The Dark Side of the Tender Touch

Thursday, November 6, 2025

Everybody loves the idea of a warm hug, a comfort stroke, the hand on the shoulder that says you’re safe.

But new research published in Current Psychology suggests that sometimes touch isn’t comfort—it’s control.

Emily R. Ives of the University of Virginia and Richard E. Mattson of Binghamton University examined how certain personality traits and attachment styles influence whether people recoil from touch or use it as a subtle instrument of dominance.

They found that those higher in the so-called Dark Triad—Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism—were both more likely to avoid affectionate touch and more likely to use it coercively.

It’s the emotional equivalent of saying, “Don’t touch me. Also, I’ll decide when we touch.”

For women, the connection ran through both insecure attachment and Dark Triad traits. For men, the pattern was simpler: insecurity alone predicted whether they used or avoided touch problematically.

The Other Side of the Equation

Before we all swear off human contact, it’s worth noting that decades of research show that affectionate touch is usually a good thing.

A 2023 meta-analysis found that physical affection in romantic partnerships strongly correlates with relationship satisfaction and lower attachment avoidance.

An Anglia Ruskin University report explains that affectionate touch lowers cortisol, boosts oxytocin, and increases feelings of safety and belonging.

Even mild deprivation of physical affection has been linked to higher stress and worse mental-health outcomes in a SAGE study.

So: on one hand, touch builds connection. On the other, as Ives and Mattson point out, it can also mask avoidance, manipulation, or power play.

Why the Same Gesture Means Opposite Things

Attachment History Matters
Securely attached adults tend to find touch soothing. Those with Avoidant Attachment—people who learned early that closeness feels unsafe—often experience it as intrusive. The Attachment Project notes that these folks may down-regulate touch to protect their sense of autonomy, even in loving relationships.

Personality Complications
The Dark Triad adds another layer. These traits—manipulativeness, low empathy, and self-orientation—turn touch into a strategy rather than an expression. Ives and Mattson argue that insecure attachment may feed these personality styles, which in turn distort physical affection into an instrument of control (ResearchGate preprint).

Gender Differences
Women, socialized to use touch as communication, may be more practiced in using it strategically. Men, less socialized that way, often express control or insecurity through other behaviors—anger, withdrawal, or psychological distance. The researchers stress that “coercive touch” isn’t physical aggression; it’s subtler, a power handshake of the heart.

Five Touch Habits to Watch For

Touch is one of the most honest—and easily misunderstood—forms of communication in romantic life. Here are 5 patterns to notice, drawn from Ives and Mattson’s work and contrasted with research on healthy affection.

1. The Conditional Toucher

This is the partner who offers affection only when it’s convenient—or strategic. They’ll reach for your hand when they need reassurance, forgiveness, or compliance but withhold it when you do.

• In Ives and Mattson’s study, coercive touch was common among people with manipulative or self-serving interpersonal styles.

• A contrasting meta-analysis found that genuine, unconditional affectionate touch predicted long-term relational stability.

If affection feels like a bartering chip rather than a bond, it’s a warning sign of instrumental intimacy—touch as transaction.

2. The Touch Avoider

Touch aversion often signals avoidant attachment. These partners may interpret even casual affection as invasive. The Attachment Project reports that avoidant partners down-regulate physical contact to maintain emotional distance, which can leave their partners feeling rejected.

• Studies show that avoidance correlates with both lower satisfaction and higher physiological stress when receiving touch (SAGE Journal).

• But not all avoidance is pathological; cultural norms, sensory sensitivities, or trauma histories may shape how humans experience touch.

Therapeutically, pacing and consent become essential. Forced intimacy rarely repairs distance; it reliably deepens it.

3. The Reassurance Hugger

This person hugs too much, too often, and for the wrong reasons. Their touch can feel desperate rather than comforting. It’s usually an Anxious Attachment pattern—touch as a lifeline, not a dialogue.

• Ives and Mattson’s findings show that men high in attachment anxiety were more likely to use coercive touch for reassurance.

• Research from the National Science Foundation archive suggests that structured, mutual affectionate rituals (like greeting hugs or nightly cuddles) improve emotional security—when both partners agree to them.

Too much touch without emotional safety can feel as intrusive as too little.

4. The Strategic Comforter

This is the partner who knows exactly when to place a hand on your knee to end an argument. It looks tender—but it’s tactical. They touch to manage perception, not emotion.

• Ives and Mattson connect this behavior to Machiavellianism, the Dark Triad trait most associated with emotional manipulation.

• A 2022 study on deceptive affection found that using touch to manage conflict rather than express genuine care predicted higher relational stress over time.

When touch becomes performance, intimacy becomes theater.

5. The Reciprocal Toucher (the healthy one)

Healthy touch is neither controlling nor withheld; it’s responsive. It aligns with the meta-analytic evidence that shows affectionate physical contact strengthens bonds and buffers against stress.

• It respects boundaries, follows consent, and varies with mood rather than motive.

• It’s touch that listens.

• When partners coordinate touch as communication—not control—it becomes what it was meant to be: a somatic form of saying, “I’m here.”

FAQ

How can I tell if touch is being used for manipulation rather than affection?
Look for patterns. If your partner initiates touch only when they want something—reassurance, compliance, forgiveness—and withdraws affection when you assert boundaries, it’s not about closeness. It’s choreography with an agenda, as Ives and Mattson describe.

My partner avoids hugging and cuddling. Is that just preference—or attachment avoidance?
Maybe both. People with avoidant attachment often find closeness threatening. Persistent discomfort with physical affection may signal deeper anxiety about dependency or loss of control, as outlined by the Attachment Project.

We touch all the time, but I still feel disconnected. Why?
Because touch frequency isn’t the same as emotional availability. Some anxious-attached partners use touch as self-soothing rather than connection. It calms them, but it doesn’t necessarily reassure you. The Current Psychology study found this pattern especially common among men with Anxious Attachment.

Can therapy help couples recalibrate physical affection?
Yes—especially when one partner’s comfort with touch is out of sync with the other’s. Discussing boundaries, consent, and meaning helps shift touch from strategy back to connection. Studies show that intentionally adding brief, affectionate touch rituals can improve relational well-being (National Science Foundation archive).

Final Thoughts

Touch is not innocent; it’s nuanced. It can communicate safety or superiority, affection or anxiety.

The new research by Ives and Mattson reminds us that the same gesture can either build connection or reveal control—depending on who’s doing the touching and why they’re doing it.

For couples and therapists alike, the question isn’t “Do you touch?” It’s “What does your touch say?”

Because under the right conditions, a hand on the shoulder means you’re safe. Under others, it quietly says you belong to me.

Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.

REFERENCES:

Ives, E. R., Jules, B. N., Anduze, S. L., Wagner, S., & Mattson, R. E. (2025). The dark side of touch: How attachment style impacts touch through dark triad personality traits. Current Psychology.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-025-08282-0

Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2023). Affectionate touch in romantic relationships: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10073073/

Anglia Ruskin University. (2023). This is why physical affection can boost your health. https://www.aru.ac.uk/news/this-is-why-physical-affection-can-boost-your-health

Jakubiak, B. K., et al. (2022). Deceptive affection and relationship stress. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19485506221104761

The Attachment Project. (2024). Affective touch and attachment styles. https://www.attachmentproject.com/love/affective-touch/

National Science Foundation. (2022). The power of affectionate rituals in long-term relationships.https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10331850