechild,muchliketheBeardragon
executivefunctiontask(Carlson&Moses,2001).Onepuppetwasthenice
elephantandtheotherwasthemeancrocodile.Theexperimenterputouttwo
buttonsinfrontofthem(twopushlightswithoutbatteries)andtoldthechild
thisismyfriendtheniceelephant.Hesverynice,sowhenhepushesthebutton,
weraiseourhandonthesameside.Theexperimenterthenhastheelephant
puppetpushbuttonsfortwopracticetrialsinwhichthechildrensmoveswere
correctedifneeded,followedbyfourtrialswithnocorrectionsprovided.Next,
theexperimenterintroducedthemeancrocodileandsaidthisismyother
friend,themeancrocodile.Whenhepushesthebutton,weregoingtobesilly
anddotheoppositeofwhatweresupposedtodo.Sowhenhepushesabutton,
weregoingtoraiseourhandontheoppositesideofthebutton!.Onceagain,
twopracticetrialswithcorrectionwerefollowedbyfourtrialswithno
correction.Thesetwophasescomprisedthecongruentphase(elephanttrials)
andincongruentphase(crocodiletrials).Themixedblocktrialcomprisedofthe
crocodileandtheelephantpushingbuttonsinafixed,pseudorandomorderfor
twelvetrialswithnocorrection.Thusthechildhadtoremembertherulesfor
eachpuppetandinhibitresponses.Thechildrenwereallowedtopushthe
buttonsafterthepuppetsdidinsteadofraisingtheirhandsiftheypreferred.The
childsbehaviorswerecodedascorrect(0points),selfcorrect(1point),and
incorrect(2points).Thetotalchildsscorewasaddedup,with0beingperfect
and24beingallwronganswers.
27
FoodRewardTask.Thistaskwasadaptedfromaprocedureusedby
Vaughnetal.(1984).Inthistask,childrenweretoldnottolookfororeata
candywithoutpermissionfromtheexperimenter.Halfthechildrenreceiveda
friendlytouchonthebackfromtheexperimenterduringthisinstruction.The
experimenterthenhidacandyunderoneofthreecupsandlefttheparticipant
aloneinabareroomfortenminutes.Meanwhile,theexperimenterwatchedand
codedbehaviorfromahiddencamera.Thechildwasprovidedwithabelltoring
iftheywantedtheexperimentertocomeback.Theexperimentendedwhenthe
childatethecandy,afterthechildrangthebellforafifthtime,oraftertheten
minutewaitingperiod.Attheendoftheexperimentchildren,werepraisedand
givenareward(forfullexperimentalprotocol,seeAppendixB).
Thebehaviorsthatwerecodedwerethenumberoftimesthechild
touchedthecups(lookingforthecandy),thenumberoftimesthechildrangthe
bell,andthelengthoftimethechildwaiteduntilfinallyeatingthecandy.The
numberoftimesthechildtouchedthecupswasrecordedtomeasurethedegree
towhichchildrencompliedwiththedirectiontonotsearchforthecandy
withoutpermission.Thebellringingbehaviorwascodedasitmightsignal
discomfortandanxiety,whichcouldrelatetochildrensoverallperformanceon
thetask.Torecordameasureforcomplianceanddelayofgratification,thetotal
timeuntilthechildatethecandywascoded.Further,itwasnotedwhetherthe
childreceivedpermissiontoeatthecandybeforetheyateit,anotherimportant
measureofcompliancetodirections.
28
Directlyafterthechildwastouched,theirphysicalandemotional
reactionswerecoded.Childrensphysicalreactionsincludedflinch,neutral,and
bubbly.Childrensemotionalreactionsincludedpositivetalk,negativetalk,
smile,grimace,andnoreaction.Thesereactionswerecodedtoseeifchildrens
behavioralresponsetotouchwouldaffecttheircompliancebehavior.
Duringthetenminutewaitingperiod,thechildsbehaviorswerecoded
eachminuteaseitherdistraction,selfsoothing,gazingatreward,exploring
room,none,orother.Distractionbehaviorincludedanybehaviorthechild
exhibitedthatfocusedtheirattentionawayfromthereward(besidesexploring
room).Selfsoothingbehaviorincludedrocking,holding,andstroking
themselves.Otherbehaviorwasanybehaviorthatdidnotfitintotheabove
categories.Broadlyspeaking,thereweretwomainbehavioralcategories:
distractingandnondistractingbehavior.Distractingbehaviorincluded
distractionandexploringtheroom,whilenondistractingbehaviorincluded
gazingatthereward,selfsoothingbehavior,andnobehavior.Thesebehaviors
werecodedbecausepreviousliteraturehasfoundthatdistractingbehaviors
improvedelayofgratificationperformance(Mischeletal.,1989),sowaiting
behaviorsareofinteresttotheoutcomesofthisstudy.Thebehaviorswere
brokendownwithinthetwomaincategories(distractingandnondistracting
behavior)tobetterunderstandhowdifferenttypesofbehaviorcanaffect
performanceonthetaskmorespecifically.
29
Intercoderreliability
Alldatawasvideorecordedanddoublecodedbyasecondobserverwith
100%intercoderagreement.
Results
WaitTime
Thetwomainoutcomemeasuresofcomplianceinthistaskwerewait
timeandfollowingthedirectionstonotlookfororeatthecandywithout
permission.Bothageandexecutivefunctionwerebalancedacrossthetouchand
notouchconditions(allp>.23;seeTable1).Initialanalysisrevealeda
significanteffectofconditiononwaittime,t(28)=1.77,p=.044,onetailed(see
Figure1).Childrenwhowereinthetouchconditionwaitedsignificantlylonger
toeatthecandythanchildreninthenotouchcondition.However,aunivariate
ANOVAwithwaittimeasthedependentvariable,conditionastheindependent
variable,andage,sex,andexecutivefunctionscoresascovariates,yieldeda
significanteffectofage,F(1,25)=4.29,p=.049,butnotofcondition,F(1,25)=
.283,p=.559(seeFigure2).
Acloserlookattheagedistributionledtothediscoverythatfouroutof
thefiveyoungestparticipantswereinthenotouchconditionandallthreeoldest
participantswereinthetouchcondition.Thisageinequalityacrossconditions
confoundstheeffectofconditiononwaittimesinceolderchildrenwaitedlonger
thanyoungerchildrennomatterthecondition.Followupanalysesexcluded
theseyoungestandoldestchildreninordertomoreevenlydistributeages
30
acrossthetwoconditions(seeTable2).Allfurtheranalysesconcerning
conditionandwaittimewereconductedwiththeseeightparticipantsexcluded1.
AunivariateANOVAonwaittime,controllingforage,sex,andexecutive
function,showedaneffectofage,F(1,19)=13.77,p=.002,aneffectofexecutive
function,F(1,19)=4.71,p=.044,andamaineffectofcondition,F(1,19)=4.55,p
=.048(seeFigure3).Ahierarchicallinearregressiononwaittimeshowedthat
addingcondition(touchornotouch)increasedthevarianceexplainedby11.5%
[changeR2=.115,F(4,17)=5.61,p=.005]overthatexplainedbyjustage,sex,
andexecutivefunction[R2withoutcondition=.454,F(3,18)=4.98,p=.011].
Theeffectofconditiononwaittimecouldbedrivenbymorechildrenin
thetouchconditionwaitingthefulltenminutesthaninthenotouchcondition.
However,therewasnoassociationbetweenwaitingthefulltenminutesand
condition,2(1,n=22)=0.21,p=.647.Inthetouchcondition,8outof11
participantswaitedthefulltenminutes,andinthenotouchcondition7outof
11waitedthefulltenminutes.Itwaspredictedthatnomatterthecondition,
certainchildrenwouldwaitthefulltenminutes.Thus,takingthechildrenwho
waitedthefulltimeoutofthedataandanalysisshowstherealeffectof
condition:touchsignificantlyincreasesthewaittimeofchildrenwhowere
unabletowaitthefulltenminutes,t(5)=3.33p=.020.Excludingthe
participantswhowaitedthefulltenminutes,themeanwaittimeswere:no
touch(n=4)=70.75s,touch(n=3)=335.00s.Theexecutivefunctionscores
forthissubsamplewere:notouchM(SD)=6.0(2.16),touchM(SD)=7.0(6.08).
1Alloftheanalysesweredoublecheckedwiththetruncatedagegroupandcameoutwitha
similarpattern.
31
DirectionFollowing
Only2ofthe30participants(6.67%)atethecandywithoutpermission.
Bothoftheseparticipantswereinthenotouchcondition.
Fourteenoftheparticipants(46.67%)lookedforthecandy,butdidnot
eatit.Whileabouthalfofthechildreninthestudydidbreaktherequesttonot
lookforthecandy,thiswasnotassociatedwithcondition,2(1,n=30)=0.57,p
=.464.Thereisatrendinthedirectionofthenotouchconditionchildren
searchingforthecandymoretimesthanthetouchconditionchildren,even
thoughthemeansarenotsignificantlydifferentbecauseofhighvariability,t(28)
=.564,p=.577.Themean(SD)numberoftimeschildrensearchedforthecandy
was1.27(2.55)forthetouchconditionand1.73(1.94)forthenotouch
condition.
Theremaining14participants(46.67%)didnotlookfornoreatthe
candy(fullycompliant).Ofthese14participants,6wereinthenotouch
conditionand8wereinthetouchcondition.Conditionwasnotsignificantly
associatedwithcomplianceoneatingbehavior,2(1,n=30)=2.14,p=.143,nor
searchingbehaviorsasmentionedearlier.Further,agedidnotpredict
complianceoneatingbehavior,t(28)=1.27,p=.214,norsearchingbehavior,
t(28)=1.43p=.164.Overall,mostofthechildrencompliedwiththecritical
requesttonoteatthecandywithoutpermission.
32
ExecutiveFunction
Aspredicted,executivefunctionwascorrelatedwithage,r(28)=.516,p
=.004(seeFigure4),withexecutivefunctionskillsincreasingwithage.Inthis
experiment,executivefunctionwasreversecoded,with24beingtheworstscore
and0beingthebest.Themean(SD)rawscoreof4yearoldparticipantswas
9.59(4.66)withapercentcorrectscoreof56.69%(20.00),whilethemeanraw
scoreof5yearoldparticipantswas4.54(2.73)withapercentcorrectscoreof
81.09%(11.36).
Althoughnofullsimplecorrelationwasfoundbetweenwaittimeand
executivefunction,r(20)=.15,p=.492,thepartialcorrelationaftercontrolling
forageandsexwassignificant,r(20)=.45,p=.045.
ParentSurvey
Oneparentdidnotfillouttheparentsurvey,so29ofthe30participant
surveyswereanalyzed(n=15intouch,n=14innotouch).Theparentreports
ofhowcomfortabletheirchildwaswithfamilyandfriendstouchdidnot
significantlydifferbetweenconditions[notouchM(SD)=5.86(.949);touch
M(SD)=5.54(1.51);t(27)=.19,p=.850].Further,theparentratingsofhow
oftentheirchildseekstouchwerenotdifferentbetweenconditions[notouchM
(SD)=6.71(.47);touchM(SD)=7.00(0);t(27)=1.81,p=.081]andtheparent
ratingsoftheirchildbeingcomfortablewithtouchfromanewpersonwerenot
differentacrossconditions[notouchM(SD)=6.71(.47);touchM(SD)=6.67,
33
(.82);t(27)=.69,p=.498].Ingeneral,thedatashowthatchildrenoftenseek
touchandaregenerallycomfortablewithtouchfrombotholdandnewpeople.
Theparentratingsofthenumberofinstancestheirchildhadtowaitin
thepast24hourswasnotcorrelatedwiththeirchildswaittime,r(27)=.15,p=
.466.Parentsreportedthattheirchildrenhadtowaitamean(SD)of6.43(2.57)
timesinthepast24hoursinthetouchgroupandmean(SD)of6.29(2.78)times
inthenotouchgroup.
ChildResponsetoTouch
Thedominantemotionalresponsetotouchwassmileandthedominant
physicalresponsetotouchwasneutral.Thechildsphysicalreactiontothe
experimenterstouchwasnotapredictorofthechildswaittime,F(1,13)=.03,
p=.877.Therewasalsonosignificanteffectofthechildsemotionalreactionto
theexperimenterstouchonwaittime,F(1,13)=3.39,p=.088.Thiswasonly
marginallynonsignificant;therewasatrendtowardschildrenwithemotional
reactionsofpositivetalkwaitinglongerthanchildrenwiththeemotional
reactionsofsmileandnoreaction(seeFigure5).Further,thesexofthechild
didnotaffecttheiremotionalorphysicalreactiontotheexperimenterstouch
[emotional:2(3,n=30)=4.14,p=.247;physical:2(3,n=30)=3.64,p=.304].
WaitingBehavior
Themostcommonwaitingbehavioracrosssubjectswasdistraction(see
table3).Morechildreninthenotouchgroupexhibitedbehaviorsofnone,
34
distraction,andselfsoothing,whilemorechildreninthetouchcondition
displayedbehaviorsofexploringroom,gazingatreward,andother.Ofthe
twochildrenwhoexhibitedotherbehavior,onejustsatpatientlythewhole
timewhiletheotherheldthebellinherhandsformostofherwaittime.The
waitingbehaviorwasnotequallydistributedacrossconditions,2(5,n=30)=
12.47,p=.029(seetable3).Specifically,alltheparticipantsinthetouch
conditionexhibitedawaitingbehavior,whileonly5outofthe15participantsin
thenotouchconditionexhibitedawaitingbehavior.AonewayANOVAon
waitingbehaviorsandwaittimeshowedthatwaitingbehaviorwassignificantly
relatedtowaittime,F(5,24)=10.56,p<.001.ATukeyposthoctestshowed
thatthenobehaviorparticipantsmeanwaittimewassignificantlydifferent
fromalltheotherdominantbehaviors(allp<.011),whilethewaittimesforthe
otherdominantbehaviorswerenotsignificantlydifferentfromeachother(allp
>.710).
Whenthesubjectswaitingbehaviorwasgroupedintothetwobroader
categoriesofdistractionbehavior(distraction,exploringroom)andnon
distractionbehavior(selfsoothing,gazingatreward,none,other),therewasa
relationshipbetweenwaitingbehaviorandwaittime,t(28)=2.96,p=.006.The
childrenwhoexhibiteddistractionbehaviorwaitedsignificantlylongerthanthe
childrenwhodidnotexhibitdistractionbehavior[distractionM(SD)=538s
(121.35),nodistractionM(SD)=313.38s(281.06)].However,distraction
behaviorwasnotrelatedtocondition,2(1,n=30)=.13,p=.713.
35
Thesubjectswerealsocodedforthenumberofdominantwaiting
behaviors.Inthenotouchcondition,9ofthe15participantsexhibitedmore
thanonedominantwaitingbehaviorandinthetouchcondition12ofthe15
participantsexhibitedmorethanonedominantwaitingbehavior.Thedisplayof
morethanonedominantwaitingbehaviorwasnotassociatedwithcondition,2
(1,n=30)=1.43,p=.232.Regardlessofthecondition,thechildrenwho
displayedmorethanonewaitingbehaviorwaitedsignificantlylongerthanthe
childrenwhodisplayedonlyonedominantwaitingbehavior,t(28)=7.54,p<
.001.
Siblings
Thenumberofsiblingsthatchildrenhadwasequallydistributedacross
conditions,[t(27)=.94,p=.353;touch:M(SD)=1.27(.884);notouch:M(SD)=
1.57(.852)].Nocorrelationwasfoundbetweennumberofsiblingsandwait
time,r(28)=.04,p=.864(seeTable4).
Sex
Sexdidnotpredictwaittime,t(28)=.99,p=.331,eatingbehavior(eat
withpermission/noteatwithpermission),2(1,n=30)=1.43,p=.232,nor
searchingbehavior(looked/didntlook),2(1,n=30)=1.43,p=.232.
36
BellRingingBehavior
Thenumberofchildrenwhorangthebellwasequalacrossconditions,2
(1,n=30)=.68,p=.409.Ofthe30participants,22rangthebell(12intouch,10
innotouch).Bellringingbehaviorwasnotpredictiveofwaittime,t(28)=1.26,
p=.219.Thenumberoftimesthatchildrenrangthebellinthetouchcondition,
M(SD)=1.4(1.29),andthenotouchcondition,M(SD)=1.4(1.40),wereequal,
F(28)=.52,p=1.00.Thenumberoftimesachildrangthebellwasnot
correlatedwiththeirtotalwaittime,r(28)=.17,p=.376.
Discussion
Theresultswereconsistentwithadultfindingsandfoundthattouch
increasedcomplianceinpreschoolagechildren.Thechildreninthetouch
conditionwaitedsignificantlylongerbeforeeatingthecandythanthechildrenin
thenotouchcondition.However,touchdidnotincreasecompliancetothe
directiontonoteatthecandywithoutpermission;insteadmostchildrenwere
compliantwiththisrequestnomatterthecondition.Conditionalsodidnotaffect
childrenscompliancetothedirectiontonotlookforthecandyduringthe
waitingperiod.Abouthalfofthechildreninthestudysearchedforthecandy
duringthewaitingperiod,withequalamountsinbothconditions.Themore
compliantchildrenwhowaitedlongerexhibitedmoredistractionbehaviors
duringthetenminutewaitingperiod.Executivefunction,siblingnumber,sex,
andbellringingbehaviorswerenotpredictivevariablesoftaskperformancein
termsofwaittime.
37
Compliance
Theliteraturestronglysupportstheideathattouchincreasescompliance
inadults(Kleinke,1977;Crusco&Wetzel,1984;Hornik&Ellis,1988;Willis&
Hamm,1980).Thefewstudiesthathavelookedattouchandchildrenshowed
positiveoutcomes,withreasontobelievethatthetouchandcompliancetrend
wouldholdtrueinchildren(Wheldalletal.,1986;Clements&Tracy,1977;
Kazfin&Klock,1973).Inthecurrentstudy,compliancewasmeasuredby
childrenswaittimebeforeeatingthecandyandcompliancetothedirectionsto
notlookfororeatthecandywithoutpermission.Thisstudyfoundthattouch
increasedthetimechildrenwaitedtoeatthecandy,meaningthattouch
increasedchildrenswillingnesstocomplywithdirections.Thechildrenthat
waitedlongertriedhardertofollowtheexperimentersrequestforthechildto
waituntiltheexperimenterwasdonewithherworktoreceivepermissiontoeat
thecandy.Hence,themainfindingofthisstudyisthattouchincreaseschildrens
compliancetowaittoeatacandyreward.
Thereareseveralreasonswhytouchmayincreasechildrenscompliance
towaitlonger.Touchhasbeenfoundtodecreasestresshormonesandreduce
perceivedstress(HoltLunstadetal.,2008;Coenetal.,2006).Sittinginaroom
alonefortenminutesisastressfulsituationinitselfforchildren.Addinga
temptingcandythatonemustresisteatingonlyincreasesthestress.Itmaybe
thatthebrieftouchfromtheexperimenterdecreasesthechildsstress,enabling
themtofeelcomfortablewaitingalongeramountoftime.
38
Relatedtothis,touchhasalsobeenfoundtoincreaseattachment(Harlow
&Zimmerman,1958;Field,2003;Weissetal.,2000;Hofer&Shair,1980).The
touchcouldmakethechildfeelmoreconnectedtotheexperimenterandthus
moreinvestedinfollowingherdirections.Thisincreaseinconnectionbetween
thechildandtheexperimentercoulditselfimprovethechildsdirection
followingbymakingthechildmoreemotionallyattachedtotheexperimenter
andmoreinterestedinpleasingher.
Onaneurallevel,bothpositivetouchandinhibitorycontrolactivatethe
orbitofrontalcortex(Francisetal.,1999;Rollsetal.,2003a;Cardinal,2006).The
orbitofrontalcortexhasalsobeenstronglyimplicatedintheassessmentof
rewardvalue(Rolls,2003b).Perhaps,positivetouchactivatesthereward
pathwaythroughtheorbitofrontalcortex,causingchildrentobemorecompliant
withwaitingforareward.Sincetheorbitofrontalcortexisalsoinvolvedin
inhibitorycontrol,itsactivationmayalsocauseanincreaseindelayof
gratificationfromthetouch.Therelationshipbetweentouchandthe
orbitofrontalcortexshouldberesearchedinfuturestudiessincetheexactneural
connectionbetweenthetwohasnotbeenfullyexplored.
Anotherneuralexplanationmaybethatpositive,CTfiberafferent
activatingtouchstimulatesthelimbicarea,causingapositiveemotional
responsetothetouch,whichwouldleadtocompliantbehavior(Olaussonetal.
2002).Sincethetouchinthisstudytakesplaceonthenonglabrousskinonthe
back,itactivatesCTfiberafferents(McCabeetal.,2008).Generallyspeaking,the
activationofthelimbicareacouldcausefeelingsofpositiveemotionandmake
39
thechildmorecomfortablewiththeexperimenter(supportedbystudiesthat
foundthattouchincreasesfeelingsofattachmente.g.Harlow&Zimmerman,
1958;Field,2003;Weissetal.,2000;Hofer&Shair,1980),causingthechildto
bemoreinvestedincomplying.Thisinteractionbetweentouchandthelimbic
systemshouldbeinvestigatedinfuturestudiestobetterunderstandchildrens
emotionalresponsetotouch.
Theothermeasureofcomplianceinthisstudywaswhetherchildren
followedthedirectionstonotlookfororeatthecandywithoutpermissionfrom
theexperimenter.Thereforethereweretwowaysinwhichchildrencould
demonstratecomplianceinthisstudy:compliancetonotlookforthecandyand
compliancetonoteatthecandywithoutpermission.Mostofthechildrenwere
compliantwithnoteatingthecandywithoutpermission.Eithertheywouldwait
thefulltenminutesuntiltheexperimentercamebacktogivepermission,or
theywouldringthebellinsistingtoeatthecandyatsomepointduringtheten
minutes.Inbothofthesesituations,thechildcompliedbygettingpermission
fromtheexperimenterbeforeeatingthecandy.Hence,touchdidnotincrease
compliancewitheatingbehavior;rathermostofthechildrenwerecompliantin
bothconditions(touchandnotouch).Interestingly,thetwochildrenthatdid
surreptitiouslyeatthecandywithoutpermissionwereinthenotouchcondition,
butthelowbaserateofeatingcandywithoutpermissionmakesithardtodraw
anystrongconclusion.
Abouthalfoftheparticipantslookedforthecandywithoutpermission,
butthetouchconditiondidnotaffectthisbreachofcompliance.Lookingforthe
40
candywithoutpermissionwasaneasierruletobreakthannoteatingthecandy
becausetherewasnoobviousdisplayofrulebreaking.Sincethechildrendidnot
knowtheywerebeingwatched,itwaseasiertopeekunderacuptolookforthe
candythaneatacandywiththeobviousrepercussionsoftheexperimenter
noticingthatthecandywasgone.Thereforeitmakessensethatmorechildren
wouldbreaktheruleofnotsearchingforthecandythannoteatingthecandy;
theconsequenceswerelessobvious.
Thisstudyfoundnorelationbetweentouchandcomplianceinchildrento
thedirectionstonotlookfororeatthecandywithoutpermission.Therearea
fewreasonswhythisrelationshipmaynothavebeenfound.Sincemostofthe
childrenwaitedtoreceivepermissionbeforeeatingthecandy(whetheritbeten
minutesortenseconds),themanipulationofaskingchildrentowaittoeatfood
mayperhapsbetoocommonplaceandpracticedinthehomeandschool
environmenttobeagoodindicatorofhowtouchaffectscompliance.Forthis
reason,othermeasures,suchaswaittime,wereperhapsbetterindicatorsof
complianceinthisstudy.
Thebehaviorofsearchingforthecandywithoutpermissionprovedtobe
difficulttointerpret.Whilecodingthisstudy,childrenweremarkedas
searchingforthecandywhenevertheytouchedacup.Insomeofthese
situations,thechildmayhavejustbeenplayingwiththecupsoutofboredom
andnotspecificallylookingforthecandy.Thecupswerealsoproblematic
becausethechildrenthoughttheysignaledahideandseekgamewheretheyhad
torememberwherethecandywashidden.Thus,childrenmayhavebeen
41
provokedtosearchforthecandyduringthewaittimetomakesurethey
rememberedwhereitwashiddenwhentheexperimentercameback.Infuture
studies,cupsshouldnotbeused;ratherthecandyshouldbeplaceddirectlyin
frontofthechild.
DelayofGratification
Inordertocomplywiththedirectionstonoteatthecandyuntilgiven
permission,childrenmustutilizegoodselfcontrol.Thisstudyfoundthattouch
increaseschildrenstotalwaittime,anindicatorthattouchalsoincreases
childrensdelayofgratification.Inotherwords,thechildrenwhoweretouched
triedhardertocomplywiththedirectionsbywaitinglongertoeatthecandy,
andconsequentlyalsohadtoemploybetterdelayofgratification.However,the
causeandeffectoftouchincreasingcompliance,andthusdelayofgratification
orviceversaishardtodissociate.Perhapsdelayofgratificationisthemore
appropriatelenstolookatthisfindingsincecomplianceinthistaskreliesso
heavilyondelayofgratificationperformance.Therelationshipbetweentouch
anddelayofgratificationspecificallyshouldbeexploredinfuturestudies.
ExecutiveFunction
Executivefunctionscoreswerenotcorrelatedwithwaittimeinthisstudy
independently,butratherwerecorrelatedwithwaittimewhenagewas
partialedout.Thispositivecorrelationbetweenexecutivefunctionandwaittime
replicatespreviousfindingsthatexecutivefunctionanddelayofgratification
42
performancearerelated(Eigstietal.,2006).However,thispositivecorrelation
mightbemisleadingsincebothexecutivefunctionandwaittimearesohighly
correlatedwithage.Itseemsthatagepredictseachvariablemorestronglythan
thevariablespredicteachother.
Onereasonthattherewasonlyarelationshipbetweenexecutivefunction
anddelayofgratificationwhenagewaspartialledoutmaybebecauseeven
thoughexecutivefunctionsallstemfromthefrontallobe,theyarenotallpartof
thesamesystem(Miyakeetal.,2000).Miyakeetal.(2000)proposedthat
executivefunctiontasksconsistofthreecomponents:workingmemory,
inhibition,andmentalsetshifting.Theexecutivefunctiontaskusedinthe
currentstudyrequiredholdingaruleinmind,respondingtothatrule,andthen
inhibitingthelearnedprepotentresponse.Thiskindoftaskisclassifiedas
complexresponseinhibitionandincludesallthreeexecutivefunction
components(Garon,Bryson,&Smith,2008).However,delayofgratification
tasksrequirewithholdingordelayinganautomatic,prepotentresponse,which
isclassifiedassimpleresponseinhibitionandonlycomprisestheexecutive
functioncategoryofinhibition(Garonetal.,2008).Thus,thekindofexecutive
functiontaskusedinthisstudymaynothavebeendirectlyrelatedtothekindof
inhibitorycontrolthatwasneededinthecurrentstudiesdelayofgratification
task.Furthermore,thesmallsamplesizeandrestrictedrangeofwaitingscores
(fromallthechildrenwhowaitedtenminutes)reducedthechancesoffindinga
fullcorrelation.
43
ChildrenandTouch
Twofactorswereconsideredwhenevaluatinghowchildrenrespondedto
touch:theparentsurveyandthecodingofthechildsresponsetothe
experimenterstouch.Ontheparentsurvey,parentsratedthattheirchildren
wereverycomfortablewithtouchfromfamilyandfriendsandnew
acquaintances.Whenratinghowoftentheirchildseekstouch,theratingswere
evenhigher.Thisdatashowsthatpreschoolagechildrenlikebeingtouchedand
arecomfortablewithtouchfromavarietyofpeople,notjustclosefamilyand
friends.
Supportingtheparentsurveyresponses,mostchildrenresponded
positivelytotheexperimenterstouchinthisstudy.Thechildrensdominant
physicalreactiontotheexperimenterstouchwasneutral,whilethedominant
emotionalreactionwasasmile.Althoughthechildrensphysicalandemotional
responseswerenotgoodpredictorsoftaskperformance,therewasatrendfor
childrenwhorespondedtothetouchwithpositivetalk(e.g.yes,orokay)
waitinglonger.Thiscouldmeanthatchildrenwhorespondbettertotouchare
morelikelytoexhibitbeneficialbehaviorsfromtouch,suchaswaitinglongerin
thistask.Thiscouldalsomeanthatverbalcompliancehelpsperformanceorthat
thereisafitbetweenachildsresponsivenesstotouchandtheeffectivenessof
touchasaninterventionforthatchild.
Therehasbeendebateinthetouchliteratureastowhethergender
affectsbehaviorinresponsetotouch(e.g.Crusco&Wetzel,1984;Stephen&
44
Zweigenhaft,1986).Inthecurrentstudytheexperimentersweretwofemales
andtheemotionalandphysicalreactionofthechildrentotheexperimenters
touchwasthesameinbothgendersoftheparticipants.Theresultsshowedthat
sexwasnotagoodpredictorofdelayofgratificationperformanceor
compliance.Henceitseemsthatinthisstudy,genderdidnotaffectbehaviorin
responsetotouch.Itwouldbeusefulinafuturestudytohaveamale
experimenteraswellasafemaleexperimenter.
Totheauthorsknowledge,thisisthefirsttouchstudyonchildrenina
labsetting.Itisreaffirmingthatthechildrenrespondedwelltothetouchinthis
experiment.Infact,onechild(inthetouchcondition)rangthebellduringher
waitingtimetogiveahugtotheexperimenter.Thus,thetouchinthisstudywas
wellreceivedbythechildren.
WaitingBehaviors
Dominantwaitingbehaviorswerecodedinthisstudybecausepast
literaturehasfoundthatchildrensdistractionbehaviorsondelayof
gratificationtasksaffecttheirperformance(Mischeletal.1989).Thewaiting
behaviorscodedonthecurrenttaskweredistraction,selfsoothing,exploring
room,gazingatreward,none,andother.Themostcommonwaitingbehavior
acrossconditionswasdistraction.Thisisabroadtermthatcanmeananything
fromplayingwiththecarpettosingingsongs.Mischeletal.(1989)foundthat
childrenwhoweretoldbyanexperimentertothinkfun,distractingthoughts
duringthedelayofgratificationtaskwaitedsignificantlylongerthancontrol
45
children.SimilartoMischelsfindings,thecurrentstudyfoundthatchildrenwho
exhibiteddominantwaitingbehaviorsofdistraction(distraction,exploring
room)waitedsignificantlylongertoeatthecandythanchildrenwhoexhibited
nodominantwaitingbehaviorsofdistraction(selfsoothing,gazingatreward,
other,none).
Displaysofdistractionbehaviorswereequalacrossbothconditions
(touchandnotouch).Therefore,althoughtouchincreaseschildrenswaittime,it
doesnotdosobyincreasingtherangeofdistractionbehaviors.Touchmust
increasechildrensdelayofgratificationbyadifferentmode.Morechildrenin
thetouchconditiondisplayedthebehaviorofexploringroomandinorderto
exhibitthisbehavior,theyhadtofeelcomfortablewiththeirsurroundings.This
supportsthatideathatperhapstouchreducesstress(exploredearlierinthis
paper)andputsthechildatease,allowingthemtowaitlonger.
OtherVariables
Manyvariablesinthisstudywereequallydistributedacrossconditions,
supportingthattouchisamainpredictorofwaittime.Siblingswereequally
distributedacrossconditionsandwerenotfoundtobeagoodpredictorofwait
time.Onewouldthinkthatinahouseholdwithmoresiblings,childrenwould
havetospendmoretimewaitingthaninhouseholdswithonlyonechild.This
wasnotfoundinthecurrentstudy,andtotheauthorsknowledgehasnotbeen
lookedatinotherliterature.Hence,thismayalsobethefirststudytoshowthat
numberofsiblingsdoesnotaffectperformanceonadelayofgratificationtask.
46
Morethanhalfthechildreninthestudyrangthebringmebackbell.The
bellringingbehaviorcouldbeanindicatorofanxiety,ashortattentionspan,or
justconfusionwiththetask.Onemightpredictthatchildrenwhorangthebell
morewouldwaitlongerbothbecauseofconstantremindersofthe
experimentersrequestforthemtowaitandbecauseofthedistractionand
comforttheexperimenterspresencemayhaveprovided.Ontheotherhand,
childrenwhorangthebellmorecouldbepredictedtowaitlessbecausebell
ringingbehaviorcouldindicateanxietyandfearofbeingalone.Interestingly,
bellringingbehaviorwasequalinbothconditionsandwasnotagoodpredictor
ofwaittime.
Inthetaskscurrentform,bellringingbehaviorishardtoanalyze.The
originalpurposeofthebellwastomakethechildrenfeelsafe.Ideally,thebell
ringingbehaviorshouldnotbeafactorinpredictingperformanceonthistask.
Unexpectedly,theauthorsfoundthatchildrenviewedthebellasafun
distraction.Itwasoftenunclearwhetherthechildwasplayingwiththebellor
ringingthebell.Forthisreason,bellringingbehaviorwasanalyzedinthisstudy,
butinfutureversionsofthetask,thebellshouldbelessdistractingandmore
obviouswhensounded(thereforenotanoutcomemeasure,butratherjusta
partoftheprotocol).
Limitations
Thebiggestlimitationwiththisstudywasitssmallsamplesize.Alarger
samplesizewouldprovidestrongerstatisticalpowerandthusmorereliable
47
findings.Thereshouldalsobeanequalamountofmaleandfemaleparticipants
infutureversionsofthisstudy.
Inordertobetterteaseoutthecomplianceeffect,itwouldbeusefulto
modifytheprotocolforthisstudy.Perhapsadifferentcompliancetaskshouldbe
usedthatislesspracticedineverydaylife.Forexample,childrenoftenhaveto
waituntiltheycaneatdessertathome,asituationthatisquitesimilartothe
currenttask.Thefutureversionofthistaskshouldalsobeharder,toavoid
ceilingeffects.Onesolution,mentionedearlier,wouldbetonotusecupsand
havethefoodinplainsight.Thiswouldrampupthetemptationfactorofthe
studyaswellasdecreasethecomplicationsofhavingtwocompliancefactors
(searchingforcandy,eatingcandy).Instead,compliancewouldonlybe
measuredbywhetherthechildeatsthecandywithorwithoutpermission.
Inthecurrentstudy,fivechildrenhadtogotothebathroominthemiddle
ofthetenminutewaitingperiod.Inthefuture,theprotocolshouldincludea
visittothebathroombeforethetestingstarts.Thechildrenshouldbetoldthat
oncethestudystarts,theywouldnothaveachancetousethebathroom.
FutureDirections
Thecurrentstudyopensthedoorstotherealmofresearchonchildren
andtouch.Thisstudyshowedarelationshipbetweentouchandcomplianceand
delayofgratification,buttheinterplaybetweenthesethreevariablesishardto
teaseapart.Inordertobetterunderstandtherelationshipbetweenthem,a
differentstudyshouldlookatcomplianceandtouchmoredirectlyinchildren,
48
separatefromanymeasureofdelayofgratification.Forexample,the
experimentercouldaskforhelpfromthechildtocleanuparoomorsolvea
puzzle(manipulatingtouchvs.notouch),whichrequiresnodelayof
gratification.
Inordertobetterunderstandtherelationshipbetweentouchanddelay
ofgratificationspecifically,adifferentstudyshouldlookattouchanddelayof
gratificationinchildrenseparatefromacompliancemeasure.Itmightbe
interestingtouseamorecommondelayofgratificationtask,suchasMischels
originalmarshmallowtask(Mischel&Ebbesen,1970),tofurtherexploretouchs
effects.InMischelsmarshmallowtask,thechildchooseswhethertheywantto
waitforalargerrewardoreatasmallerrewardimmediately,hencecompliance
isnotavariableinthistask.Anotherbenefitofusingthiswellreplicated
protocolisthatitwouldallowforcomparisonsacrosstouchstudiesand
longitudinalstudiesonthepredictivevalueofdelayofgratificationtasks
(Mischeletal.,1988;Shodaetal.,1990;Mischeleta.,1989;Ayduketal.,2000).
Thecurrentfindingssupportresultsfrompaststudiesthathavefounda
relationshipbetweentouchandattentivebehaviorintheclassroom(Wheldallet
al.,1986;Kazfin&Klock,1973).However,inpaststudiesthisrelationshipwas
confoundedsincetouchwasalsogivenwithotherformsofpositivefeedback.
Hence,thisstudytrulysupportstouchasthemainpredictivevariableinself
controlandtangentially,attentivebehavior.Futureresearchshouldexplorethe
relationshipbetweentouchandselfregulationingeneral,notjustthrougha
49
delayofgratificationtask.Oneideamightbetolookattheeffectsoftouchina
classroomsettingonselfcontrolbehavior,notjustattentivebehavior.
Additionally,itmightbeinterestingtolookatchildrensdifferent
responsesfromparentsandexperimenterstouch.Mostlikely,children
interprettouchfromtheirparentmuchdifferentlythantheydotouchfroma
newperson,whichwouldaffecthowtheymightrespondtothetouch.Children
aremorefamiliarwithtouchfromaparent,whichmaydecreasethetouchs
complianceeffectsinthissituation.Afutureformofthisstudycouldbe
conductedwithaparentgivingthedirectionsandadministeringthetouch.
Clements&Tracy(1977)foundthattouchcouldbeusedtoincrease
performanceonatask.Perhapsincreasedperformanceonataskisabyproduct
oftouchincreasingcomplianceanddelayofgratification.Itwouldbeinteresting
tolookattheeffectsoftouchonincreasedperformanceonanintellectualtask
bothinalabsettingandlaterinamorenaturalsettinglikeaclassroom.
Fromadevelopmentalpointofview,itwouldbeinterestingtoexpand
theagerangeinthisstudy.Perhapstouchwouldhaveamuchdifferenteffecton
adolescents,anagewhentouchstartstodevelopdifferentmeanings.Thiscould
helpuslearnhowourunderstandingandreactiontotouchchangesaswegrow
andcouldhelpusknowwhenitisimportantandappropriatetoimplement
touchbasedinterventions.
50
Implications
Thefindingthattouchincreasescompliance,andthereforedelayof
gratificationhasfarreachingimplicationsfortouchbasedintervention.Delay
ofgratificationisawellstudieddevelopmentalphenomenonwithfascinating
longitudinalfindings.InWalterMischelsgroundbreakingworkondelayof
gratification,hefoundremarkabledifferencesbetweenpreschoolagechildren
whowaitedforalargerrewardandchildrenwhopreferredtotakeasmaller
rewardimmediately.Thechildrenwhowaitedlongerat4yearsofagein
Mischelsoriginaltaskweredescribedbytheirparentsmorethantenyearslater
asadolescentswhoweremoreacademicallyandsociallycompetentthentheir
peers(Mischel,Shods,&Peak,1988).Furthermore,the4yearoldswhowaited
longerwerefoundtobemoreattentive,betterabletoconcentrate,andtoexhibit
greaterselfcontrolandfrustrationtolerancethentheirpeersasadolescents
(Shoda,Mischel,&Peak,1990).Thesesame4yearoldsalsoscoredsignificantly
higherontheverbalandquantitativeSATs(Mischel,Shoda,&Rodriguea,1989).
Asadults,thechildrenwhowaitedlongeronthedelayofgratificationtaskat4
yearsofagewerealsolesslikelytousedrugs(Ayduketal.,2000).
Thisstudyshowsthattouchcanbeusedtoincreaseselfcontrolwhen
childrenaredirectlyaskedtowaitforsomething.Inasocietywithagrowing
numberofcasesofexternalizingdisorders(suchasADHD,oppositionaldefiant
disorder,andconductdisorder)theeasyinterventionoftouchisarevolutionary,
yetsimplewaythatsocietycanhelpfosterinhibitorycontrol(Lavigneetal.,
1996;BriggsGowanetal.2000).Touchisinexpensiveandeasyforparentsand
51
teacherstouse.Thisfindingarguesthattheeducationalsystemshould
reconsiderbanishingtouchintheclassroom,asitmayhelpwithchildrensself
regulationandsuccessfulbehaviorlaterinlife.
52
References
Associated Press. (2006, December 11). Texas child suspended after hugging aid.
MSNBC. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16159302/ns/us_news-
education
Ayduk, O., Mendoza-Denton, R., Mischel, W., Downey, G., Peake, P.K., &
Rodriguez, M. (2000). Regulating the interpersonal self: strategic self-regulation for
coping with rejection sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
776-792.
Beachy, J. (2003). Premature infant massage in the NICU. Neonatal Nework, 22, 39-
45.
Belkin, L. (2009, March 30). Banning hugs at school. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/banning-hugs-at-school/
BriggsGowan,M.,Horwitz,S.M.,SchabStone,M.E.,Leventhal,J.M.,&Leaf,P.J.
(2000).Mentalhealthinpediatricsettings:Distributionofdisordersandfactors
relatedtoserviceuse.JournalofAmericanAcademyofChildAdolescent
Psychiatry,39(7),841849.
Carlson, S., & Moses, L.J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control and
childrens theory of mind. Child Development, 72(4), 1032-1053.
Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: social
regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1032-1039.
Clements, J. E., & Tracy, D. B. (1977). Effects of touch and verbal reinforcement on
the classroom behavior of emotionally disturbed boys. Exceptional Children, 43(7),
553-554.
Crusco, A. H. & Wetzel, C. G. (1984). The Midas touch: the effects of interpersonal
touch on restaurant tipping. Personality and Social Pyschology Bulletin, 10(4), 512-
517.
Davidson, M., Amso, D., Anderson, L.C., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of
cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: evidence from
manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44,
2037-2078.
Dieter, J., Field, T., Hernandez-Reif, M., Emory, E., & Redzepi, M. (2007). Stable
53
preterm infants gain more weight and sleep less after five days of massage therapy.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28, 403-411.
Eigsti, I., Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Ozlem, A., Dadlani, M., Casey, B. J.
(2006). Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence and young
adulthood. Psychological Science, 17(6), 478-484.
Feldman, R., Singer, M., Zagoory, O. (2010). Touch attenuates infants physiological
reactivity to stress. Developmental Stress, 13(2), 271-278.
Field, T. (1999). American adolescence touch each other less and are more aggressive
toward their peers as compared with French adolescence. Adolescence, 34(136), 753-
758.
Francis, S., Rolls, E. T., Bowtell, R., McGlone, F., ODoherty, J., Browning, A.,
Smith, E. (1999). The representation of pleasant touch in the brain and its relationship
with taste and olfactory areas. NeuroReport, 10(3), 453-459.
Garon,N.,Bryson,S.E.,&Smith,I.M.(2008).Executivefunctioninpreschoolers:
areviewusinganintegrativeframework.PsychologicalBulletin,134(1),3160.
Glod, M. (2007, June 18). Va. schools no-contact rule is a touchy subject. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061701179.html
Gueguen, N. (2002b). Kind of touch, gender and compliance with a request. Studia
Psychologica, 44(2), 167-172.
Gueguen, N. (2002d). Status, apparel and touch: their joint effects on compliance to a
request. North American Journal of Psychology, 4(2), 279-286.
Gueguen, N., & Fischer-Lokou, J. (2003). Tactile contact and spontaneous help: an
evaluation in a natural setting. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(6), 785-787.
54
Hernandez-Reif, M., Diego, J., & Field, T. (2005).Vagal activity, gastric motility, and
weight gain in massaged preterm neonates. The Journal of Pediatrics, 147, 50-55.
Hernandez-Reif, M., Diego, J., & Field, T. (2007). Preterm infants show reduced
stress behavior and activity after 5 days of massage therapy. Infant Behavior and
Development, 30, 557-561.
Hertenstein, M. J., & Campos, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation via maternal touch.
Infancy, 2(4), 549-566.
Hertenstein, M. J., Holmes, R., McCullough, M., & Keltner, D. (2009). The
communication of emotion via touch. Emotion, 9(4), 566-573.
Hofer, M., & Shair, H. N. (1980). Sensory processes in the control of isolation-
induced ultrasonic vocalizations by 2-week-old rats. Journal of Comparatice and
Physiological Psychology, 94, 271-279.
Hornik, J. (1987). The effect of touch and gaze upon compliance and interest of
interviewees. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127(6), 681-683.
Hornik, J., & Ellis, S. (1988). Strategies to secure compliance for a mall intercept
interview. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 52(4), 539-551.
Kazfin, A. E., & Klock, J. (1973). The effect of nonverbal teacher approval on
student attentive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6(4), 643-654.
Kleinke,C.(1977).Compliancetorequestsmadebygazingandtouching
experimentersinfieldsettings.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,13,
218223.
55
Kuhn, C., Schamber, S., Field, T., Symanski, R., Zimmerman, E., Scafidi, F., &
Roberts, J. (1991). Tactile-kinesthetic stimulation effects on the sympathetic and
adrenocortical function in preterm infants. The Journal of Pediatrics, 119, 434-440.
Lavigne,J.V.,Gibbons,R.D.,ChristofrelK.K.,Arend,R.,Rossenbaum,D.,Binns,
H.,Isaacs,C.(1996).Prevalenceratesandcorrelatesofpsychiatricdisorders
amongpreschoolchildren.JournalofAmericanAcademyofChildAdolescent
Psychiatry,35(2),201214.
Liu, D., Dioro, J., Tennenbaum, B., Caldji, C., Francis, D., Freedman, A., Meaney,
M. J. (1997) Maternal care, hippocampal glucocorticoid receptors, and hypothalamic-
pituitary-adrenal response to stress. Science, 277, 1659-1662.
Loken, L., Wessberg, J., Morrison, I., McGlone, F., & Olausson, H. (2009). Coding
of pleasant touch by unmyelinated afferents in humans. Nature Neuroscience, 12(5),
547-548.
McCabe, C., Edmund, R. T., Bilderbeck, A., & McGlone, F. (2008). Cognitivie
influences on the affective representation of touch and the sight of touch in the human
brain. SCAN, 3, 97-108.
Meaney, M. J., Mitchell, J. B., Aitken, D. H., Bhatnagar, S., Bodnoff, S. R., Iny, L. J.,
& Sarrieau, A. (1991). The effects of neonatal handling on the development of the
adrenocortical response to stress: implications for neuropathology and cognitive
deficits later in life. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16(1-3), 85-103.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P.K. (1988). The nature of adolescent
competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 687-696.
Miyake,A.,Friedman,N.,Emerson,M.,Witziki,A.,Hoserter,A.,&Wager,T.D.
(2000).Theunityanddiversityofexecutivefunctionsandtheircontributionsto
complexfrontallobetasks:Alatentvariableanalysis.CognitivePsychology,41,
49100.
56
Olausson, H., Lamarre, Y., Backlun, H., Morin, C., Wallin, B.G., Starck, G.,
Bushnell, M.C. (2002). Unmyelinated tactile afferents signal touch and project to
insular cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 5 (9), 900-904.
Patterson, M. L., Powell, J. L., & Lenihan, M. G. (1986). Touch, compliance, and
interpersonal affect. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10(1), 41-50.
Rolls, E. T., ODoherty, J., Kringelback, M. L., Fancis, S., Bowtell, R., & McGlone,
F. (2003a). Representations of pleasant and painful touch in the human orbitofrontal
and cingulate corticies. Cerebral Cortex, 13(3), 308-317.
Rolls, E. T. (2003b). The orbitofrontal cortex and reward. Cerebral Cortex, 10(3),
284-294.
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P.K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and
social competence from preschool delay of gratification: identifying diagnostic
conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26, 978-986.
Smith, D. E., Gier, J. A., & Willis, F. N. (1982). Interpersonal touch and compliance
with a marketing request. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3(1), 35-38.
Twenge,K.M.(2000).Theageofanxiety?Birthcohortchangeinanxietyand
neuroticism,19521993.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,70(6),
10071021.
Vaughn, B. E., Kopp, C. B., & Krakow, J. B. (1984). The emergence and
consolidation of self-control from eighteen to thirty months of age: normative trends
and individual differences. Child Development, 55(3), 990-1004.
Vickers, A., Ohlsson, A., Lacy, J.B., & Horsley, A. (2004). Massage for promoting
growth and development of preterm and/or low birth-weight infants. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, Art. No.: CD000390.
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, MJ., & Hammond, M. (2004). Treating children with
early-onset conduct problems: intervention outcomes for parent, child, and teacher
training. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 33(1), 105-124.
Weiss, S. J., Wilson, P., Hertenstein, M. J., & Campos, R. (2000). The tactile context
of a mothers caregiving: implications for attachment of low birth weight infants.
Infant Behavior & development, 23, 91-111.
Wheldall, K., Bevan, K., & Shortall, K. (1986). A touch of reinforcement: the effects
of contingent teacher touch on the classroom behavior of young children. Educational
Review, 38(3), 207-216.
Willis, F. N., & Hamm, H. K. (1980). The use of interpersonal touch in securing
compliance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5(1), 49-55.
58
Table1:
SampleCharacteristicsandDelayofGratificationMeasuresbyCondition:FullSet
(n=30)
Characteristics Group T(df),PValue
Touch Notouch
n=15 n=15
n(%) n(%)
Sex
Girls 9(30%) 9(30%)
Boys 6(20%) 6(20%)
Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
Age(months) 60.67(8.13) 57.13(7.86) 1.21(28),p=.236
Executive 7.33(5.31) 7.47(4.05) .08(28),p=.94
Function(raw
score)
Totaltimeuntil 512.93(165.03) 368.4(269.56) 1.77(28),p=
candyeaten .043,onetailed
(seconds)
59
Table2:
SampleCharacteristicsandDelayofGratificationMeasuresbyCondition:
RestrictedSet(n=22)
Characteristics Group T(df);PValue
Touch Notouch
n=11 n=11
n(%) n(%)
Sex
Girls 5(22.7%) 7(31.8%)
Boys 6(27.3%) 4(18.2%)
Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
Age(months) 60.09(7.11) 58.91(6.59) 0.40(20),p=.69
Executive 7.45(4.63) 6.36(3.80) .60(20),p=.553
Function(raw
score)
Totaltimeuntil 527.73(132.83) 407.55(272.72) 1.31(20),p=.204
candyeaten
(seconds)
60
Table3:
WaitingBehaviorFrequenciesAcrossConditions
WaitingBehavior Group
Touch Notouch
n=15 n=15
n(%) n(%)
None 0(0%) 5(33.3%)
Distraction 5(33.3%) 7(46.7%)
Selfsoothing 1(6.7%) 2(13.3%)
ExploringRoom 4(26.7%) 1(6.7%)
GazingatReward 3(20%) 0(0%)
Other 2(13.3%) 0(0%)
61
Table4:
SiblingNumberandMeanWaitTime
Numberof 0 1 2 3
Siblings
MeanWait 332.00 523.47 462.86 197.75
Time(sec),SD (299.95) (174.12) (240.04) (269.26)
62
Figure Captions
Figure1:Effectofconditiononwaittime.Errorbar:+/1SEM
Figure2:Effectofconditionandageonwaittime(n=30).Errorbar:+/1SEM
Figure3:Effectofconditionandageonwaittime(n=22).Errorbar:+/1SEM
Figure4:Correlationofageandexecutivefunction.
Figure5:Effectofemotionalreactiontoexperimentertouchonwaittime.Error
bar:+/1SEM
63
Figure 1
64
Figure2
65
Figure3
66
Figure4
67
Figure5
68
AppendixA:ParentSurvey
Participantnumber:_______________________
Yourageinyears:___________________
Pleasecirclethecorrectresponse:
HighestLevelofeducation:
SomeHighSchool
HighSchool
Somecollege
Bachelorsdegree
GraduateSchool
Maritalstatus:
Marriedorlivingwithpartner
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
Nevermarried
Whatisyourchildsracial/ethnicbackground?
White/EuropeanAmerican
Latino/Hispanic
AfricanAmerican/African
AsianAmerican/Asian
MiddleEastern
Mixedbackgrounds,specify_____________
Other,specify________________
Whattypeofworkdoyoudo?
Business
Education
Computer/Technology
Construction/Skilledwork
Artist/Dance/Theatre
Other,specify
Whatisyourannualhouseholdincome?
Lessthan$30,000
$30,000to$59,999
$60,000to$89,999
$90,000to$119,999
$120,000to$149,999
69
$150,000ormore
Notsure
Doesyourchildhaveanysiblings?Ifso,pleaselisttheirages:
________________________
IsEnglishtheonlylanguagespokeninyourhome?YesNo
Whatisyourchildscomfortlevelwithbeingtouched(e.g.hugged)by
familyandfriends?
(notcomfortable)1234567(verycomfortable)
Whatisyourchildscomfortlevelwithbeingtouched(e.g.patontheback)
bypeopletheyhaverecentlymet(e.g.workcolleagues,newfriends)?
(notcomfortable)1234567(verycomfortable)
Howoften(inaweek)wouldyousayyourchildseeksphysicalcontactwith
youorafamilymember?
(never)1234567(often)
Inthelast24hours,howmanyinstancescanyouthinkofwhenyourchild
hadtowaitforsomethingtheywanted?(e.g.waitfordessertafterdinner)
Ex)_____________________________
70
AppendixB:ProtocolforTouchandDelayofgratification
SETUP
Smalltable,camerafacingchild.Nodistractionsinroomclosetotable(notoys!).
stopwatch.
INTRODUCTION
(AdaptedfromMischelsselfimposeddelayprocedure.Acknowledgement:Luke
Butler)
Observer(O)introducesherself(alwaysJuliaorTalia)tochildandengagesin
conversation.Then(O)showschildtoyareaandsays:
Lookatallthesetoyswehave.Doyouwanttoplaywiththesetoyswith
me?
Thegoalistointeractwiththechildbeforethetaskandmakesurethechildis
comfortablewith(O).Alsoduringthistime,havetheparentfilloutpaperwork
(consentform,demographicform,askifchildisallergictoM&Msorskittles).
Thisshouldlastforfivetotenminutes.Ifthechilddoesnotbecomeinterestedin
thetoys,(O)shouldsay:
Someofthesetoysarefunandmostkidslikethem.
Afterthechildhasplayedforfivetotenminutes,(O)says:
Ok,laterwewillhaveachancetoplaywiththetoysifyouwantto,but
rightnowIhaveanotherfungametoplay.Letsgoplaytheotherfun
game!Itsinthisroom(leadchildtoroom)
ExecutiveFunctionTask
ConductexecutivefunctionTest
PRACTICEGAME
(O)says:
Youdidgreatwiththelastgame!Areyoureadyforanewgame?
Waitforthechildsapproval.Note:onlycontinueifchildapproves.Then(O)
takesoutM&Msandskittlesandsays:
Look,Ibroughtsometreatsforyou!Nowwhichofthesetreatsdoyou
likethemost?
71
Givethechildtimetomakeuptheirmind.Itsokiftheyswitchtheirchoices.(O)
thensays:
Nowweregoingtoplayafungame!Imgoingtohidea(candy)under
oneofthesecups(pointtothreecupsontable).Inthisgame,youhaveto
waituntilItellyoutoandthen,whenItellyou,youcanlookforandeat
the(candy).ok?SoImgoingtohidea(candy)underoneofthesecups
andremember,youhavetowaituntilItellyoutoandthenyoucanlook
forandeatthecandy.Doyouunderstand?Doyouwanttoplaythis
game?
(O)waitsforagreementbeforebeginning.Ifeverthechilddoesnotwantto
continue,theexperimentendsthere.(O)bringschildsattentiontothethree
cupsandhidesthefirstitemunderoneofthecups,makingsurethechild
watchedwheretheitemwashidden.Look!Imhidingit!(O)thensays:
Remember,waituntilItellyoubeforeyoulookforandeatthe(candy).
(O)startsstopwatchforspecifictrial.
Trial1:5sec
Trial2:20sec
Aftertheallottedtimeperiod,(O)tellsthechild:
ok,nowyoucanlookforandeatthe(candy).
Afterthechildeatsthereward,(O)initiatesthenexttrial,repeatinginstructions
eachtime(Remember,waituntilItellyoubeforeyoulookforandeatthe
(candy)).Ifthechilddidntwait,then(O)says:
Oops,rememberthatinthisgame,youhavetowaituntilItellyou,to
lookforandeatthe(candy).ok?
Correctthechildonthefirsttwopracticetrials.Nosanctionsareimposedifthe
childdoesntwait.Likewise,waitingisnotpraised.Therewardishiddentwice
undereachcupduringthetrials.
BRINGMEBACKBELL
(O)Takesoutabellfromabagandsays:
"Youredoingsuchagoodjob,soIhaveonemorechallengeforyou.But
first,Iwanttoshowyouthisbellandtellyouhowitworks.See,thisis
72
howitworks.(Ringonce).SometimesIhavetogooutoftheroom,but
youcanalwaysmakemecomebackbyringingthisbell.Thisiscalledthe
bringmebackbell.Everytimeyouringityoumakemecomeback
immediately.Let'stryitnow.I'llgooutoftheroom,andyouwillmake
mecomebackbyringingthisbell.
(O)goesoutoftheroomandcomesbackimmediatelyatthesoundofthebell.
(O)thensays:
See,youmademecomeback!
ACTUALTEST:
Afterthetwopracticetrialsarecomplete,(O)says:
Great!NowIhaveonemorechallengeforyou!Inthistask,Imgoingto
hidenotone,butfive(candies)underthiscupandonceagainyouare
goingtowaituntilItellyoutolookforandeatthe(candy).Butthistime,
Imgoingtodosomepaperworkoutside.Butremember,Idreallylike
youtowaituntilItellyoutolookforandeatthe(candy).Ok?
Intouchtrial:(O)toucheschildsbackduringIdreallylikeyoutowaituntilI
tellyoutolookforandeatthe(candy).Thetouch:lightlytouchtopofback
betweenshoulderbladesnostrokingorpatting.Justlightlyputpalmofhandon
back.
(O)startsstopwatch,leavestheroomandwaitstenminutes.Then(O)comes
backintotheroomandbringsattentionbacktochildandsays(onlyifchild
hasnteatentherewardyet):
ok,nowyoucanlookforandeatthe(candy).Greatjob!Letsgogetyoua
prize!
Ifchildeatsrewardbefore(O)comesback,(O)immediatelyenterstheroomand
says:
Oh,look,youatethecandy.Wellwerealldone.Greatjob!Letsgoget
youaprize!
Ifchildringsthebell,(O)immediatelyenterstheroomandsays:
Hey,areyouok?
Ifthechildrepliesthattheyareunhappyordontwanttocontinue,terminate
study.Ifthechildismerelycomplaining,(O)says:
73
Ijustneedtodoabitmorework.IllbebackwhenImdoneandthen
youcanlookforandeatthe(candy).IsitokifIgobackout.
Ifthechildsaysno,probethemonwhattheywant.Onlyendthestudyifthe
childexplicitlysaystheywanttoeatthecandynoworiftheysaytheywantto
endthegame.
Iftheyringthebellasecondtime,(O)immediatelyenterstheroomandsays:
Hey,areyouok?Doyouneedsomethingfromme?IsitokifIgoback
outsideanddomywork?
Followsameprocedureasbeforeintermsofresponse.
Terminatestudyafterfivebellrings.
SEATINGANDTIMING:
Makesurethatchildisseatedproperlysittingontheground,facingthereward.
Thisprocedurelastshoweverlongthechildwaitsforuptotenminutes.Butthe
procedurewillbediscontinuedifthe(O)noticesthatthechildisuncomfortable.
Forexample:ifthechildcriesorcallsoutindistress.Ifthechildisjustfrustrated
orimpatient,butnotfallingapart,thentheprocedurecancontinue.Tomake
surethatthechildiscomfortablewhentheprocedureends,spendafewminutes
playingwiththetoysattheendandthengivethechildareward.