On this page
Maja returns after a few days away. Karim is happy to see her and instinctively opens his arms.
— Hey! Good to see you.
— Hey—I’d rather not hug.
Karim treats a hug as a normal sign of warmth. Maja separates liking someone from consenting to physical contact.
How does Empatyzer help respect boundaries around touch?
Empatyzer helps you see that a hug may be a natural gesture for one person and an unwanted contact for another. It also helps you see how to respect different boundaries.
Features that can help:
- Comparison: Shows where you differ in areas such as physical contact, intention, and personal boundaries, which helps you understand why a "I was just saying hello" situation might mean different things to you.
- Tips: Offer guidance on how to talk to a specific person in a "I was just saying hello" situation, in order to retain the meaning of the message and reduce the risk of unnecessary defense or misunderstanding.
- Talk to Em about a specific person: Allows you to describe to Em the situation "I just said hello", take into account the profile of both parties and prepare a specific version of the conversation or message before reaching out.
What really happened
Karim greets Maja with a hug because, to him, touch is an ordinary expression of warmth. He is not trying to cross a boundary or send a romantic signal. Maja may like him perfectly well and still not want colleagues to hug her. Liking a person and consenting to physical contact are two separate things. If Karim assumes that a warm relationship automatically permits touch while Maja assumes that workplace touch requires prior certainty, conflict can arise even when both people have good intentions.
What the research says
Research shows that touch has genuine social functions: it can communicate support, closeness and positive regard. At the same time, its meaning depends heavily on culture, gender, age, relationship and individual preference (Remland, Jones & Brinkman, 1995; Gallace & Spence, 2010). Organizational research also notes that even ordinary professional touch—a handshake, pat or high-five—can be experienced positively or negatively depending on the person and situation (Tang et al., 2023). The fact that touch is normal in one group does not create automatic consent from any particular individual.
How to handle it
The safest rule is simple: if you do not know someone’s boundary, do not assume it. You can offer a handshake, make a gesture and let the other person respond; for a hug, you can simply ask. When someone says “I’d rather not hug”, there is no need to make it dramatic or treat it as personal rejection. The general rule: warmth can be expressed in many ways, and physical contact works as a positive signal only when both people want to use the same signal.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can help Karim understand that culture and profile may suggest that norms around touch vary, but they cannot predict an individual person’s consent. Em should therefore never say “Maja probably likes hugs”; it can suggest behavior that does not require guessing—let the other person initiate, ask, or use a neutral greeting. It can help Maja set a short boundary without feeling she has to reject the person: “I like you; I just prefer not to hug.” The cultural layer can help explain where a difference may come from, but it does not replace individual preference. Micro-lessons reinforce a simple principle: there are many ways to show warmth, while physical closeness always needs room for the other person to choose.
Sources
- Martin S. Remland; Tricia S. Jones; Heidi Brinkman (1995). Interpersonal Distance, Body Orientation, and Touch: Effects of Culture, Gender, and Age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(3), 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1995.9713958 10.1080/00224545.1995.9713958
- Pok Man Tang; Anthony C. Klotz; Joel Koopman; Elijah X. M. Wee; Yizhen Lu (2023). A theory of professional touching behavior in organizations: Implications for human resource scholars and practitioners. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 41, 127-159. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-730120230000041006 10.1108/S0742-730120230000041006
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.