Physical touch plays a central role in social interaction, conveying warmth, closeness, caring, and intimacy (Edinger & Patterson, 1983). In most cultures, adults use specific forms of touch to express messages such as flirtation, power, play, and nurturance (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989; Hertenstein, Keltner, App, Bulleit, & Jaskolka, 2006). When observers view two people touching in a photograph, they believe the two interactants have a relationship that involves more intimacy, immediacy, and emotionality as compared to when they view pairs engaged in other common nonverbal behaviors (e.g., standing next to each other, making eye contact, and smiling at each other) (Burgoon, Buller, Hale, & deTurck, 1984). Moreover, interpersonal touch can predict outcomes ranging from maintaining loving relationships (Gallace & Spence, 2010; Harlow, 1958) to tipping at restaurants (Stephen & Zweigenhaft, 1986). Beyond touch, the act of shaking hands together could be considered a form of synchrony. Synchrony, the coordinated movement of two people in time, has been shown to produce positive emotions, weakening the boundaries between the self and the group (Ehrenreich, 2006; Hannah, 1977) and enhancing cooperation (Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009) and liking (Hove & Risen, 2009). Relatedly, people who mimic the behaviors of their counterparts appear more affiliative and are better liked (Lakin & Chartrand, 2003; Taylor & Thomas, 2008; Van Baaren, Janssen, Chartrand, & Dijksterhuis), which can facilitate negotiation outcomes (Maddux, Mullen, & Galinsky, 2008). Taken together, like many other forms of touch and shared movement, the physical features of handshakes are likely to promote affiliation. However, we extend these prior findings by considering the symbolic nature of handshakes, predicting that the psychological signal from the ritualistic behavior is consequential for mixed-motive outcomes. As noted above, we suggest that the mere knowledge that a person shook hands—even in the absence of physical touch—will
Physical touch plays a central role in social interaction, conveying warmth, closeness, caring, and intimacy (Edinger & Patterson, 1983). In most cultures, adults use specific forms of touch to express messages such as flirtation, power, play, and nurturance (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989; Hertenstein, Keltner, App, Bulleit, & Jaskolka, 2006). When observers view two people touching in a photograph, they believe the two interactants have a relationship that involves more intimacy, immediacy, and emotionality as compared to when they view pairs engaged in other common nonverbal behaviors (e.g., standing next to each other, making eye contact, and smiling at each other) (Burgoon, Buller, Hale, & deTurck, 1984). Moreover, interpersonal touch can predict outcomes ranging from maintaining loving relationships (Gallace & Spence, 2010; Harlow, 1958) to tipping at restaurants (Stephen & Zweigenhaft, 1986). Beyond touch, the act of shaking hands together could be considered a form of synchrony. Synchrony, the coordinated movement of two people in time, has been shown to produce positive emotions, weakening the boundaries between the self and the group (Ehrenreich, 2006; Hannah, 1977) and enhancing cooperation (Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009) and liking (Hove & Risen, 2009). Relatedly, people who mimic the behaviors of their counterparts appear more affiliative and are better liked (Lakin & Chartrand, 2003; Taylor & Thomas, 2008; Van Baaren, Janssen, Chartrand, & Dijksterhuis), which can facilitate negotiation outcomes (Maddux, Mullen, & Galinsky, 2008). Taken together, like many other forms of touch and shared movement, the physical features of handshakes are likely to promote affiliation. However, we extend these prior findings by considering the symbolic nature of handshakes, predicting that the psychological signal from the ritualistic behavior is consequential for mixed-motive outcomes. As noted above, we suggest that the mere knowledge that a person shook hands—even in the absence of physical touch—will