ArticleEuropean journal of social psychology2026
Vicarious Touch: A Potential Substitute for Social Touch During Touch Deprivation.
Article in European journal of social psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comprehensive EEG dataset for investigating visual touch perception.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Restricted interpersonal touch experiences, for instance due to COVID-19 social distancing measures, result in detrimental effects on anxiety, loneliness and psychological well-being. Yet, interventions capable of mitigating the impact of social touch deprivation, as experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, remain insufficient. In this study, conducted during a period of enforced physical distancing and touch deprivation, we investigated whether prosocial, vicarious (i.e., visually seen) touch during interactions involving human-human touch and human-pet touch, compared to human-robot touch, could alleviate self-reported feelings of stress. To this end, 1490 participants completed an online video-viewing task in which they self-reported their stress level before and after viewing video clips depicting prosocial tactile interactions. Main findings suggest that vicarious human-pet touch was especially effective in reducing perceived stress, followed by human-human touch, whereas human-robot touch surprisingly increased stress levels. This pattern reveals a novel dissociation between the calming potential of human-animal versus human-human interactions and highlights potential limits of artificial agents in replicating the emotional benefits of real social touch. Moreover, the extent of the calming effect provided by vicarious touch depended on individual differences, including participants' anxiety states and personal preferences regarding the perceived pleasantness and awkwardness of the video clips. In particular, individuals experiencing higher levels of anxiety prior to watching interactions exhibited a more pronounced calming response to vicarious human-pet touch. Altogether, these findings underscore the significant role of social vicarious touch in a context where actual, somatosensory touch is lacking and warrant the development of further randomised, controlled testing of related interventions for conditions of physical distancing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.