Lack of Affection in Marriage: Why Warmth and Physical Closeness Can Fade
Updated: Sep 17
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 17, 2026 · Editorial Policy
A lack of affection in marriage usually means that one or both spouses experience too little everyday warmth: fewer wanted hugs, kisses, cuddles, handholds, affectionate touches, warm greetings, tender words, or small gestures of physical closeness than they would like. The important word is wanted. There is no universal number of hugs that defines a healthy marriage, and some deeply connected couples are naturally less tactile than others. The problem begins when the amount, kind, or meaning of affection no longer fits what one or both partners need from the relationship.
Affection is a relationship behavior, not a psychiatric diagnosis. Less affection does not by itself prove that love is gone, attraction has disappeared, a spouse is cheating, the marriage is ending, or one partner has a particular attachment style. Research on romantic touch instead shows a more useful picture: affectionate touch is intertwined with perceived care, responsiveness, intimacy, stress, daily routines, and the opportunities couples have to experience each other as emotionally available. A major review by Jakubiak and Feeney (2017) describes affectionate touch as an important relational behavior in adulthood, while dyadic work by Jolink, Chang, and Algoe (2022) found that feeling understood, validated, and cared for forecast later affectionate touch, and that touch could in turn forecast greater perceived partner responsiveness.
This article focuses on affection and nonsexual physical closeness. It does not treat low sexual frequency, sexual desire discrepancy, sexual pain, erectile difficulties, orgasm concerns, or a sexless marriage as the same problem. Those experiences can overlap with affection, but they are not interchangeable. For the broader psychological process of sharing an inner life and feeling understood by a spouse, see Emotional Intimacy in Marriage.
What Does a Lack of Affection in Marriage Actually Mean?
In everyday language, people often use “affection” to mean a bundle of behaviors that signal warmth, fondness, safety, attention, and specialness. Physical affection may include a kiss before work, a hand on the shoulder while passing in the kitchen, leaning against each other on the couch, holding hands on a walk, rubbing a back after a hard day, cuddling before sleep, or touching simply because closeness feels good. Nonphysical affection may include a warm tone, pet names, compliments, tenderness, playful attention, affectionate messages, and verbal expressions of care.
These behaviors matter partly because they communicate relational meaning. The same touch can feel different depending on context. A hug can feel like reassurance, celebration, apology, desire, routine, pressure, or obligation. That is why counting touches without asking what they mean to each partner gives an incomplete picture. A marriage can contain frequent touch that feels mechanical, and another can contain less touch that feels deeply affectionate.
Relationship science often uses the concept of perceived partner responsiveness to explain why ordinary moments of care can feel intimate. Arican-Dinc and Gable (2023) describe responsiveness as the experience that a partner understands, validates, and cares for the self. Affection can be one behavioral channel through which responsiveness is expressed, but responsiveness also includes listening, curiosity, support, celebration, and attention. This is one reason a lack of affection may sometimes be primarily a touch problem and sometimes be part of a broader lack of emotional intimacy.
Low affection is relative to the couple, not a universal quota
There is no scientifically established minimum number of kisses, hugs, or minutes of cuddling required for a healthy marriage. Partners differ in how much touch they enjoy, what types of touch feel comfortable, how openly they express tenderness, and what they interpret as meaningful affection. A couple therefore has an affection problem when their pattern creates persistent distress, loneliness, resentment, avoidance, pressure, or a sense that warmth has been lost—not because they fail to reach a generic quota.
Large cross-cultural research illustrates why universal rules are a poor fit. In a study of more than 14,000 people across 45 countries, Sorokowska and colleagues (2021) found that affectionate interpersonal touch is widespread in close relationships but varies substantially across countries and relationship contexts. Culture matters, as do family norms, personal history, temperament, sensory preferences, age, health, and the habits a particular couple has created together.
Affection Is Not the Same as Sex
This distinction is central. Affectionate touch and sexual activity can overlap, but one does not stand in for the other. A couple may have sex while rarely hugging, kissing hello, cuddling, or touching casually. Another couple may be highly affectionate and have little sexual activity. A spouse can miss being held without asking for sex, and a spouse can want sex without wanting constant nonsexual touch.
Confusion between the two can itself reduce affection. If every cuddle is treated as the beginning of a sexual encounter, a partner who does not want sex at that moment may begin avoiding cuddling altogether. The other partner may then experience the avoidance as emotional rejection. What began as uncertainty about the meaning of touch can become a broader disappearance of neutral warmth. Couples sometimes improve this situation simply by making the meaning of touch clearer: some affection can be allowed to remain affection, without an automatic next step.
Research also treats affectionate and sexual desire as distinguishable. In a qualitative study of 300 adults who reported a desire discrepancy, Clark, Walters, and Lefkowitz (2024) examined both sexual and affectionate desire discrepancies. Participants described communication, alternative behaviors, doing nothing, engaging despite discrepancy, and giving one partner more control as ways they managed mismatch. The sample was predominantly LGBTQ+, so its themes should not be treated as a universal map of all marriages, but the study is useful for one basic point: partners can want different amounts of affection, and that mismatch is a relationship problem to negotiate rather than a diagnosis.
What Lack of Affection Can Look Like in Everyday Life
A lack of affection is often recognized through subtraction. Nothing dramatic happens; small gestures simply stop happening. The goodbye kiss becomes a wave from the hallway. One partner sits at the far end of the couch. Hands that once reached for each other stay occupied with phones, chores, or separate routines. Touch occurs mainly when someone wants sex, needs to move past the other person, or is performing a practical task.
Consider a simple micro-scene. A spouse comes home after a difficult day. The couple discusses dinner, school pickup, and tomorrow’s schedule. The conversation is competent and cooperative. Yet there is no eye contact that lingers, no arm around the shoulder, no “come here,” no softening of voice, no shared pause. Neither partner has done anything cruel. Still, one of them goes to bed thinking, “We function well, but I do not feel held in this marriage.” The emotional meaning comes from the accumulated pattern, not from one missed hug.
Another pattern is asymmetry. One spouse initiates nearly every kiss, cuddle, or handhold and begins to feel unwanted. The other may still care deeply but experience more touch as unnecessary, distracting, physically uncomfortable, sexually loaded, or simply outside their habitual style. Without explicit conversation, both partners can convert the mismatch into stories about motive: “I am needy,” “You are cold,” “You do not love me,” “Nothing I give is enough.” Those stories can harden before either person has accurately described what is happening.
Common signs that affection has become thinner
The most useful signs are changes from the couple’s own baseline: greeting and goodbye rituals disappear; spontaneous touch becomes rare; cuddling or sitting close feels unusual; one partner stops initiating after repeated nonresponse; affectionate words are replaced almost entirely by logistics; touch happens only in sexual contexts; one spouse experiences ordinary touch as pressure; warmth after conflict becomes difficult; or both partners notice that tenderness has been replaced by politeness. None of these signs alone determines why the change happened.
Why Can Affection Fade in Marriage?
There is no single “real reason” behind low affection. Similar outward behavior can emerge from very different processes. A spouse who does not initiate a hug may be exhausted, hurt, distracted, touch-averse, uncertain whether the touch is welcome, afraid it will be interpreted sexually, absorbed in caregiving, reacting to conflict, or simply accustomed to a low-touch relationship. Good explanation begins by separating these possibilities rather than assigning a motive from the outside.
Stress can consume the bandwidth for warmth
External stress does not stay neatly outside a marriage. Neff and Karney (2009) found that stress outside the relationship can heighten reactivity to ordinary marital experiences and interfere with adaptive relationship processes. More specifically, a daily-diary study of couples in the early years of marriage by Sucrese, Neff, and Gleason (2025) found that on higher-stress days women in that sample reported less physical affection; the same linear pattern was not found for men. That gender-specific result belongs to the sample and design and should not be turned into a rule about husbands or wives. The broader point is that stress can alter the conditions under which affectionate behavior occurs.
Workload, caregiving, poor sleep, financial strain, illness in the family, uncertainty, and constant task-switching can leave partners with less attention for nonessential-seeming gestures. Because affection often lives in brief unstructured moments, it can disappear before practical cooperation does. A couple may therefore look stable from the outside while the micro-behaviors that once made the relationship feel warm become scarce.
Responsiveness and affectionate touch can reinforce each other
Affection is not only an output of closeness; in some studies it participates in a feedback loop. Across four dyadic datasets, Jolink, Chang, and Algoe (2022) found that perceived partner responsiveness forecast affectionate touch and that affectionate touch also predicted later perceptions of responsiveness. This does not show that a prescribed number of hugs will repair a distressed marriage. It does suggest why warmth can grow or thin through repeated everyday exchanges: when people feel cared for, touch may become easier; when wanted touch communicates care, responsiveness may become easier to perceive.
A daily-life study by Debrot, Schoebi, Perrez, and Horn (2013) followed both partners in 102 dating couples. Touch was associated with better affect and psychological intimacy in the recipient, and greater touch during the diary week was associated with better psychological well-being six months later. The study supports a meaningful association between touch, intimacy, and affect, while its observational components do not justify claiming that touch alone causes long-term well-being.
Unresolved hurt can make tenderness feel emotionally expensive
Touch requires some degree of openness. After repeated dismissals, contemptuous exchanges, broken promises, betrayal, humiliating arguments, or years of feeling unheard, a spouse may stop reaching physically because tenderness no longer feels congruent with the state of the relationship. The absence of affection can then be a surface expression of unresolved meaning rather than a standalone habit.
For some couples, conflict organizes itself into a demand-withdraw pattern: one partner pushes harder for discussion or change while the other disengages more completely. A meta-analysis by Schrodt, Witt, and Shimkowski (2014) linked demand-withdraw interaction with poorer relational and communication outcomes. Affection can become collateral damage in such a cycle. One partner may seek touch as reassurance; the other may experience the same approach as another demand and retreat further.
Affection can become loaded with expectation
A gesture loses some of its safety when its recipient does not know what accepting it commits them to. If kissing means “now we must have sex,” cuddling means “you cannot stop until I am satisfied,” or a hug is followed by resentment when it does not produce more, neutral affection can become difficult. Rebuilding warmth often requires restoring the right to receive one kind of closeness without consenting to another.
This is also why forced affection is a poor solution. A spouse who touches only to satisfy a quota may communicate compliance rather than warmth, while a spouse who feels entitled to touch can turn a request for connection into pressure. Affection works relationally when both people can initiate, accept, modify, and decline it without punishment.
Partners can want different amounts or forms of affection
One spouse may love long cuddles; another may prefer a quick kiss, a hand squeeze, or affectionate words. One may enjoy public displays of affection; the other may reserve touch for private space. One may seek touch when distressed; the other may need physical room before reconnecting. These differences can remain manageable until each partner treats their own preference as the definition of love.
A mismatch can also change over time. Aging, pain, body changes, pregnancy, postpartum recovery, medication effects, sensory sensitivity, menopause, disability, grief, trauma history, fatigue, or illness can change what touch feels comfortable or meaningful. These factors do not tell an observer what a person “really feels” about their spouse. They make direct, specific conversation about comfort more important.
Parenthood can reorganize both time and touch
The transition to parenthood is one of the clearest examples of how a relationship can change without a simple loss-of-love story. A meta-analysis by Bogdan, Turliuc, and Candel (2022) found average declines in marital satisfaction across the transition to parenthood, with substantial variation among couples. New parents are also physically saturated in new ways: feeding, carrying, soothing, interrupted sleep, recovery, and constant caregiving can reshape how much touch feels restorative rather than demanding.
Longitudinal research by Tavares and colleagues (2024) followed 203 new-parent couples and found that attitudes toward touch during pregnancy were associated with later affectionate and sexual behaviors across the transition. The findings do not imply that couples can prevent every change by “trying harder.” They show that touch has its own relational trajectory during a major life transition. Our separate guide on Marriage After Baby covers that transition more fully.
Routine can remove the situations in which affection used to happen
Affection is often embedded in contexts: waking together, walking somewhere, cooking without rushing, lingering after dinner, sharing a joke, lying down at the same time, or sitting close without another task demanding attention. When schedules fragment, those contexts disappear. The problem is not necessarily that either partner decided to become less loving. The behavioral ecosystem changed.
In a preregistered dyadic diary study and experiment, Jakubiak, Fuentes, and Feeney (2023) found that affectionate touch predicted more shared positive activities and, in the experiment, a brief touch intervention increased some self-reported shared positive activity outcomes. The findings suggest that affectionate touch and positive shared activity can support one another, but they do not justify treating touch as a universal intervention independent of consent, conflict, or context.
Culture and family learning shape what “normal” affection looks like
People arrive in marriage with different embodied vocabularies. In one family, relatives hug constantly and say “I love you” every day. In another, care is expressed through food, reliability, work, humor, or practical help, while touch is reserved for rare moments. Neither history automatically determines adult behavior, but it can make two spouses interpret the same level of affection very differently.
Cross-cultural evidence supports variation rather than one universal script. Sorokowska and colleagues (2023) found positive associations between reported love and affectionate touch across 37 countries. That population-level association is useful, but it cannot be inverted into an individual test: a spouse who touches less is not therefore shown to love less.
Does Less Affection Mean the Love Is Gone?
Sometimes reduced affection accompanies declining love or commitment. Sometimes it accompanies stress, injury, resentment, touch mismatch, depression, grief, caregiving overload, sensory discomfort, or a relationship habit that neither partner has examined. The observable fact—less touching—does not identify the cause.
A more accurate question is: what changed around the affection? Did warmth disappear suddenly or gradually? Did it change after a major conflict, childbirth, illness, relocation, work crisis, or change in sexual dynamics? Does one partner still express care in other ways? Is touch absent only during stress, or has it become chronically uncomfortable? Is affection declined kindly, or met with contempt? Does the couple still experience emotional curiosity and responsiveness?
This is where neighboring patterns become useful. A marriage with little touch but rich disclosure and mutual care is different from one with a broader lack of emotional intimacy. A highly functional partnership with little tenderness may begin to resemble what people call a roommate marriage. These are descriptive frameworks, not diagnoses, and the differences matter because the repair task is different.
When One Spouse Wants More Affection Than the Other
Affection mismatch becomes especially painful because both partners can feel morally judged. The partner who wants more touch may feel rejected, unattractive, lonely, or embarrassed for wanting something that seems simple. The partner who wants less may feel scrutinized, inadequate, crowded, or responsible for regulating the other person’s sense of security.
The mismatch can then produce a self-reinforcing sequence. Partner A reaches more often because affection feels scarce. Partner B experiences the increased reaching as pressure and withdraws. Partner A interprets withdrawal as evidence that the marriage is becoming colder and intensifies the request. Partner B now anticipates conflict whenever affection is discussed. The eventual lack of touch reflects the cycle as much as either person’s starting preference.
Gender stereotypes are especially unhelpful here. Search results often frame the issue as “an unaffectionate husband” or “a wife who no longer wants touch,” but either partner can want more or less affection, and roles can change across life stages. The clinically and relationally useful information is the pattern, the meaning each person gives it, and the conditions under which closeness becomes easier or harder.
How to Talk About Affection Without Turning It Into Pressure
A productive conversation names observable behavior and personal meaning rather than assigning a character diagnosis. “You are cold” gives the other person a trait to defend. “I miss the way we used to hug when one of us came home; it helped me feel that we were glad to see each other” gives the couple something concrete to understand.
Specificity matters because “more affection” can mean entirely different things. One partner may want a longer kiss before work. Another may want nonsexual cuddling. Another may want affectionate messages during the day. Another may want warmth in tone more than touch. Asking “What kinds of affection feel good to you, and which feel neutral or uncomfortable?” can reveal a solvable mismatch that a global accusation obscures.
It also helps to ask what made affection easier in earlier periods. Was there more unhurried time? More play? Less unresolved conflict? A clearer separation between cuddling and sex? More sleep? Fewer screens? More shared activity? The goal is to understand the conditions that supported warmth, not to force a return to an idealized version of the past.
How Couples Can Rebuild Affection Without Making It Feel Forced
Start with the smallest meaningful behavior
Grand romantic gestures are often less useful than restoring one small, repeatable form of warmth. A couple might decide that a real greeting matters, that they want to sit together for ten minutes after dinner, or that a goodnight kiss has emotional value. The behavior should be small enough to feel voluntary and specific enough that both people know what they are trying to restore.
Separate affectionate touch from sexual obligation when necessary
If one partner has learned that accepting a hug creates an expectation of sex, ordinary affection may not feel safe. Explicitly agreeing that certain forms of touch can begin and end as affection can reduce ambiguity. This does not solve sexual concerns; it prevents every affectionate moment from being recruited into them. Sexual desire or dysfunction deserves its own conversation and, when relevant, its own clinical assessment.
Protect consent inside marriage
Marriage does not eliminate bodily autonomy. A useful affectionate system allows “not now,” “lighter,” “not there,” “I want a hug but nothing more,” and “I would rather sit next to you” to be heard without punishment. When declining one touch reliably triggers anger, sulking, guilt, threats, or retaliation, the issue is no longer simply how to increase affection. Pressure undermines the conditions under which genuine closeness can grow.
Restore responsiveness, not just touch frequency
If a spouse feels chronically unseen, a mechanical increase in hugs may miss the actual problem. The broader relationship may need more curiosity, listening, validation, celebration, and emotional availability. Our guides to Emotional Intimacy in Marriage and How to Reconnect With Your Spouse address that wider process.
Address the hurt that makes warmth incongruent
Some couples try to add affection on top of unresolved resentment and are surprised when it feels fake. If a spouse is still carrying an injury that has not been acknowledged, the more effective task may be repair: naming what happened, understanding its impact, taking responsibility where appropriate, and changing the pattern that made vulnerability costly. Touch can then become an expression of repaired connection rather than a substitute for it.
Create conditions for shared positive experience
Affection often appears more naturally when people have moments in which they are not only co-managers of a household. Shared walks, cooking together, humor, music, a small outing, talking without multitasking, or a few minutes of undivided attention can create opportunities for warmth. The point is not to manufacture romance on schedule. It is to give the relationship contexts in which spontaneous connection has somewhere to happen.
Notice whether technology is consuming co-present attention
Phones and other screens can fill the tiny gaps in which affectionate micro-rituals once lived. Looking at a device is not inherently a relationship problem, and couples differ in how they use technology. The relevant question is whether repeated device use during shared moments leaves either partner feeling bypassed or unavailable to the other.
When Lack of Affection Is Part of a Larger Relationship Pattern
Low affection sometimes stands alone: two people care for each other and simply differ in tactile preference. In other marriages it is one component of a broader shift. Distinguishing the larger pattern helps prevent the wrong solution.
If emotional disclosure, curiosity, comfort, and mutual understanding have also faded, the closer fit may be lack of emotional intimacy. If the couple functions mainly as a logistical team while romance, tenderness, and shared personal life have thinned, readers often recognize the popular term roommate marriage. If requests for closeness repeatedly trigger pursuit and shutdown, the demand-withdraw pattern may explain more than the touch behavior itself.
Major life transitions can also reorganize affection without fitting a chronic disconnection story. The transition to parenthood is one example. What matters is not applying the most alarming label but identifying which relational process is actually operating.
When Professional Help Can Make Sense
Couple therapy can be reasonable when affection mismatch causes persistent distress, when conversations repeatedly collapse into accusation and withdrawal, when unresolved injuries make closeness difficult, or when one or both partners feel unable to discuss touch without pressure. The goal is not for a therapist to declare the “correct” amount of affection. It is to help the couple understand the meanings, emotions, patterns, and constraints that organize the mismatch.
A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis by Joseph, Joseph, and Rajan found overall benefits of couple interventions for marital distress across the included studies, while also reporting substantial heterogeneity and publication-bias concerns. That evidence supports couple intervention as a potentially useful option for relationship distress; it does not establish a specific therapy or touch exercise as a guaranteed treatment for low affection.
If the relationship includes fear, threats, stalking, forced touch, sexual coercion, physical violence, coercive control, or retaliation for setting bodily boundaries, the problem should not be framed as an ordinary affection deficit. Safety takes priority over exercises designed to increase closeness, and conjoint communication work is not a blanket response to coercion or violence.
Intimacy in Culture: 45 Years
Andrew Haigh’s 2015 film 45 Years is a useful cultural illustration of how physical and emotional warmth in a long marriage can be altered by meaning rather than by one dramatic behavioral cause. The couple’s shared routines, bodily familiarity, memories, and assumptions about what their marriage has meant are disturbed by information from the past. Small gestures begin to carry new emotional weight.
The film is not psychological evidence and its characters should not be treated as clinical cases. Its value here is observational: it makes visible how affection is never only movement of one body toward another. A touch is interpreted inside a history. When that history suddenly feels different, the same room, dance, bed, or hand can acquire a different meaning. Real couples can experience a quieter version of the same principle when unresolved hurt or changed understanding alters what formerly automatic tenderness now communicates.
Marriage in the Artificial Era
In the Artificial Era, affection remains embodied, but the attention surrounding it is increasingly mediated. A spouse can sit physically beside a partner while attention is distributed among messages, feeds, work platforms, games, and artificial interlocutors. This matters because everyday affection often emerges in moments of co-presence: the glance before a hug, the pause in which someone notices distress, the shared joke that becomes a touch, the unplanned minute before one person leaves the room.
A 2026 systematic review by Frackowiak, Russell, Vanden Abeele, and Hilpert synthesized 55 studies with 29,925 participants on phubbing and technoference in intimate relationships. The review found a consistent negative statistical association between partner phone use and relationship satisfaction, while emphasizing that much of the evidence is cross-sectional and methodologically limited. The implication is not that phones “destroy intimacy.” It is that repeated co-present attention displacement can become relationally meaningful, especially when it is experienced as low responsiveness.
Generative AI adds another layer. A systematic review by Levkovich and Alon (2026) identified 21 studies from 2024–2026 in which people used generative AI for relationship advice, emotional support, and communication mediation. Users often experienced AI responses as empathic or helpful, but objective evaluations found inconsistency and weak expert alignment in some contexts; evidence for improved relationship outcomes remains preliminary, and concerns include sycophancy, overreliance, authenticity, privacy, and safety.
For a marriage, the distinctive question is where attention, disclosure, and emotional witnessing migrate. If a person increasingly tells an artificial interlocutor what they once brought to a spouse, the effect on the human relationship will depend on context: AI may help someone formulate a difficult conversation, or it may become one more place where the couple’s inner life separates. Current research does not establish that AI use causes loss of physical affection. The evidence specific to affectionate touch inside marriages is far thinner than the evidence on human–AI bonding itself. For that broader topic, see AI Companions: Why People Form Emotional Bonds With Chatbots and Why People Fall in Love With AI Companions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it normal for affection to decrease after years of marriage?
Some change in affectionate behavior across years is common because routines, stress, health, parenting, work, and preferences change. “Common” does not mean unimportant. If either partner is distressed by the decline, the useful question is what changed and whether the couple wants to create a different pattern now.
Does no affection mean my spouse no longer loves me?
No single behavior can establish a spouse’s internal state. Lower affection can accompany lower love or commitment, but it can also reflect stress, resentment, touch mismatch, health changes, sensory comfort, conflict, habit, or ambiguity about what touch will lead to. The meaning has to be understood from the broader relationship and direct conversation.
Can a marriage be emotionally close but not very physically affectionate?
Yes. Emotional intimacy and physical affection are related but distinct. Some couples share deeply, respond sensitively to each other, and feel secure with relatively little touch. A low-touch style becomes a problem when it conflicts with what one or both partners want or when it represents a change that carries distressing meaning.
Why does my spouse pull away when I hug or cuddle?
Possible reasons include being touched at the wrong moment, wanting a different kind of touch, sensory discomfort, pain, stress, unresolved hurt, fear that affection will become sexual, or feeling pressured by repeated initiation. Pulling away does not reveal which explanation is correct. A calm, specific question about comfort and meaning is more informative than guessing motive.
How do I ask for more affection without pressuring my partner?
Describe a specific behavior you miss, explain what it means to you, and invite your partner’s perspective. For example: “I miss a real hug when we get home because it makes me feel connected. How does that kind of touch feel to you lately?” Leave room for modification and refusal. A request is more likely to remain relational when “no,” “not now,” and “another kind of touch” are safe answers.
Can affection come back after years of distance?
It can. Affection is behavior embedded in a relationship system, so patterns can change when the conditions around them change. Improvement is more plausible when both partners understand what reduced warmth, address unresolved hurt or pressure, and rebuild wanted forms of responsiveness and shared positive experience. No article can predict the trajectory of a particular marriage.
Is lack of affection the same as a sexless marriage?
No. A lack of affection concerns warmth and affectionate behavior, including nonsexual touch. A sexless or low-sex marriage concerns sexual activity and may involve different causes, meanings, and clinical questions. The two can overlap, but treating them as identical can make both problems harder to understand.
Should I use a love-language test to solve the problem?
A vocabulary for preferences can help couples talk about what feels caring, but a typology should not replace direct observation of the relationship. “I value physical touch” is useful if it opens a specific conversation. It becomes less useful if it turns into a fixed identity, a demand that a spouse perform one behavior, or a claim that every affection problem has the same explanation.
Related Articles
References
Arican-Dinc, B., & Gable, S. L. (2023). Responsiveness in romantic partners’ interactions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 53, 101652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101652
Bogdan, I., Turliuc, M. N., & Candel, O. S. (2022). Transition to parenthood and marital satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 901362. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.901362
Clark, A. N., Walters, T. L., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2024). “It’s an ongoing discussion about desire”: Adults’ strategies for managing sexual and affectionate desire discrepancies in romantic relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 50(3), 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12709
Debrot, A., Schoebi, D., Perrez, M., & Horn, A. B. (2013). Touch as an interpersonal emotion regulation process in couples’ daily lives: The mediating role of psychological intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1373–1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497592
Frackowiak, M., Russell, P. S., Vanden Abeele, M., & Hilpert, P. (2026). Unpacking the first decade (2014–2024) of research on phubbing and technoference in intimate relationships: A systematic review of evidence with methodological critique. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 23, 101256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101256
Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2017). Affectionate touch to promote relational, psychological, and physical well-being in adulthood: A theoretical model and review of the research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316650307
Jakubiak, B. K., Fuentes, J. D., & Feeney, B. C. (2023). Affectionate touch promotes shared positive activities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(6), 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221083764
Jolink, T. A., Chang, Y.-P., & Algoe, S. B. (2022). Perceived partner responsiveness forecasts behavioral intimacy as measured by affectionate touch. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167221993349
Joseph, B., Joseph, V. K., & Rajan, S. K. (2025). Effectiveness of couple interventions in marital distress: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 54(1), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v54i1.17581
Levkovich, I., & Alon, L. (2026). Generative AI as a third voice in human couple relationships: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 23, 101255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101255
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship experiences: How stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015663
Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Shimkowski, J. R. (2014). A meta-analytical review of the demand/withdraw pattern of interaction and its associations with individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. Communication Monographs, 81(1), 28–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.813632
Sorokowska, A., Saluja, S., Sorokowski, P., et al. (2021). Affective interpersonal touch in close relationships: A cross-cultural perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(12), 1705–1721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220988373
Sorokowska, A., Kowal, M., Saluja, S., et al. (2023). Love and affectionate touch toward romantic partners all over the world. Scientific Reports, 13, 5497. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31502-1
Sucrese, A. M., Neff, L. A., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2025). “Not now, I am too stressed”: Stress and physical intimacy in early marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(10), 1927–1941. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241239134
Tavares, I. M., Brandelli, Y. N., Dawson, S. J., Impett, E., Debrot, A., & Rosen, N. O. (2024). Connecting through touch: Attitudes toward touch in pregnancy are associated with couples’ sexual and affectionate behaviors across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(8), 2070–2094. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241232704