Contact with people and animals improves our physical and mental health

He touch, the sense that keeps us in constant contact with reality, is the first to develop in newborns. Previous research has already examined how we most directly interact with the world positive for physical and mental healthalthough they did not take into account the influence of other variables, such as the type of contact or the person applying it.

Today the magazine Nature human behavior published a systematic review and meta-analysis of overall 212 studies in which 12,966 people took partto explore the benefits of petting.

Tactile interventions can be a very effective tool for improving population well-being

Julian Packheiser (Ruhr University)

The authors, led by Julian Packheisera neuroscientist at Ruhr University Bochum, Germany, found strong evidence of health benefits in adults who had physical contact with other people or objects – including robots or hugging pillows.

“Our study is important because tactile interventions can be a very effective tool for improving the well-being of the general population,” Packheiser tells SINC. “However, we need to know what moderating factors influence effectiveness.”

The power of a hug

The authors found the same physical health benefits and only slightly smaller mental health benefits when people touched other people rather than an object. “This is very important for people who have no contact with others due to loneliness or illness,” says Packheiser. “This has been true for everyone during the pandemic, so this result could be particularly important going forward.”

The frequency of stroking also appears to play a role, as more frequent interventions had more positive effects. Likewise, they have been effective in improving the mental health of both clinical and healthy populations.

Likewise, the effectiveness of stroking was relatively consistent across all cultures, age groups, and genders analyzed.

However, There were no differences depending on the type of contact (like massages or hugs). “Massages, hugs or caresses seemed to be equally effective. The duration of the caress was not important, but the frequency of the procedure was. That’s why a massage is often better, but it doesn’t have to be long,” he adds.

“People who went to a masseuse improved just as much as those who received caresses from a friend or their partner,” he explains. “However, the situation was different for newborns, as the babies felt more distressed when their parents touched them than when a nurse did so.”

Only contact Benefits if you agree

The authors also observed greater effects when touching the head (for example, the face or scalp) compared to other parts of the body, such as the torso, and that touching in one direction was more beneficial than touching in both directions.

Consent is essential to relieve symptoms of pain, anxiety, and depression in humans. If the desire for contact is present and persists, we can only advise that tactile interactions be included more in therapeutic contexts.

Julian Packheiser (Ruhr University)

It is important to note that touching in these studies was always consensual. “Consent is essential to relieve the symptoms of pain, anxiety and depression in humans. “If the desire for contact exists and persists, we can only advise integrating interactions such as hugs or massages more into therapeutic contexts in order to alleviate these feelings,” Packheiser continued.

“It could be a complementary effect to existing therapies B. for pain syndromes or depressive disorders: For example, give people a weighted blanket or a social robot or seek more contact in their environment,” he suggests. “We hope that our study will have long-term implications for policymakers who could implement measures of this type.”

Upcoming research

The authors suggest that future work should examine the effectiveness of different touch interventions in large controlled trials to ensure the robustness of these results.

Additionally, they could investigate whether tactile interactions are equally effective in different cultures, as most current studies come from cultures in middle- and high-income countries.

“We take such a global approach that details are often missing. “Although we know that mental health, for example, did not improve as much through contact with robots as through contact with humans, we could not understand why,” emphasizes Packheiser. “The mechanisms underlying these findings remain poorly understood.”