Psychologists explore how mismatched desires for physical contact affect romantic partners

A new study published in Personal Relationships suggests that romantic partners experience greater relationship well-being when they share high levels of comfort with physical affection. While the overall amount of comfort with touch is the strongest predictor of satisfaction, the findings indicate that perceived similarity between partners also plays a role. These associations appear to hold true for both mixed-sex and same-sex couples, despite the unique challenges same-sex partners face regarding public displays of affection.

Physical affection, such as holding hands, hugging, or kissing, is often viewed as a fundamental component of romantic connection. Previous scientific work has linked affectionate touch to a variety of benefits, including reduced stress, improved immune function, and increased feelings of security. However, individuals vary significantly in their desire for touch and their comfort with receiving it. Some people crave constant physical contact, while others may find it overwhelming or unnecessary.

When partners differ in their preferences, it can create friction. One partner might feel rejected if their advances are spurned, while the other might feel pressured to engage in behaviors that make them uncomfortable. Sabrina Sgambati and Diane Holmberg of Acadia University, along with Karen L. Blair of Trent University, conducted this research to better understand these dynamics. They sought to determine if being “in sync” regarding comfort levels predicts relationship quality over and above simply being comfortable with touch in general.

The researchers also aimed to investigate the role of context. For mixed-sex couples, holding hands in public is generally a safe and socially accepted behavior. For same-sex couples, public displays of affection can attract unwanted attention, judgment, or hostility. This reality forces many same-sex partners to maintain a state of vigilance when out in public. The research team wanted to see if this discrepancy in social safety altered the way comfort with public affection relates to relationship well-being.

To explore these questions, the research team analyzed data from two separate samples collected in 2019. The first dataset focused on individuals and their perceptions of their relationships. This group consisted of 1,832 participants who were currently in a romantic relationship. The average age of these participants was approximately 29 years old.

The second dataset focused on dyads, or pairs of partners. This group included 86 couples, totaling 172 individuals, where both members of the relationship completed the survey. This dyadic data allowed the researchers to compare one partner’s actual self-reported comfort against the other’s, rather than relying solely on one person’s perception of the other.

Participants in both groups completed the Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory. This measure assesses six key areas of relationship health: satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love. An average score across these items provided a snapshot of overall relationship well-being.

To measure comfort with affection, participants rated their agreement with five statements regarding private scenarios and five statements regarding public scenarios. Private was defined as situations where only the couple was present, while public was defined as situations where others were present. Participants rated items such as “I like it when my partner shares physical affection with me” on a 7-point scale.

The researchers then calculated two types of scores. The “mean comfort” score represented the average comfort level of the couple. The “difference score” represented the gap between the partners’ comfort levels. A difference score of zero meant the partners were perfectly aligned, while a higher score indicated a mismatch.

The analysis of the larger individual dataset revealed that higher average levels of comfort with affection were strongly associated with better relationship well-being. This was true for both private and public contexts. However, the connection was stronger for private affection. Being comfortable with touch when alone with a partner appeared to be a more substantial driver of relationship health than being comfortable with touch in front of others.

The study also found evidence that similarity matters. In the individual dataset, participants who perceived a larger gap between their own comfort level and their partner’s comfort level reported lower relationship well-being. This suggests that feeling out of sync with a partner can be detrimental. However, when the researchers accounted for the overall level of comfort, the negative impact of dissimilarity became less consistent. This implies that having high comfort levels overall is likely more important than having perfectly matching comfort levels.

In the smaller dyadic dataset, the researchers examined actual similarity rather than perceived similarity. The results showed that actual mismatches in comfort were not as strongly linked to relationship well-being as perceived mismatches. It appears that believing one is similar to one’s partner may be more psychologically impactful than actually being similar. It is also possible that partners who are less comfortable with touch may accommodate their partner’s needs, masking the actual discrepancy.

When comparing relationship types, the study highlighted clear differences in how couples experience public spaces. Individuals in same-sex relationships reported lower comfort with public affection compared to those in mixed-sex relationships. They also perceived greater differences between themselves and their partners regarding public touch. This aligns with theories suggesting that marginalized couples must constantly navigate the risks of visibility.

Despite these differences in average comfort levels, the statistical patterns predicting well-being were largely the same for both groups. The link between private comfort and relationship quality was positive and significant for everyone. There were minor variations, such as the finding that private comfort was a slightly stronger predictor for mixed-sex couples. However, the researchers emphasized that the similarities between the groups far outweighed the differences.

The researchers noted that for same-sex couples, a lower comfort with public affection does not necessarily signal a relationship problem. Instead, it likely reflects a rational response to an external environment that is not always safe. These couples may place a higher premium on private affection as a space where they can be their authentic selves without scrutiny.

The study has some limitations. The data was cross-sectional, meaning it was collected at a single point in time. It is not possible to determine if comfort with affection causes better relationships or if satisfying relationships make people more comfortable with affection. The two factors likely reinforce each other over time.

Additionally, the sample size for the couple-based analysis was relatively small. This reduced the statistical power needed to detect small effects regarding actual similarity. Future research utilizing larger samples of couples would help clarify the role of actual versus perceived similarity. The researchers also had to exclude gender-diverse relationships that did not fit the binary categories of same-sex or mixed-sex due to low numbers. Investigating how gender-fluid or non-binary individuals navigate these dynamics remains an important gap in the literature.

The study, “In Sync? Assessing Partners’ Similarities in Comfort With Physical Affection–Sharing as a Predictor of Relationship Well-Being,” was authored by Sabrina Sgambati, Diane Holmberg, and Karen L. Blair.