Sie sind auf Seite 1von 73

Wesleyan University The Honors College

The Effect of Friendly Touch on Compliance in


Preschool-Age Children
by

Julia Leonard
Class of 2011

A thesis submitted to the


faculty of Wesleyan University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Arts
with Departmental Honors in Neuroscience and Behavior

Middletown, Connecticut April, 2011


2

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

marketing.Smith,Gier, and Willis (1982)conductedastudyinwhichshoppersin

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-

Loku, 2003; Gueguen, 2004),Israel(e.g.Hornik,1987;Hornik & Ellis, 1988;

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

marshmallowdelayofgratificationtask(Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970)inorderto

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.

Cardinal, R. N. (2006). Neural systems implicated in delayed and probabilistic


reinforcement. Neural Networks, 19, 1277-1302.

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.

Dolinski, D. (2010). Touch, compliance, and homophobia. Journal of Nonverbal


Behavior, 34, 179-192.

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.

Field, T. (2003). Touch. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

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. (2002c). Touch, awareness of touch, and compliance with a Request.


Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 355-360.

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-Loku, J. (2002a). An evaluation of touch on a large request:


a field setting. Psychological Reports, 90, 267-269.

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

Gueguen, N. (2004). Nonverbal encouragement of participation in a course: the effect


of touching. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 89-98.

Harlow, H., & Zimmerman, R. R. (1958). The development of affectional responses


in infant monkeys. Proceedings, American Philosophical Society, 102, 501-509.

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., & Keltner, D. (2006). Touch communicates distinct emotions.


Emotion, 6(3), 528-533.

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.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Birmingham, W. A., & Light, K. C. (2008). Influence of a warm


touch support enhancement intervention among married couples on ambulatory
blood pressure, oxytocin, alpha amylase, and cortisol. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70,
976-985.

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.

Hornik, J. (1992). Tactile stimulation and consumer response. Journal of Consumer


Research, 19(3), 449-458.

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

Klerman, G. L., & Weissman, M. M. (1989). Increasing rates of depression. Journal


of the American Medical Assosiation, 261(15), 2229-2235.

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., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1970). Attention in delay of gratification. Journal of


Personaility and Social Psychology, 16, 329-337.

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.

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguea, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in


children. Science, 244(4907), 933-938.

Miyake,A.,Friedman,N.,Emerson,M.,Witziki,A.,Hoserter,A.,&Wager,T.D.
(2000).Theunityanddiversityofexecutivefunctionsandtheircontributionsto
complexfrontallobetasks:Alatentvariableanalysis.CognitivePsychology,41,
49100.
56

Nannberg, J. C., & Hansen, C. H. (1994). Post-compliance touch: an incentive for


task performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(3), 301-307.

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.

Stephen, R., & Zweigenhaft, R. L. (1986). The effect on tipping of a waitress


touching male and female customers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126(1), 141-
142.

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. (2001). Preventing conduct


problems, promoting social competence: a parent and teacher training partnership in
head start. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(3), 283-302.
57

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:___________________

Sex: Male Female

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.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen