Introduction
Tactile Communication
Esteem Support
The CETESM
The Present Study
Esteem Support Messages and Supportive Tactile Communication
-
H1: HEF message conditions will be rated higher on perceptions of enhanced (a) self-esteem and (b) state self-efficacy compared to HPF message conditions.
-
H2: Supportive tactile communication conditions will be rated higher on perceptions of enhanced (a) state self-esteem and (b) state self-efficacy compared to no supportive tactile communication conditions.
-
H3: Verbal message content interacts with nonverbal content, such that “HEF and supportive tactile communication” will be rated higher on perceptions of enhanced (a) state self-esteem and (b) state self-efficacy compared to “HEF and no supportive tactile communication,” “HPF and supportive tactile communication,” and “HPF and no supportive tactile communication” conditions.
-
H4: HEF message conditions will be rated higher on perceptions of distress alleviationcompared to HPF message conditions.
-
H5: Supportive tactile communication conditions will be rated higher on perceptions of distress alleviation compared to no supportive tactile communication conditions.
-
H6: Message content interacts with nonverbal content, such that “HEF and supportive tactile communication” will be rated higher on perceptions of distress alleviation compared to “HEF and no supportive tactile communication,” “HPF and supportive tactile communication,” and “HPF and no supportive tactile communication” conditions.
Methods
Participants
Esteem Support Interactions
Measurements
Scale | χ2 | df | p | KMO | Variance Explained | Eigenvalue |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived State Self-Esteem | 986.17 | 6 | < .001 | .73 | 68.65% | 2.75 |
Perceived State Self-Efficacy | 1835.57 | 10 | < .001 | .82 | 74.34% | 4.20 |
Receptiveness to Supportive Tactile Communication | 2755.19 | 45 | < .001 | .92 | 57.25% | 5.73 |
Manipulation Checks
Enhanced State Self-Esteem
Enhanced State Self-Efficacy
Distress Alleviation
Severity
Realism
Physical Attractiveness
Receptiveness to Supportive Tactile Communication
Procedures
Results
Manipulation Checks
Realism | Severity | Receptiveness to Supportive Tactile Com | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Condition | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | n |
HEF and Supportive Tactile Com | 5.61 | 1.04 | 4.80 | 1.07 | 5.08 | 1.05 | 96 |
HEF and No Supportive Tactile Com | 5.72 | 1.17 | 5.05 | 0.84 | 5.30 | 0.98 | 99 |
HPF and Supportive Tactile Com | 5.75 | 1.00 | 4.93 | 1.02 | 5.08 | 1.14 | 99 |
HPF and No Supportive Tactile Com | 5.71 | 1.05 | 5.00 | 1.05 | 5.15 | 1.07 | 103 |
Preliminary Analyses
Main Analyses
Outcome | Nonverbal Content | Verbal Content | M (SD) |
---|---|---|---|
Perceived State Self-Esteem | Supportive Tactile Communication | High Emotion-Focus | 5.95 (0.81) |
High Problem-Focus | 5.50 (1.04) | ||
No Supportive Tactile Communication | High Emotion-Focus | 5.92 (0.79) | |
High Problem-Focus | 4.97 (1.38) | ||
Perceived State Self-Efficacy | Supportive Tactile Communication | High Emotion-Focus | 5.83 (0.89) |
High Problem-Focus | 5.57 (1.04) | ||
No Supportive Tactile Communication | High Emotion-Focus | 5.88 (0.89) | |
High Problem-Focus | 5.31 (1.07) | ||
Perceived Distress Alleviation | Supportive Tactile Communication | High Emotion-Focus | 4.70 (1.43) |
High Problem-Focus | 4.50 (1.14) | ||
No Supportive Tactile Communication | High Emotion-Focus | 4.65 (1.27) | |
High Problem-Focus | 4.00 (1.45) |