Justin Zaluk
Professor Vejdemo-Johansson
HON 223
22 November 2021
“Here’s How Long the Perfect Hug Should Last, According to Science”
After searching for a recent piece of scientific advancement, I uncovered the New York Post article “Here’s How Long the Perfect Hug Should Last, According to Science ”, by Hannah Sparks. It was published on November 17th, and documents a study performed by scientists at Goldsmiths, University of London. Researchers attempted to gain a better understanding of what defines an ideal embrace, and the effects such an interaction may have. After gaining forty participants, they assigned a partner to each of them and were blindfolded, directing them to hug in intervals of one, five, or ten seconds. Furthermore, each embrace was done either in a “criss-cross” or “neck-waist” form, with participants reporting their feelings after zero, three, and six minutes. The author explains how after this data was collected, it was revealed that five to ten second embraces of any form had a larger positive impact than longer ones. The researchers hope to use this revelation to better understand the “factors that influence hugging evaluation and behavior” and how this plays into one’s emotions on a larger scale. Sparks also explains how such a common interaction can have so many underlying factors that define it.
The peer-reviewed research paper that is associated with this article, titled “The influence of duration, arm crossing style, gender, and emotional closeness on hugging behaviour”, was published in the journal Acta Psychologica. This paper explains the study in greater detail, first describing the lack of information regarding a hug’s effect on emotions and stress. Additionally, it initially illustrated the power calculations that determined how a sample size of forty eight women would be sufficient for results to be obtained, along with it being approved by the local ethics committee. A visual diagram exhibits the specific procedure that took place, with each participant performing a “pre-hug self-rating”, receiving the first hug, and listening to an audiobook to measure their attention. This process was repeated two more times, with three participants being excluded for not performing the hug interval correctly. Visual bar graphs show how one to ten second hugs of either criss-cross or neck-waist style induced the most pleasure and positive feelings, at about seventy percent. The paper thoroughly explains any limitations, such as women only being considered, and whether or not the environment contributed to the decision of what style of hug would be used. Finally, it briefly explains a second experiment that contributed to this, involving both men and women. After one hundred three hugs were observed, it was further supported that short, criss cross embraces between both genders resulted in the most pleasurable feelings.
After analyzing the New York Post article and published paper in great detail, it became clear that similarities and discrepancies were prevalent. As an example, when comparing Spark’s article with the contents of the paper’s abstract, it was noticeable how both summed up the results and methods of the study in an easy, legible way. However, the New York Post article focused mainly on the first experiment, and did not mention the second one in as much detail. Aside from this, if I had not read the paper, the article still would have provided me with a sufficient amount of information. In comparing the paper itself to the article, more discrepancies became clear. Not only did the paper mention various limitations, but it also included visual charts and diagrams that were not available in the article. It was also able to include more information, as each experiment was separated into the sections “participants”, “procedures”, “measures and conditions”, “results”, and “discussions”. These differences were minor, as both publications still gave necessary general background information, along with the way that these studies can be used in the future. As a whole, Hannah Spark’s article, along with the research paper, allowed me to understand a new instance of scientific progress and compare it in numerous ways.
Works Cited
Dueren, Anna L., et al. “The Influence of Duration, Arm Crossing Style, Gender, and Emotional Closeness on Hugging Behaviour.” Acta Psychologica, vol. 221, 2021, p. 103441., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103441.
Sparks, Hannah. “Here’s How Long the Perfect Hug Should Last, According to Science.” New York Post, New York Post, 17 Nov. 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/heres-how-long-perfect-hug-should-last-according-to-science/.
