Getting in Touch – Social status predicts physical interaction in classrooms

Abstract

Social interactions and hierarchical structures in classrooms are studied in a number of scientific disciplines, yet the complexity of such systems makes them hard to investigate. In the present study we explore the relationship between social status and bodily interaction, since non-verbal communication and touch play a role in most social systems, yet are poorly understood in school settings. We developed a novel approach to assess social status in grammar school students by way of measuring the presence in others’ minds: Classmates assessed their peers in intellectual, social and physical domains. Additionally, we measured the amount and nature of physical interactions among classmates during breaks in the classroom. These interactions were tracked with the help of older, trained and regularly supervised students from the same school. This peer-to-peer method generated large amounts of data over a period of two months, during which 168 students were observed repeatedly. Results show that touching behavior is modulated by social status and sex: The amount of physical interaction with classmates increases significantly with social status. Same sex touching of intimate zones such as breasts, lap and buttocks occur more frequently among individuals of similar status as compared to touching the intimate zones of the opposite sex. The latter involves extremely high and low ranked individuals more often than same-sex interactions. This study helps to understand formative interactions within classrooms and gives rise to new questions on the establishment and maintenance of hierarchies in peer groups. Keywords: social interaction, classroom hierarchy, social touch, physical interaction, social status. _________________________________________________________
 * Paper presented at XXIV Biennial Conference of Human Ethology 2018, in Santiago, Chile. 
 Eder, S.J. & Oberzaucher, E. (2019). Getting in Touch – Social status predicts physical interaction in classrooms. Human Ethology, 34, 159-172. https://doi.org/ 10.22330/he/34/159-172 submitted: 31.Oct. 2018; revised: 12. Aug. 2019; accepted: 20.Aug. 2019 Eder, S.J. & Oberzaucher, E. (2019). Getting in Touch Human Ethology, 34, 159-172 TOUCH, HIERARCHY AND SOCIAL INTERACTIONS IN CLASSROOMS The ambivalence and ambiguity of touches, especially when status differences and dependencies are involved, are publicly debated (Kantor, 2018; Astor, 2018). Recently, this topic has gained attention in the context of classrooms through the initiative of a US-school to ban touches from schools altogether (The Associated Press, 2007). Other schools are merely restricting ‘inappropriate’ touches ( Jones, 2011). It is of little surprise that measures are taken to outlaw unwanted physical interactions, but this might lead to depriving us from essential parts of our social lives: The many functions of touch not only include expression of dominance, but also affiliative interactions, such as social grooming (Lehmann, Korstjens & Dunbar, 2007; Dunbar, 2012). Physical interaction serves a communicative purpose in social interactions. Not only can touch convey emotions (Hertenstein, Holmes, McCullough, & Keltner, 2009; Hertenstein, Keltner, App, Bulleit & Jaskolka, 2006) and reflect social bonds (Suvilehto et al, 2019), it also increases persuasiveness and has positive effects on compliance (Gueguen, Jacob & Boulbry, 2007; Gueguen & Fischer-Lokou, 2003; Guéguen, 2002). Social touch is known to have various physiological benefits such as a decreased heart rate and increased oxytocin levels (Heinrichs, Baumgartner, Kirschbaum, & Ehlert, 2003; Henricson, Berglund, Maatta, Ekman & Segesten, 2008; Light, Grewen & Amico, 2005), and it can counteract the negative effects induced by stress, as measured with physiological and biochemical markers such as blood pressure and salivary cortisol (Grewen, Anderson, Girdler, & Light, 2003; Ditzen, Neumann, Bodenmann, von Dawans, Turner, Ehlert & Heinrichs, 2007). This nonverbal comforting effect of touch is more effective than the benefits obtained from verbal social support (Holt-Lunstad, Birmingham & Light, 2008). It appears to be an innate mechanism, as lowered cortisol levels resulting from physical touch can not only be observed in adults, but also in neonatal premature infants (Neu, Laudenslager, & Robinson, 2009). Empirical findings indicate that the positive effects of touch affect both the toucher and the one being touched (Neu et al., 2009). Healthy touching interactions are a sign of secure dyadic attachment: Infants of depressed mothers receive less physical attention and compensate for this with selfstimulation (Herrera, Reissland, & Shepherd, 2004). Ferber and colleagues identified affectionate, stimulating and instrumental types of caregiving touch in humans (Ferber, Feldman & Makhoul, 2008). Caregiving touch is essential for psychological and physiological development: Children deprived of touch show developmental delays i.e. in cognitive skills (MacLean, 2003; Nelson, 2007). Not only humans, but other mammals depend on touch for healthy development, too (Harlow,1958; Gonzalez, Lovic, Ward, Wainwright & Fleming, 2001): Early comparative studies emphasize the importance not only of mother-infant-interactions, but also of peer to peer contact in mammalian development (Harlow, Harlow, Dodsworth & Arling, 1966; Gonzalez et al., 2001). Later experimental studies confirmed that developmental delays can indeed result from missing tactile stimulation (Scafidi, Field, Schanberg, Bauer, Vega-Lahr, Garcia, Poirier, Nystrom & Kuhn, 1986; Gonzalez et al., 2001; Lovic & Fleming, 2004). Touch contributes to our healthy development and physical well-being, but can also be perceived as molesting. In much the same way, hierarchy and social status can be seen as both: an instrument to exploit group members and bring advantage to single individuals