Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
Apropos in terms of some of our recent discussions...
See the article here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141217101316.htm
"This suggests that being hugged by a trusted person may act as an effective means of conveying support and that increasing the frequency of hugs might be an effective means of reducing the deleterious effects of stress," Cohen said. "The apparent protective effect of hugs may be attributable to the physical contact itself or to hugging being a behavioral indicator of support and intimacy."
Cohen added, "Either way, those who receive more hugs are somewhat more protected from infection."
I'm normally a little leery of "social science" experiments because there are so many variables, and it's difficult to control for them. Plus, much of the data relies on self reporting by the subjects. In this case, at least, they actually exposed people to the cold virus, and monitored their physical reactions. It's also important to note that the results do fit with recent studies about how "kissing the boo-boo" helps with pain perception, and studies on how health improves in isolated elderly people if they get pets.
I do think they're off track in implying that it's an either/or situation in terms of the effect; the touch alone being therapeutic, or touch as a symbol for social support. I think it's probably both. Based on studies done in the past in orphanages that show that lack of physical contact in the early months and years seems to impact how much infants thrive even just physically and cognitively, I would think that touch itself is important, and the need for it is hard-wired.
See the article here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141217101316.htm
"This suggests that being hugged by a trusted person may act as an effective means of conveying support and that increasing the frequency of hugs might be an effective means of reducing the deleterious effects of stress," Cohen said. "The apparent protective effect of hugs may be attributable to the physical contact itself or to hugging being a behavioral indicator of support and intimacy."
Cohen added, "Either way, those who receive more hugs are somewhat more protected from infection."
I'm normally a little leery of "social science" experiments because there are so many variables, and it's difficult to control for them. Plus, much of the data relies on self reporting by the subjects. In this case, at least, they actually exposed people to the cold virus, and monitored their physical reactions. It's also important to note that the results do fit with recent studies about how "kissing the boo-boo" helps with pain perception, and studies on how health improves in isolated elderly people if they get pets.
I do think they're off track in implying that it's an either/or situation in terms of the effect; the touch alone being therapeutic, or touch as a symbol for social support. I think it's probably both. Based on studies done in the past in orphanages that show that lack of physical contact in the early months and years seems to impact how much infants thrive even just physically and cognitively, I would think that touch itself is important, and the need for it is hard-wired.