[Adta] Annotated Bibliography on Touch

[Ilene Serlin]

Hello Nancy,

May I also recommend a course on the Ethics of Touch in Psychotherapy  
by Ofer Zur at his online institute at: For Complete listing of the  
online courses: http://www.drzur.com/homeonline.html

Best,

Ilene
On May 3, 2007, at 8:22 PM, ngoldov at gmail.com wrote:

> Here is a nice extensive bibliography on the use of touch in  
> therapy. Enjoy.
>
> Nancy Goldov, MA, ADTR, LMHC
>
>
>
> References
> Alyn, J. H. (1988). The politics of touch in therapy: A response to
> Willison and Masson. Journal
> of Counseling and Development, 66, 432-433. Retrieved January 21,
> 2005, from Academic
> Search Elite database.
> Alyn responds to the article, The Role of Psychotherapy: An adjunct to
> Communication by Willison and Mason, cited at the end of this
> bibliography. Alyn takes issue with their findings that nonerotic
> touch is good. Alyn points out that the interpretation of erotic and
> nonerotic touch is subjective and easily misinterpreted. Touch also is
> complicated with issues of intimacy and power. Even nonerotic touch
> may reinforce the unequal power relationship between the therapist and
> client. Alyn concludes that touching clients carries great risk and
> that the benefits are hypothetical, therefore, before touch is
> included as a practice in therapy more studies are needed to determine
> its effects on therapy outcome.
>
> Boadella, D. (1997). Embodiment in the therapeutic relationship: Main
> speech at the First
> Congress of the World Council of Psychotherapy, Vienna [Electronic
> version]. International
> Journal of Psychotherapy, 2(1), 31-44. Retrieved January 19, 2005,
> from Academic Search
> Elite database.
> Boadella discusses an integrated approach he calls biosynthesis.
> Biosynthesis means integration of life and Boadella has defined seven
> dimensions in his approach to a comprehensive and holistic
> psychotherapy. 1) Movement 2) Breath 3) Emotionality 4) Image 5)
> Channels of Contact (nonverbal communication 6) Touch (both contact
> and no-contact forms – non-contact works with the energy field of  
> the
> body 7) Language. The note section of this article presents a
> comprehensive overview of the history and development of integrative
> methods of therapy from Freud to present day. In regards to touch
> Boadella notes that boundaries must be respected, informed consent and
> the clients awareness of relational transference and
> countertransference in regards to touch must be addressed with the
> client.
>
> Brown, L. (1994). Concrete boundaries and the problem of
> literal-mindedness: A response to
> Lazarus. Ethics & Behavior, 4(3), 275-281.
> Brown (1994) responds to Arnold Lazarus article "How Certain
> Boundaries and Ethics Diminish Therapeutic Effectiveness." Brown
> agrees that adherence to the "concrete, literal-minded" and rule-based
> approach to ethical dilemmas that has become the cultural and legal
> climate of our time can compromise the therapeutic effectiveness.
> However, from a feminist therapy perspective Brown suggests a
> different way of looking at the problem of how we resolve ethical
> dilemmas and the responsibility of clinicians in making ethical
> decisions. She argues that the problem is not about rigid adherence to
> ethical rules that compromises clinicians therapeutic effectiveness,
> but the failure of clinicians to consider the effects of power
> dynamics in the therapist relationship, the failure to understand the
> code of ethics as a guide that "allows for careful, informed
> consideration of the meanings of our actions," and the failure to see
> ethics as integrated into everything that psychologists do. She
> advocates for a decision-making approach to ethical dilemmas that is
> more focused on how we make ethical decisions taking into account the
> client's best interests, the power dynamics, and the potential for
> harm. She challenges therapists to be critical thinkers and integrate
> the meanings and themes of the ethics code into the therapy
> relationship. It is in this way that the therapist can remain
> compassionate and effective and at the same time ethical.
>
> Durana, C. (1998). The use of touch in psychotherapy: Ethical and
> clinical guidelines [Electronic
> version]. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 35(2),
> 269-280. Retrieved
> January 13, 2005, from PsycARTICLES database.
> The article is primarily a literature review. Covers the Touch Taboo,
> History of Therapeutic Touch, Research Studies, Ethical Guidelines,
> Clinical Guidelines and two case studies. Durana concludes that touch
> is a very complex form of communication and if used incorrectly can
> cause harm to the client. Research so far indicates the benefits
> outweigh the risks. However legal and ethical considerations and the
> issues of transference and countertransference, make it a sensitive
> issue. More study is needed.
>
> Fisher, C. B., (2003). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for
> psychologists. Thousand
> Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
> This book was used as a reference for the APA Ethical Principles of
> Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002).
>
> Hetherington, A. (1998). The use and abuse of touch in therapy and
> counselling [Electronic
> version]. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 11(4), 361-364. Retrieved
> January 13, 2005,
> from Academic Search Elite database.
> This review of research brings out the aspects of touch that are
> abusing to the client and that replicate the prevailing power dynamics
> of society in which women are devalued and disempowered. A good
> argument against the use of touch as a genuine expression of feelings
> towards a client is stated and the most relevant research is cited.
> This review is a reminder that touch is not necessarily therapeutic
> that therapists are in the position of self-role maintenance in
> regards to clinical, ethical and moral codes and constraints.
>
> Holroyd, J. C., & Brodsky, A.M. (1977). Psychologists' attitudes and
> practices regarding erotic
> and nonerotic physical contact with patients. American Psychologist,
> 32, 839-843.
> Results of a survey sent to 1,000 Ph.D. licensed psychologists (500
> male and 500 female). 706 surveys were returned, this was noted as
> evidence of how much interest there is on this topic. Approximately
> half thought hugging, kissing or affectionate touching might be
> beneficial occasionally to both male and female clients. Most
> nonerotic touch fell into four categories: 1) Touch for socially or
> emotionally immature clients (children, schizophrenic) 2) for periods
> of acute distress 3) for more general emotional support 4) for
> greeting or termination. Males perceived benefits in nonerotic touch
> for the opposite sex more often (53%) than females (40%). There was no
> difference between males and females for same sex patients. More
> Humanistic therapists (30%) than Psychodynamic (6%) therapists thought
> nonerotic touching might be beneficial sometimes or always. The
> majority of Psychodynamic Therapists felt the behavior might be
> misunderstood frequently or always. The majority of Humanistic
> Therapists though it would never or rarely be misinterpreted by
> clients.
>
> Holub, E. A., Lee, S. S. (1990). Therapists' use of nonerotic physical
> contact: Ethical concerns.
> Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(2), 115-117.
>
> Horton, J. A., Clance, P. R., Sterk-Elifson, C., & Emshoff, J. (1995).
> Touch in psychotherapy: A
> survey of patients' experiences. Psychotherapy, 32(3), 443-457.
> Survey of 250 psychotherapy clients' that examined factors affecting
> clients' perceptions of touch in therapy as positive or negative. The
> authors found that the following factors were positively correlated
> with clients' perceptions about touch: the client and therapist are
> clear on the use of touch; the client feels in control of the touch,
> the touch is congruent with the level of intimacy in the therapy
> relationship; and there is a strong therapeutic alliance or bond. The
> authors found that clients with history of sexual abuse or sexual
> problems rated touch more positively and cited a "corrective or
> educative role" (452). Very few clients' (only 10) had negative
> experiences with touch. Of those that did, a common factor in the
> negative experience was therapists' using too intimate a level of
> touch. Many clients' described touch as creating a bond, as
> communicating genuine caring and acceptance, as facilitating trust and
> openness, and enhancing self-esteem,  (451). The authors discuss the
> importance of protecting against exploitative touch as many clients
> report difficulty asking to be touched or being able to express
> negative feelings about touch with the therapist. They emphasize the
> importance of clients being able to communicate with the therapist
> about the therapy, including touch. The authors argue that we must use
> sound clinical judgment within each therapy relationship, taking into
> account the uniqueness of each client and the therapist's styles and
> preferences. They argue that touch has many positive effects and argue
> against rigid rules prohibiting its use. The results if this study may
> not be applicable to all populations as sample was primarily white,
> female, and highly educated.
>
> Hunter, M., & Struve, J. (1998). The ethical use of touch in
> psychotherapy. London: SAGE
>
> Publications.
>
> This book is based on the belief that touch is a basic human need.
> Hunter and Struve are in favor of touch in psychotherapy and give
> ethical guidelines for its use. Includes a solid overview of the
> history of touch in Psychotherapy (Freud, Ferenczi, Reich, Adler),
> Bioenergenics and Humanistic Psychology. Addresses the continuum of
> touch, its power dynamics and the clinical use of touch in therapy.
>
>
> Hunter, M., & Struve, J. (1998). Challenging the taboo: Support for
> the ethical use of touch in
> psychotherapy with sexually compulsive/addicted clients. Sexual
> Addiction & Compulsivity,
> 5, 141-148. Retrieved January 20, 2005, from Psychology and  
> Behavioral Sciences
> Collection database.
> Hunter and Struve propose that the use of touch in psychotherapy
> leading to sexual contact is due to the unethical behavior of a few
> therapists and not a general finding. They state that nonsexualized
> touch has decreased in all interactions because of the American
> cultural view that touch has very sexual overtones and this has led to
> a nation starved for touch. They feel the clients (especially those
> sexually compulsive/addicted) exposed to touch in therapy will have a
> model of appropriate ways of being intimate without being sexual.
> Hunter and Struve also address guidelines on the appropriate use of
> touch.
>
> Kertray, L., & Reviere, S. L. (1993). The use of touch in
> psychotherapy: Theoretical and ethical
> considerations. Psychotherapy, 30(1), 32-40.
> This literature review brings to light theoretical arguments and
> historical developments in regards to the use of touch. The new
> contribution it adds to the discussion is a three-step decision making
> strategy supported by theoretical arguments and justifications to
> determine the considerations when using touch. Given the complexity of
> the issue the point is made that there are times when theoretical
> justification would not ever be a guarantee that a decision to touch
> is ethical. Opinions highlighted against the use of touch included,
> that a client lowers defenses and is vulnerable to coercion, and that
> even when sexual contact is not an issue an increase in the power
> differential occurs. Concern for regressed patients whose capacities
> would be blocked and ignored is discussed. Ongoing supervision or peer
> consultation is recommended for therapists who utilize touch as a
> significant part of the psychotherapeutic process.
>
> LaTorre, M. A. (2000). Integrative perspectives [Electronic version].
> Perspectives in Psychiatric
> Care, 36(3), 105-107. Retrieved January 13, 2005, from Academic Search
> Elite database.
> As an advocate for use of the medium of touch in acupressure and
> therapeutic touch, LaTorre poses many questions to consider with this
> decision. Questions having to do with clients coping, client's ego
> boundaries, perceived benefits and other relevant concerns are asked.
> A clinical example is given demonstrating the ways that acupressure
> supports one client's well being.
>
>
> McNeil-Haber, F. M. (2004). Ethical considerations in the use of
> nonerotic touch in
> psychotherapy with children. Ethics & Behavior, 14(2), 123-140.
> The author discusses how touch occurs frequently in psychotherapy with
> children and can be very beneficial in healing and nurturing. The
> different types of touch that occur when working with children are
> discussed, including touch initiated by the therapist (protective
> touch) and touch initiated by the child (playful touch) and the
> potential ethical dilemmas that arise with these different types of
> touch. The author reminds us that children are often not the ones
> giving informed consent nor are they deciding on appropriate
> boundaries for therapy. The therapist is responsible for setting the
> boundaries for the use of touch. Therapists should be guided by the
> principals of beneficence and nonmaleficence in determining when it is
> beneficial to allow touch, when it may be harmful to allow it, and
> when it may be harmful to reject touch by a child. The author suggests
> that the child's perception of touch as positive may be for the same
> reasons adults find it beneficial (i.e., acceptance and connection)
> and under the same conditions (client is in control of touch, touch is
> for benefit of client, and touch is openly discussed). The author
> proposes a set of guidelines and other considerations for deciding
> when touch is appropriate with children, including among other things
> the benefits and risks, the child's safety, and practical
> considerations.
>
> Montagu, A. (1986). Touching: The human significance of skin. New
> York: Harper & Row.
>
> Montagu makes fine points about the intricate meaning of the skin and
> defines touch as the mother of the senses. Skin's function as the
> second most important organ of our body, after the brain, is depicted
> as an exposed portion of the nervous system. The book speaks of the
> external nervous system in which the outside world is felt through the
> conduct of the tactile functions. Discovery is made in the inquiries
> of understanding skin stimulations for the healthy development of the
> organism both physically and behaviorally. The effects are of
> insufficient skin stimulation in the developing human being, is
> informed. The skin related activities of many mammals are discussed
> such as in the self-licking behavior of apes. Touching and its
> relationship to sex, growth, development, culture and contact is
> thoroughly enumerated, with many references offering study.
>
> Pope, K. S., & Tabachnick, B. G. (1993). Therapists' anger, hate,
> fear, and sexual feelings:
> National survey of therapist responses, client characteristics,
> critical events, formal
> complaints, and training. Professional Psychology: Research and
> Practice, 24(2), 142-152.
> Retrieved February 1, 2005, from PsycARTICLES database.
> National survey sent to 300 female and 300 male Psychologists (50%
> return rate) listed in the APA membership register. Therapists'
> self-reports of anger, hate, fears and sexual feelings towards clients
> were the basis of the survey. Survey was in two parts: 1) The
> therapist's feelings towards clients and 2) The therapist's view of
> the client's behaviors toward them. The authors pointed out that these
> feelings might be difficult for therapists to acknowledge and when
> unacknowledged have negative consequences to the client. They also
> point out that if these feelings are appropriately acknowledged and
> addressed they can be a resource in therapy leading to more trust and
> honesty in the relationship. One troubling finding was the difference
> in interaction between therapist and client based on gender. More
> therapists notice that their female clients are physically attractive.
> Female clients receive more hugs and more cradling or holding in their
> therapist's lap. It was reported that 11.6% of the therapists
> responding had a complaint filed against them. Male therapists were
> three times more likely than female therapists to have a complaint
> filed. Another finding was that many therapists felt their graduate
> training in regards to feelings was inadequate.
>
> Pope, K. S., Tabachnick, B. G., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1987). Ethics of
> practice: The beliefs and
> behaviors of psychologists as therapists. American Psychologist,
> 42(11), 993-1006. Retrieved
> February 1, 2005 from PsycARTICLES database.
> National survey of 456 practicing psychotherapists self-reports of the
> degree to which they used 83 different behaviors in their practices
> and their attitudes about whether these behaviors were ethical.
> Results indicated that almost all (91.7%) reported offering or
> accepting a handshake from a client from rarely (3.3%) to very often
> (48.2%), and 72% believed it unquestionably ethical to do so. Majority
> reported hugging either rarely (45%) or more frequently (41.7%) and
> 41.2% thought it ethical under rare circumstances, while 45% believed
> it was ethical in many circumstances. As for more kissing, the vast
> majority (94%) never or rarely kissed clients; however, over one-third
> believed kissing was ethical under rare circumstances. Again the vast
> majority did not engage in sex with clients nor did they believe it
> was ethical. In fact, the findings of sexual contact and erotic
> activity were significantly lower than other studies have found (1.9%
> and 2.6% respectively), which may represent an actual decline in
> sexual misconduct or that psychologists are not less willing to admit
> when they do it. Female psychologists were more likely to hug their
> clients. Behaviors involving touch were evaluated in terms of the
> ethical standards prohibiting exploitation of clients. Respondents
> indicated that informal networks of colleagues were the most effective
> source to guide their behaviors, followed by the APA Ethics Committee
> and Ethical Principles, with state and local ethics committees and
> published research given the lowest ratings. The authors highlight the
> need to gather data on psychologists' use of and ethical beliefs about
> their use of these behaviors in therapy, not only to help guide
> professionals in practice but also to help create formal standards of
> practices and standards by which the APA Ethics Committee can evaluate
> complaints against its members.
>
> Rabinowitz, F. E. (1991). The male-to-male embrace: Breaking the touch
> taboo in a men's
> therapy group. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 574-576.
> The author provides anectodal evidence of the use of male-to-male
> touch in his men's therapy group and the benefits touch provides in
> offering support among members and facilitating communication and
> deeper processing. The author provides some background on the taboo of
> male-to-male touch in our society and the resultant complexity of
> social and personal issues surrounding male-to-male hugging. The
> author discusses the research that touch can benefit clients by
> increasing self-exploration and improving positive perceptions of
> counseling and therapist and the differential findings in the research
> that men perceive touch more negatively and benefit from it less than
> women do. The author's description of the male to male hug touches on
> the complexity of the meanings the hug carries with it and the
> potential for it to arose strong feelings, which seems in keeping with
> other literature on this topic that to be appropriate the touch must
> be congruent with the level of intimacy that the client is comfortable
> with and that the client is in control of the touch. Discusses the
> arguments for (offers support and grounding) and against (potential
> for sexual exploitation and interference with transference) the use of
> touch and some guidelines proposed by others for the use of nonerotic
> touch. Conclusion is that touch can be beneficial to the client and
> the therapy process when used appropriately.
>
> Sakiyama, Y., & Koch, N. (2003). Touch in dance therapy in Japan.
> American Journal of Dance
> Therapy, 25(2), 79-95.
> This article discusses the mind-body relationship in Japanese culture
> and the fact that social rules govern and regulate the use of touch in
> Japan. Western views towards touch with its emphasis on separation of
> mind and body and "touch taboo" is compared to the attitude towards
> touch in Japanese culture with its emphasis on connection of mind and
> body and how those views in the larger social cultures have
> implications for therapists in the use of touch in therapy.
> Contrasting views about touch in psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, and
> dance therapy in Japan and western cultures, is highlighted. Japan is
> a culture with a high tolerance for crowding where touch is generally
> understood as a fundamental human need and a way of healing. The Japan
> Dance Therapy Association wrote into their ethical code of practice a
> code regarding touch. This code is consistent with the perspective
> that touch is a natural part of life in the Japanese culture.
>
> Smith, E. W. L., Clance, P. R., Imes, S. (Eds.). (1998). Touch in
> psychotherapy: Theory,
> research, and practice. New York: Guilford Press.
> This book is a compilation of various authors' perspectives on the use
> of touch in psychotherapy and includes a brief history of the use of
> touch in psychotherapy and the influences and biases that have lead to
> its current state of controversy; classifications of different types
> of touch and the meanings of different types of touch; research on
> clients and therapists experiences with and perspectives on touch; and
> case studies illustrating the use of touch. Different theoretical
> perspectives are presented on the use of touch and general and ethical
> guidelines for when and how to use touch (or not use touch) in various
> contexts are offered. Arguments are presented for the "judicious" use
> of touch taking into consideration the meanings and context in which
> touch occurs (p.17). Guidelines for the use of touch with various
> populations are discussed.
>
> Stack, J. E., Oliver, J. (1991). Sexual contact and touching between
> therapist and client: A survey
> of psychologists' attitudes and behavior. Professional Psychology:
> Research and Practice,
> 22(4), 297-397.
> Survey of 320 Missouri psychologists examining their experiences with
> and beliefs about the nature of varying types of touch, from
> nonerotic, to suggestive, to clearly sexual touch, and how they
> defined sexual misconduct, taking into account the effects of gender,
> years of experience, and degree. What gets defined as sexual
> misconduct depends on how it is defined. Also looked at how they
> handled sexual attraction to clients and client reports of sexual
> misconduct by previous therapists. The results indicated that most
> psychologists defined clearly sexual contact as sexual misconduct such
> as genital touching and over half identified kissing as misconduct.
> Most identified touch of shoulder, arm or hand as rarely misconduct.
> There were no gender differences in reports of overtly sexual
> behavior, but males reported more sexually suggestive behaviors, and
> females reported less attraction to clients. The authors suggest that
> results indicate female therapists, and therapists with higher degrees
> and therapists with more recent training, may be more sensitive to
> sexual misconduct issues (less permissive attitudes towards and less
> sexually suggestive behaviors). The majority reported being sexually
> attracted to clients at some point in their career, and many reported
> this attraction to clients. Authors argue the need for more research
> on sexually suggestive behaviors, for training in how to handle sexual
> attraction, and for more information on psychologists' opinions and
> experience regarding touch and sexual behavior to help establish
> guidelines for the use of touch.
>
> Stenzel, C. L., & Rupert, P. A. (2004). Psychologists' use of touch in
> individual psychotherapy.
> Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(3), 332-345.
> National survey of 470 practicing psychologists in private practice on
> their use of touch in psychotherapy, the types of touch used, and
> when, how, and why touch was used. The types of touch are examined
> using Smith's (1998a) seven categories of touch that focus on purpose
> and intention of therapist; nonerotic touch was classified as
> relationship touch (hugging – for therapeutic purposes) and social
> touch (handshake). Authors discuss the arguments around the use of
> touch within theoretical and ethical considerations with the primary
> goal of avoiding harm or exploitation. Results indicated that few
> report the more erotic, suggestive, or potentially sexual types of
> touch or aggressive touch, but many reported use of the traditionally
> defined nonerotic forms of touch such as holding hand, touching
> shoulder, and accepting and offering handshakes at least sometimes.
> Most touch occurred at greeting or termination, rarely during
> sessions. Female clients are touched more often than male clients by
> both female and male therapists. Female therapists, humanistic
> therapists, and therapists with more training and/or experience with
> touch more often used touch and touch used primarily at greeting or
> termination and rarely during sessions. Over one-third reported asking
> permission to touch, but half reported not discussing it in therapy.
> Primary reasons for using touch were empathy, comfort, support, and
> nurturance. Authors conclude touch does occur for therapeutic reasons,
> but most psychologists are highly cautious about the use of touch.
>
> Stockwell, S. R., & Dye, A. (1980). Effects of counselor touch on
> counseling outcome. Journal
> of Counseling Psychology, 27(5), 443-446.
> Study using undergrad and graduate students as clients and counselors
> to test whether counselors touch had any significant effects on how
> client's evaluated the counseling session and on client's
> self-exploration behaviors. Touch was defined as "physical contact
> between the hands and wrists of a counselor and the hands, arms,
> shoulders, and upper back of a client." The design included one
> 50-minute highly structured interview that followed specific protocol
> for touch and no-touch scenarios. The authors found no significant
> effects of touch on client's evaluations of the counseling session or
> on self-exploration. In fact, the results showed more of a trend
> towards higher satisfaction for client's who were not touched. Females
> scored higher on self-exploration generally regardless of touch or no
> touch. The results of this study were compared to previous studies
> that found touch to have positive impacts on client's exploration of
> self (Pattison, 1973) and client's evaluation of counseling (Alagna et
> al., 1979). Given the disparate results of this study and previous
> studies of this nature, the authors discuss the possibility that the
> difference might have been due to the degree to which the different
> studies were controlled.
>
> Strozier, A. L., Krizek, C., & Sale, K. (2003). Touch: Its use in
> psychotherapy. Journal of Social
> Work Practice, 17(1), 49-62. Retrieved January 13, 2005, from
> Psychology and Behavioral
> Sciences Collection database.
> This social work perspective is a reminder that therapeutic
> relationships are not social relationships but rather professional
> ones. This literature review offers supportive comments on both sides
> of the discussion. A vital point made reveals the trial and error
> method that clinicians end up faltering through due to a shortage of
> guidelines and rules about touching in psychotherapy. A questionnaire
> instrument is used applying the snowball method to gather study
> participants. Ninety-one surveys were returned and exploratory data
> was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results presented a
> comparison with frequency of touch and social workers theoretical
> orientation along with other comparison tables. Results showed that
> the because of the general definition given to touch in this
> questionnaire, data analysis was difficult. Results raised questions
> about deficiencies in social worker education and clinical
> rationalization. Without a clear mandate in the use of touch in their
> practices, social workers and others will continue to self-education
> through research, study, and trial and error.
>
> Suiter, R. L., & Goodyear, R. K. (1985). Male and female counselor and
> client perceptions of
> four levels of counselor touch. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
> 32(4), 645-648.
> Study using actual clients and counselors rated counselors who used
> different types of touch that varied by degree of intimacy. Four
> different scenarios of touch were examined: no-touch, touch of
> client's hand, touch of client's shoulder, and semi-embrace. The
> methodology involved the use of videotaped vignettes of counselors
> (all male counselor/female client) using different types of touch
> (these vignettes used actors and actresses). The clients and
> counselors rated the counselors in each vignette on the counselors'
> expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness. The authors found
> that the clients and counselors did not rate the counselors any
> different in the less intimate levels of touch (hand or shoulder), but
> they did rate the counselors using the most intimate level of touch
> (semi-embrace) as less trustworthy. The authors suggest this may have
> been because this level of touch was more than what would have been
> appropriate in that context. No gender differences in rating were
> found, but there were differences between clients and counselor
> ratings, with clients rating counselors generally as more expert,
> attractive, and trustworthy.
>
> Willison, B. G., & Masson, R. L. (1986). The role of touch in therapy:
> An adjunct to
> communication. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64(8), 497-500.
> Retrieved January
> 21, 2005, from Academic Search Elite database.
> This article is a literature review defining touch and offering
> perspectives both for the use of touch and against the use of touch.
> The authors present a review of the research clients' perceptions of
> touch and conclude that some level of touch can be beneficial as means
> of communication for infants, children, and adults, and touch seems to
> increase clients' self-disclosure and clients' positive evaluations of
> the therapist and the counseling process. "Women are more comfortable
> being touched than are men and that all clients are more accepting of
> touch from women than from men" (p .498). Factors that affect the
> clients' perceptions of touch are discussed; when touch might be
> beneficial (clients experience of touch (appropriateness in the
> situation); when touch might be beneficial (client experiencing grief;
> clients with history of sexual abuse); when touch might be harmful
> (client does not want touch); when it may be harmful to withhold touch
> (re-created rejection); and the positive effects of touch (conveying
> acceptance, reconnect with reality). Guidelines are offered for the
> use of touch. The authors conclude that touch is a positive form of
> communication that can be beneficial in psychotherapy.
>
>
> a
> _______________________________________________
> Adta mailing list
> Adta at adta.org
> http://lists.adta.org/mailman/listinfo/adta
>



-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related