Body Perception and Social Touch Preferences in Times of Grief

2Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Grief is a core human experience. The time following the loss of a loved one is associated with an increased risk for negative health outcomes. Yet, only a few studies investigate bodily consequences of grief and consoling behaviors, specifically the potentially supportive role of interpersonal touch during grief. We conducted an online-study where participants filled in questionnaires and rated videos of short touch gestures and interactions. People who lost a loved one within the last 2 years were asked about their grief experiences and to rate the different types of touch from the perspective of a receiver. People who had not lost a close person in the last 2 years rated the touch from the perspective of providing touch to a grieving individual. The majority of the recent-loss sample reported to have perceived their own body and bodily states less after the loss. Two-thirds reported feeling the presence of the deceased at least once. Grief-sensations were experienced mostly in the chest and upper body, the same areas where the consoling effect of a hug was perceived. Overall, the recent-loss group reported amounts of wanting of the vicarious touch gestures similar to the endorsement by people taking the active touching perspective. However, discrepancies between groups were found for some types of touch, including slow affective stroking. These results contribute to a deeper understanding of the body and bodily interactions like social touch in grief and consolation. Our findings can be seen as a first point of reference on how to interact with grieving individuals and could contribute to novel interventions for individuals with prolonged grief disorder.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Enmalm, A., & Boehme, R. (2024). Body Perception and Social Touch Preferences in Times of Grief. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 29(7), 779–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2024.2316117

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free