Talk:Public display of affection

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Ambiguity and omission turn the provided definition of PA into potential disinformation

Using this definition of physical affection (PA) provided by Gulledge, A. K., Gulledge, M. H. and Stahmann, R. F. in the in the paper "Romantic physical affection types and relationship satisfaction" outside the context of the original paper constitutes disinformation because it deliberately omits critical qualifiers, namely the explicit exclusion of sexual intimacy, which is stated in the very next sentence of the paper, and is essential to the study’s focus. The inclusion of the term "arouse" creates ambiguity that, when divorced from the paper's context, could misleadingly imply a conflation of non-sexual and sexual behaviors. This choice of wording could mislead readers into conflating physical affection with exclusivly sexual behaviors, subtly undermining the clarity of the study's focus. This misrepresentation distorts the original intent, narrows the scope of PA by leading readers to interpret "aroused" as referring primarily to sexual connotations and may be exploited to support inaccurate conclusions or undermine the study’s credibility.

Finally, the introduction of the term "Physical Affection (PA)" is not standardized and is an operational definition as stated by the authors. This definition creates tension between the article title and the definition of PDA provided in the first paragraph of the article.

The following options could resolve this issue:

   1) Drop the definition entirely due to its tension with the previously defined term PDA (for the reasons I previously outlined).

   2) Include the omitted critical qualifiers from the paper, specifically stating that the study expressly did not include sexual intimacy in its consideration and that it is an operational definition in the context of the paper.

   3) Provide an alternative definition for PA that is less ambiguous when taken out of context.

Definition and context provided from the paper as reference "In an attempt to facilitate understanding, we have operationally defined PA as any touch intended to arouse feelings of love in the giver and/or the recipient. This operational definition was also provided on the survey instrument employed in the present study. PA Types and Relationship Satisfaction 235 Seven types of PA are examined (sexual intimacy is, once again, excluded from present consideration)." (Gulledge, A. K.; Gulledge, M. H.; Stahmann, R. F.) Joeblowonthebeach (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable and serious sources

I have made some recent edits to this article, as it was linked to from another article, and I decided to check this one out. Surprisingly, the sources for several claims in this article are mediocre, to say the least. I do not believe that citing online travel magazines is very appropriate in an article about a subject which is actually as serious and academic (supposed to be, at least) as this one. I might come back to change some things, but I want to raise this issue in case anyone else here would also like to see this article gain some credibility so that we could one day legitimately get rid of the banners which have been rightly so scattered around this article. In this day and age, Wikipedia has matured enough that I would like to claim that academic sources would be expected in a large multitude and variety of articles, including this one as far as I am concerned.

Let's keep improving the quality of Wikipedia! BlockArranger (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY

I have an impression that the article content is heavily based on primary source research publications, which may lead to an undue overgeneralization. While starting "Overview/Background" sections of research articles are reasonable WP:RS, the actuaal findinggs are WP:UNDUE unless independently confirmed. The "peer-reviewed source" argument is irrelevant: the study may be sound, but limited for the encyclopedic purpose. Say, one study among 89 teenagers in Apopka Plains High School say that 86% hug befor kiss, while just as well a research among 236 students from Boise, Idaho finds that 48% kiss then hug. As a result, we have a British Scientists-type article. --Altenmann >talk 00:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles