Public display of

affection

Public displays of affection (PDA) are acts of physical intimacy in the view of others. What is
an acceptable display of affection varies with respect to culture and context.

Wedding kiss: Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill kiss each other after their wedding, 2013

Some organizations have rules limiting or prohibiting public displays of affection. Displays of
affection in a public place, such as the street, are more likely to be objected to, than similar
practices in a private place with only people from a similar cultural background present.

Physical affection has been defined as "any touch intended to arouse feelings of love in the
giver and/or the recipient."[1]

Worldwide
Religiosity
…
Religiosity is one important factor that influences how romantic relationships develop in
other countries.[2] Higher levels of religiosity are not directly related to the number of partners
reported by the respondents. However, religious respondents report lower levels of intimate
contact with their partners. It is apparent that religiosity limits the level of expression of
affection in general. Also, religion is related to more conservative values that may have a
global effect on all levels of PDA by younger participants. Seemingly religiosity may work in
two different ways where religious communities are in general quite racially segregated
around the world, and people with strong religious beliefs may be very unlikely to engage in
sexual activity or even to date someone due to the morals advised by their religion. In many
regions of the world, religion drives the cultural view on PDA and this sometimes culminates
into proscription based on religious rules, for example sharia law, Catholic and Evangelical
virginity pledge, Anabaptist plain people, Methodist outward holiness, Quaker testimony of
simplicity, Latter-day Saint Law of chastity, Judaic Tzniut, etc. The conservative Islamic
schools of thought, especially Salafism-oriented ones forbid public displays of affection.[3]

Western world
…

A couple hugging at a beach in the U.S.

A male swimmer with his hands on a female swimmer's waist, USA.

In most of the Western world, such as Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the
United States, and Latin America, it is very common to see people holding hands, hugging
and sometimes kissing in public. It is not usually socially acceptable to be overly explicit,
such as engaging in sexual activities. Kissing is more commonly seen in adult night-life, such
as nightclubs.[4]

China
…
Historically, the Chinese have regarded most to all physical contact between opposite
genders as unacceptable. The earliest iconic record of such view is Mencius: Li Lou I (https://
ctext.org/mengzi/li-lou-i?searchu=%E6%B7%B3%E4%BA%8E%E9%AB%A1%E6%9B%B0%EF%B
C%9A%E2%80%9C%E7%94%B7%E5%A5%B3%E6%8E%88%E5%8F%97%E4%B8%8D%E8%A6%A
A%EF%BC%8C%E7%A6%AE%E8%88%87%EF%BC%9F) 孟⼦ · 离娄上 (https://zh.wikisource.o
(
rg/zh-hans/%E5%AD%9F%E5%AD%90/%E9%9B%A2%E5%A9%81%E4%B8%8A) , written in
the Warring States Period), in which Mencius (Chinese: 孟⼦; pinyin: mèngzǐ), a Confucian
scholar and philosopher, states “It is the etiquette that males and females shall not allow
their hands to touch in giving or receiving anything."[5] The exact quote writes 「男⼥授受不
亲」 and is still widely used till this day.[6] Open-minded young generations in more developed
parts of China are more unafraid of displaying their affections towards their partners in public
(partially affected by the emergence of western culture.) It is common to see males and
females holding hands or wear coordinating outfits in urbanized cities. "Simply observing the
sheer mass availability of condoms and hyper-sexualized advertisements and may attest to
China’s increasing acceptance of Public Displays of Affection."[7] However, China is a
developing nation nonetheless, meaning traditional ideals still have a strong influence on
social norms of relatively remote regions.

Succeeding the rise of social media in the 21st century, Chinese netizens coined the
expression 秀恩爱 (pinyin: xiù ēn'ài) for public display of affection. Literally translating to "to
show off love and affection," the neologism quickly popularized and gained the connotation
of "being lovey-dovey to piss off single people." According to a 2004 research by Weiyi Zhang,
a researcher from Fudan University, the dissemination of PDA culture in China is largely
ascribed to an ultramodern desire to gain public recognition and reality confirmation.[8]

Mothers from the Manchu minority ethnic group, as only researched in the 1900s in Aigun of
Northern Manchuria where the researcher S. M. Shirokogoroff personally believed the
Manchu element were "purer" than those of Southern Manchuria and Peking,[9] used to show
affection for their children by performing fellatio on their male babies, placing the penis in
their mouths and stimulating it, while they regarded public kissing with revulsion.[10]

India
…
Public display of affection might be regarded as socially unacceptable in India if it disturbs
others or creates nuisance. Same-sex physical contact is allowed. Under section 294 of the
Indian Penal Code, causing annoyance to others through "obscene acts" is a criminal offense
with a punishment of imprisonment up to 3 months or a fine, or both.[11] For example, in
2007, when actor Richard Gere kissed Shilpa Shetty in an AIDS awareness event in New Delhi,
a warrant for his arrest was issued by an Indian court, which was overturned by a higher
court. However, the Supreme Court of India on various occasions have said that kissing or
hugging between adults in public is legal.[12][13] In the past, attacks by vigilante groups also
were a danger for those celebrating Valentine's Day. However, the number of couples
celebrating Valentine's Day has grown so much that these attacks have become ineffective in
deterring couples.[14]

Relaxation of previous generations' social norms has made public displays of affection more
common among India's younger demographic. In the state of Kerala, a public hugging and
kissing campaign (named Kiss Of Love) was launched in November 2014 in protest against
moral policing.[15] In the south Indian state of Kerala a sixteen-year-old boy was expelled from
school for hugging a girl after she won a prize at an arts competition. When the Kerala State
Commission for Protection of Child Rights ordered the school to re-enroll the boy, it was
challenged in the High Court. The Court nullified the Commission's order and upheld the
school principal's order to expel the student, saying "The school principal is the institution’s
guardian, vested with powers to take action necessary to maintain discipline and morality in
the school. The child rights commission cannot interfere there."

Middle East …
Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are predominantly
Muslim cultures. Although public displays of affection generally do not fit the local culture
and customs, it varies even among these countries. Decency laws do not allow public
displays of affection. Penalties can be severe based on the action in different countries.
Travelers to Dubai have been given jail sentences for kissing in public. In 2009 a British
couple caught publicly kissing in Dubai were deported following a three-month prison
sentence. An unmarried Indian couple, who were in a taxi, were sentenced to one year in
prison for hugging and kissing.[16] The taxi driver drove the couple directly to a police station.
Kissing is considered "an offense to public decency".

In Iran, holding hands has become more and more popular especially in big cities and among
young generations.[17]

Islamic religious police prohibits public display of affection.

Adolescent

A young couple indulging in public in Rome.

It is well recognized that relationships outside the family become increasingly important
during adolescence. Although several studies of basic social processes have been
conducted by sociologists,[18][19] much of the research and theorizing about adolescent
relationships has been carried out by developmental psychologists. Much more research has
been done in the area of specific adolescent behaviors, which has shown that these
behaviors are predicted well by relationship variables to include the display of affection.[20]

Affection or intimacy references a pattern of conduct within relationships that includes

subjective assessments of attachment. This pattern of conduct is a part of a larger
constellation of factors that contributes to an adolescent’s development of a non-parental
relationship. A number of sociologists have explored the more general terrain of gender
relations, although several of the key studies focus on preadolescence and early
adolescence.[21][22][23][24][25] Their work is important in highlighting the degree to which
features of these early relations, and even intense personal feelings such as being in love, are
socially constructed. Adolescents' conceptions about and conduct within these relationships
are heavily influenced by interaction and communication with other girls or other boys.[24]
Specific rules emerge (e.g., one should always be in love, it is wrong to date more than one
person) and gossip or other social sanctions serve as important sources of informal social
control around these rules.[20]

Research moves into the early adolescent period when youths are old enough to say they are
going steady and is useful in actually characterizing the nature of these relationships. These
liaisons are described as highly superficial and based on unrealistic idealised expectations.
Furthermore, the desire of adolescents to put on a good "front" inhibits the development of
intimacy. Going steady is a limiting factor on the adolescent social ritual.[23]

This table[26] below shows the quality and context of displays of affection in American
adolescence among intra-racial couples:

Behavior Percentage

Held hands 89.90

Said to others they were a couple 85.76

Went out together alone 78.00

Went out together in a group 78.40

Met partner's parents 75.91

Gave partner a present 72.08

Received present from partner 76.25

Told partner that they loved them 82.05

Partner said that they loved them 79.69

They thought of themselves as a couple 90.88

Kissed 91.56

Touched under clothing or with no clothes on 62.78

Touched each other's genitals 53.68

Had sexual intercourse 42.40

Boys and girls begin the process of relating to one another, the transition is much easier for
adolescent males, who essentially transport their dominant interaction styles (derived from
peer interactions) into this new relationship form with the opposite sex. Public displays of
affection may facilitate the demonstration of this dominant interaction style transference in a
socially acceptable way.[27]

Experimental research on communication processes observed in same- and mixed-gender

groups to support this idea. Although behavior observed in cross-gender task groups is
relevant, intimate dyadic relationships and task groups are not equivalent social contexts.
Thus, an alternative hypothesis is that boys, who have less practice than their female
counterparts with PDA (by virtue of their peer group experiences), must make a larger
developmental leap as they move into the heterosexual arena. For example, examining the
messages students write one another in high-school yearbooks,[28] there were marked
differences between boys' discourse directed toward friends (e.g., "you're a lousy wrestler…")
and that directed toward romantic partners (e.g., "you are very beautiful in so many ways, it
would take me a lifetime to express them in words…"). In contrast, young girls’ use of
language in messages to close friends and boyfriends is more similar in form and content.
To the degree that the romantic context provides their only opportunity to express
themselves and, more broadly, to relate in this intimate fashion, young males can be
considered more dependent on these relations than female adolescents, who have close
friends for intimate talk and social support. This quality of uniqueness may figure into the
etiology of more negative and sometimes gendered relational dynamics that also emerge in
connection with romantic involvements stalking, intrusive control efforts, violence, and the
like.[29]

Interracial

Implicit or explicit attitudes towards interracial relationships strongly affect interpretations of

public displays of affection within this context. These attitudes can be influenced by a
plethora of factors, including social contact. For example, personal involvement and
extended contact (media representations) with interracial and Black-White relationships has
been linked to more positive perspectives regarding interracial relationships.[30] Thus,
personal experience and mere exposure to interracial couples tends to be related to more
favorable attitudes. This finding supports the contact hypothesis, which states that
interpersonal interactions between group members of each race will decrease prejudice and
foster amicable connections between races.[31] Beyond the conditions of equal group status,
common goals, group cooperation, and social approval, some studies have found other
stipulations important for fostering positive relations. For instance, it’s important for the
interracial contact to be intimate instead of superficial, for it to happen in many different
settings, and for it to happen repeatedly with more than one individual from the other
race.[32][33][34][35]
Not everyone, especially those with learned biases and/or racist attitudes, is likely to be
exposed to another race under these exact conditions; this lack of exposure to racial diversity
will further perpetuate the internal cycle of unsubstantiated prejudice. In fact, the larger
presence of African-Americans, Latinos and Asians in neighborhoods and religious
congregations significantly predicts higher support from Caucasians for interracial marriages
with these other races.[36] Furthermore, it has been found that higher numbers of individuals
from each of these racial groups in these social settings predict more interracial friendships.
Therefore, it appears that reducing the socially imposed distance between one’s in-group and
out-group can result in developing more favorable attitudes towards romantic relationships
between races. The problem still exists though that many people who have negative attitudes
towards other races will avoid social settings where they may be exposed to other races due
to ingrained stereotypes, opting instead to surround themselves with members of their in-
group. In general, one study using survey data found that approximately half of African-
American respondents versus about a quarter of Caucasian respondents approve of a close
relative marrying an individual of the other race.[37] Accordingly, it appears that the problem is
pervasive to the point that there are a large proportion of individuals on both sides of the
equation who do not approve of interracial relationships.

Due to perceptions of others’ attitudes towards interracial relationships, many interracial

couples may engage in certain behavioral strategies to reduce stigma and ostracism.
Research shows that adolescent interracial couples tend to participate in fewer public and
private activities than couples composed of individuals from the same race.[38] Significant
differences have been found between these two groups on holding hands in public, whereby
interracial couples are less likely to do so, yet these differences do not maintain significance
in the context of private displays of intimate affection. Therefore, it appears that the fear of
being negatively judged in public inhibits interracial couples from displaying physical
affection in comparison to couples of the same race. Interracial couples have also been
found to engage in other strategies to deter potential judgment, including ignoring public
harassment to avoid confrontation, staying at home or filtering their social group to increase
acceptance, attending social gatherings attended only by other interracial couples, and
publicly surrounding themselves with members of their social support network.[39]

Consequently, many interracial couples still fear perceptions of public displays of affection,
even though increased exposure and contact with other races under harmonious conditions
are associated with more favorable attitudes towards interracial relationships. This is made
evident in less engagement in these behaviors publicly as well as forms of premeditated
coping strategies in response to public harassment. As the research is limited, it is difficult to
definitively determine if these behavioral responses are contingent upon the social setting as
well as the racial composition of the surrounding public, i.e., would an interracial couple be
more likely to engage in public displays of affection in a racially diverse crowd, or a party of
friends as opposed to strangers? Moreover, the majority of the extant literature has examined
interracial couples composed of African American and Caucasian individuals, neglecting
potential differences with different groups of minority interracial groups, e.g., Asian/Latino,
African-American/Asian. Therefore, future research should examine the different dynamics of
interracial relationships, including individual differences, social status, social setting, socio-
economic status, and other psychosocial factors that may contribute to the engagement or
avoidance of public displays of affection.

Same-sex

Top:Two topless women hug and kiss each other in public during New York City's Dyke March, a visibility march for
lesbians. Above: Two females belonging to US Navy who are formally in a relationship kiss in public upon their
reunion.

Public displays of affection between individuals of the same sex may or may not suggest
homosexuality depending on the cultural context. For example, in many African cultures it is
socially acceptable for people of the same sex to participate in public displays of
affection,[40] whereas in other countries such as the United States and Portugal, it is
considered indicative of homosexuality. Public displays of affection tend to be determined
largely by culture, which greatly influences perceptions of same-sex PDA.
Intolerance for homosexual PDA is commonplace in large swaths of society in many different
cultures. For instance, in Portugal, LGBT individuals only act in ways that contend
contemporary ideals and political/economic agendas. Homosexual individuals are less likely
to partake in public displays of affection because their society is extremely critical of the act.
They believe that by behaving according to what society deems appropriate, (e.g., only
opposite-sex couples should partake in acts of public displays of affection), they are
protecting themselves from being categorized as abnormal, odd, or deviant.[41] Although
same-sex marriage has been legal in Portugal since June 2010 (see Same-sex marriage in
Portugal), LGBT people still refrain from public displays of affection for the most part. This
detail may suggest that Portugal’s acceptance of same-sex marriage is due to the fact that
the LGBT individuals do not broadcast their sexuality, not that the public of Portugal is more
accepting of these acts. Although it may appear that homosexual individuals are ambivalent
about being limited in only displaying affection privately, it seems to happen out of fear of
resentment or being perceived as odd rather than out of respect for their societies’ political
beliefs and attitudes.

There have been many in-depth studies regarding societal attitudes towards homosexuality
across many different factors. One study found that heterosexual people had higher negative
attitudes towards homosexuals of their own sex, especially if they felt that they were being
targets of sexual advances. They also found that men have less negative attitudes towards
homosexual females than males whereas women tend to be more accepting overall of
homosexuals and their role in society.[42] In the contemporary Western society, attitudes
towards same-sex public displays of affection vary city to city much like they vary country to
country. Studies have shown that in populations where the majority of individuals have high
cultural values and are more accommodating, same-sex or same-gender public displays of
affection are more likely to occur.[43] This is understandable because same-sex individuals
feel less persecuted by others in society and are less likely to feel as though they are being
categorized as odd, abnormal, or deviant like those in Portugal.

Of course, there are negative attitudes towards same-sex or same-gender public displays of
affection as well. In a Colorado high school, two yearbook staff resigned after they were
informed that they could not print the relationship page because it had a photo of two
females holding hands.[44] A spokesman for the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence
Project declared in 2007 that "people are still verbally harassed and physically attacked daily
for engaging in simple displays of affection in public. Everything changes the minute we
kiss".[45]

Social media
Expression of a person’s feelings towards someone else had previously been limited to
written letters, phone calls, or in person. In the modern world, social media sites such as
Facebook and Twitter are growing, with 1.7 billion users on Facebook[46] and over half a
billion Twitter users.[47] Studies on relationships through Facebook found that, when two
individuals who are interested in one another both use Facebook regularly, their relationship
progresses in different increments than how it would without social media. After two people
meet and form an interest, one or both individuals will go onto the other person’s Facebook
page and get information such as relationship status, pictures, and interests. Once a
relationship begins, some couples broadcast their relationship with posts, such as pictures
and changing the relationship status.[48]

How people show their public displays of affection on social media sites can be indicative of
relationship security and personality. Frequent and recent communication with a romantic
partner through different forms of social media is an indicator of relational escalation,
whereas limited communication has shown to be an indicator of alienation or relational de-
escalation.[49] Another study has shown that when someone focuses on relationship status
and public displays of affection such as posting about activities with the significant other or
his or her feelings towards them, that person tends to be more possessive or territorial over
their partner.[50]

A study found female characters on prime time television programs are significantly less
likely to demonstrate physical affection if they had a larger body type than thinner female
characters.[51] Thus, even television producers act in a way as to intentionally limit public
displays of affection based on the appearance of their actors, and that might affect
viewership based on social disapproval. Regardless of television portrayals, the frequency
and intensity of PDA has a tendency to depend upon the cultural context as well as perceived
public perceptions of the couple, including their age group, racial composition, sexuality, and
relationship centralized activity on social media.

Effects on romantic relationships

Brazilian actors Bruno Gagliasso and Giovanna Ewbank, who are married, kiss and hug each other publicly while
dancing, 2010.

Various studies have found physical affection to be associated with positive outcomes in
romantic relationships. For instance, it has been related to the formation of attachment
bonds and psychological intimacy.[52][53] Physical affection has been categorized into seven
different types including holding hands, cuddling/holding, backrubs/massages,
caressing/stroking, kissing the face and cheek, close hug, and kissing on the lips.[1] Five of
these behaviors, with the exception of caressing/stroking and holding hands, have been
significantly positively associated with relationship and partner satisfaction.

Convention

In the United States, "get a room" is a phrase that is usually said when one feels a sense of
disapproval after seeing what they consider to be an excessive public display of
affection.[54][55]

See also

Friendship

Indecent exposure

Interpersonal relationship

Intimacy

Intimate relationship
 Norm (sociology)

Platonic love

Sex in public

References

1. Gulledge, A. K.; Gulledge, M. H.; Stahmann, R. F. (2003). "Romantic physical affection types and
relationship satisfaction". The American Journal of Family Therapy. 31 (4): 233–242.
doi:10.1080/01926180390201936 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F01926180390201936) .
S2CID 145484896 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145484896) .

2. Bearman, P. S.; Bruckner, H. (2001). "Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges and First Intercourse".
American Journal of Sociology. 106 (4): 859–912. doi:10.1086/320295 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F3
20295) . S2CID 142684938 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:142684938) .

3. Etzioni, Amitai (2012). Hot Spots. p. 152.

4. "Public Displays of Affection Abroad (PDA) - Expat Guide Asia" (https://web.archive.org/web/2017052

4131242/http://www.expatguideasia.com/public-displays-affection-pda) . Expat Guide Asia.
Archived from the original (http://www.expatguideasia.com/public-displays-affection-pda) on 24
May 2017. Retrieved 10 October 2018.

5. "Mengzi : Li Lou I - 淳于髡⽈：「男⼥授受不親，禮與？ - Chinese Text Project" (https://ctext.org/me

ngzi/li-lou-i?searchu=%E6%B7%B3%E4%BA%8E%E9%AB%A1%E6%9B%B0%EF%BC%9A%E2%80%9C%
E7%94%B7%E5%A5%B3%E6%8E%88%E5%8F%97%E4%B8%8D%E8%A6%AA%EF%BC%8C%E7%A6%A
E%E8%88%87%EF%BC%9F) . ctext.org. Retrieved 18 June 2019.

."孟⼦/离娄上 - 维基⽂库，⾃由的图书馆" (https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hans/%E5%AD%9F%E5%AD%

90/%E9%9B%A2%E5%A9%81%E4%B8%8A) . zh.wikisource.org. Retrieved 18 June 2019.

7. "China's Public Display of Affection" (http://china.davidson.edu/blog/chinas-public-display-of-affecti

on/) . china.davidson.edu. Retrieved 18 June 2019.

."影像传播与亲密关系：社交⽹络秀恩爱仪式研究--《复旦⼤学》2014年硕⼠论⽂" (http://cdmd.cnki.
com.cn/Article/CDMD-10246-1015426762.htm) . cdmd.cnki.com.cn. Retrieved 18 June 2019.

9. Laufer, B. (1924). "Book Reviews" (https://doi.org/10.1525%2Faa.1924.26.4.02a00100) . American

Anthropologist. 26 (4): 540–543. doi:10.1525/aa.1924.26.4.02a00100 (https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fa
a.1924.26.4.02a00100) . JSTOR 661399 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/661399) . "The author's
researches were made at Aigun in northern Manchuria where the Manchu element is preserved in a
purer form and less influenced by Chinese than in southern Manchuria and Peking."

10. Shirokogorov, Sergeĭ Mikhaĭlovich (1924). Social Organization of the Manchus: A Study of the Manchu
Clan Organization. Royal Asiatic Society. p. i, 1–6, 122.
11. "Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 294 - Obscene acts and songs" (https://web.archive.
org/web/20180105073053/http://www.indianlawcases.com/Act-Indian.Penal.Code,1860-1742) .
Indian Law Cases. Archived from the original (http://www.indianlawcases.com/Act-Indian.Penal.Cod
e,1860-1742) on 5 January 2018. Retrieved 10 October 2018.

12. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/change-laws-according-to-change-in-
society/articleshow/64011340.cms

13. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/richard-gere-kissing-
incident-love-affair-with-akshay-kumar-raj-kundra-pornography-case-5-times-shilpa-shetty-made-
headlines/photostory/84829695.cms

14. Farmer, Ben (3 February 2009). "Hindu extremists 'will attack Valentine's Day couples' " (https://www.t
elegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/4447238/Hindu-extremists-will-attack-Valentines-Day-co
uples.html) . Telegraph, UK. London. Retrieved 16 October 2010.

15. B, Viju. " 'Kiss of love' movement: They came, dared the mob, did it" (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.co
m/india/Kiss-of-love-movement-They-came-dared-the-mob-did-it/articleshow/45016955.cms) . The
Times of India. Retrieved 3 November 2014.

1 . "Going to Dubai? Better Know the LAWS" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140626085809/https://thrif

tytraveling.com/going-to-dubai-better-know-the-law) . Thrifty Traveling. Archived from the original (h
ttp://thriftytraveling.com/going-to-dubai-better-know-the-law/) on 26 June 2014.

17. "Iran Safety and Security For Tourists" (http://www.letsgoiran.com/iran-safety-for-tourists) . Let's Go

Iran. Retrieved 4 June 2016.

1 . Coleman, J. S. (1961). The Adolescent Society: The Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on
Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

19. Waller, W. (1937). "The rating and dating complex". American Sociological Review. 2 (5): 727–734.
doi:10.2307/2083825 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2083825) . JSTOR 2083825 (https://www.jstor.or
g/stable/2083825) .

20. Giordano, P. C.; Cernkovich, S. A.; Holland, D. (2003). "Changes in friendship relationships over the life
course: Implications for desistance from crime". Criminology. 41 (2): 293–328. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
9125.2003.tb00989.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1745-9125.2003.tb00989.x) .

21. Adler, P. A.; Adler, P. (1998). Peer Power: Preadolescent Culture and Identity. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University.

22. Eder, D.; Evans, C. C.; Parker, S. (1995). School Talk: Gender and Adolescent Culture. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University.

23. Merten, D. E. (1996). "Going-with: the role of a social form in early romance". Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography. 24 (4): 462–484. doi:10.1177/089124196024004004 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0891
24196024004004) . S2CID 144845466 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144845466) .

24. Simon, R. W.; Eder, D.; Evans, C. (1992). "The development of feeling norms underlying romantic love
among adolescent females". Social Psychology Quarterly. 55 (1): 29–46. doi:10.2307/2786684 (http
s://doi.org/10.2307%2F2786684) . JSTOR 2786684 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786684) .
25. Thorne, B.; Luria, Z. (1986). ". Sexuality and gender in children's daily worlds". Social Problems. 33 (3):
176–190. doi:10.1525/sp.1986.33.3.03a00020 (https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fsp.1986.33.3.03a0002
0) .

2 . Vaquera, E.; Kao, G. (2005). "Private and Public Displays of Affection Among Interracial and Intra-
Racial Adolescent Couples". Social Science Quarterly. 86 (2): 484–508. doi:10.1111/j.0038-
4941.2005.00314.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0038-4941.2005.00314.x) .

27. Maccoby, E. (1990). "Gender and relationships: a developmental account". American Psychologist. 45
(4): 513–520. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.4.513 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066x.45.4.513) .
PMID 2186679 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2186679) .

2 . Giordano, P. C.; Longmore, M. A.; Manning, W. D. (2001). Sociological Studies of Children and Youth.
New York, NY: Elsevier. pp. 111–139.

29. Hagan, J.; Foster, H. (2001). "Youth violence and the end of adolescence". American Sociological
Review. 66 (6): 874–899. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.515.3673 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summar
y?doi=10.1.1.515.3673) . doi:10.2307/3088877 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3088877) .
JSTOR 3088877 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3088877) .

30. Lienemann, B. A.; Stopp, H. T. (2013). "The association between media exposure of interracial
relationships and attitudes toward interracial relationships". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 43:
398–415. doi:10.1111/jasp.12037 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fjasp.12037) .

31. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice (https://archive.org/details/natureofprejudic00allpric

h) . Reading: Addison-Wesley.

32. Jackman, M. R.; Crane, M. (1986). "Some of my best friends are black...: Interracial friendship and
whites' racial attitudes". Public Opinion Quarterly. 50 (4): 459–486. doi:10.1086/268998 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1086%2F268998) .

33. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). "Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice". Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. 23 (2): 173–185. doi:10.1177/0146167297232006 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0
146167297232006) . hdl:11655/5040 (https://hdl.handle.net/11655%2F5040) . S2CID 146540310
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:146540310) .

34. Powers, D. A.; Ellison, C. J. (1995). "Interracial contact and black racial attitudes: The contact
hypothesis and selectivity bias". Social Forces. 74: 205–226. doi:10.1093/sf/74.1.205 (https://doi.or
g/10.1093%2Fsf%2F74.1.205) .

35. Sigelman, L.; Welch, S. (1993). "The contact hypothesis revisited: Black-white interaction and positive
racial attitudes". Social Forces. 71 (3): 781–795. doi:10.1093/sf/71.3.781 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2
Fsf%2F71.3.781) .

3 . Perry, S. L. (2013). "Racial composition of social settings, interracial friendship, and whites' attitudes
toward interracial marriage". The Social Science Journal. 50: 13–22. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2012.09.001
(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.soscij.2012.09.001) . S2CID 144047097 (https://api.semanticscholar.o
rg/CorpusID:144047097) .
37. Djamba, Y. K.; Kimuna, S. R. (2014). "Are Americans really in favor of interracial marriage? A closer
look at when they are asked about Black-White marriage for their relatives". Journal of Black Studies.
45 (6): 528–544. doi:10.1177/0021934714541840 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002193471454184
0) . S2CID 144770663 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144770663) .

3 . Vaquera, E.; Kao, G. (2005). "Private and public displays of affection among interracial and intra-racial
adolescent couples". Social Science Quarterly. 86 (2): 484–508. doi:10.1111/j.0038-
4941.2005.00314.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0038-4941.2005.00314.x) .

39. Datzman, J.; Gardner, C. B. (2008). "In My Mind, We Are All Humans". Marriage and Family Review. 30
(1–2): 5–24. doi:10.1300/J002v30n01_02 (https://doi.org/10.1300%2FJ002v30n01_02) .
S2CID 142245559 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:142245559) .

40. Peek, Philip M. (2011). Twins in African and Diaspora Cultures: Double Trouble, Twice Blessed (http
s://books.google.com/books?
id=Ag0uduy5bYEC&q=homosexual+display+of+affection&pg=PA221) . Indiana University Press.
p. 221. ISBN 978-0253223074.

41. de Oliveira, J. M.; Costa, C. G.; Nogueira, C. (2013). "The Workings of Homonormativity: Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Queer Discourses on Discrimination and Public Displays of Affections in Portugal".
Journal of Homosexuality. 60 (10): 1475–1493. doi:10.1080/00918369.2013.819221 (https://doi.org/
10.1080%2F00918369.2013.819221) . PMID 24059969 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/240599
69) . S2CID 6744382 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6744382) .

42. Whitley, B. E. (1988). "Sex Differences in Heterosexuals' Attitudes Toward Homosexuals: It Depends
Upon What You Ask". Journal of Sex Research. 24 (1): 287–291. doi:10.1080/00224498809551426 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1080%2F00224498809551426) . PMID 22375663 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
v/22375663) .

43. Gaines, S. O. (2005). "Cultural Value Orientations, Internalized Homophobia, and Accommodation in
Romantic Relationships" (http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/17366/2/Gaines%20Journal%20of%
20Homosexuality%2050%202005%20u.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Homosexuality. 50 (1): 97–117.
doi:10.1300/j082v50n01_05 (https://doi.org/10.1300%2Fj082v50n01_05) . hdl:1871/17366 (https://
hdl.handle.net/1871%2F17366) . PMID 16368666 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16368666) .
S2CID 18723729 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18723729) .

44. "Colorado High School Controversy" (https://web.archive.org/web/20141006082732/http://www.ktvu.

com/videos/news/colorado-high-school-controversy-over-gay-pda/vGXNY/) . Archived from the
original (http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/colorado-high-school-controversy-over-gay-pda/vGXN
Y/) on 6 October 2014. Retrieved 3 October 2014.

45. Trebay, Guy (18 February 2007). "A Kiss Too Far?" (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/fashion/18
affection.html?pagewanted=all) . The New York Times.

4 . "Facebook Company Statistics – Statistic Brain" (http://www.statisticbrain.com/facebook-statistic

s/) . www.statisticbrain.com. 9 May 2017.

47. "STATS | Twitter Company Statistics – Statistic Brain" (http://www.statisticbrain.com/twitter-statisti

cs/) . www.statisticbrain.com. September 2016.
4 . Fox, J.; Warber, K. M.; Makstaller, D. C. (2013). "The role of Facebook in romantic relationship
development: An exploration of Knapp's Relational Stage Model". Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships. 30 (6): 771–794. doi:10.1177/0265407512468370 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F02654
07512468370) . S2CID 46280853 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:46280853) .

49. Sosik, V. S.; Bazarova, N. N. (2014). "Relational maintenance on social network sites: How Facebook
communication predicts relational escalation". Computers in Human Behavior. 35: 124–131.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.044 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.chb.2014.02.044) .

50. Bowe, G. (2010). "Reading romance: The impact Facebook rituals can have on a romantic
relationship". Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology. 1: 61–77.

51. Greenberg, B. S.; Eastin, M.; Hofschire, L.; Lachlan, K.; Brownell, K. D. (2003). "Portrayals of overweight
and obese individuals on commercial television" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC14
47967) . American Journal of Public Health. 93 (8): 1342–1348. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.530.9981 (https://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.530.9981) . doi:10.2105/ajph.93.8.1342 (http
s://doi.org/10.2105%2Fajph.93.8.1342) . PMC 1447967 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article
s/PMC1447967) . PMID 12893625 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12893625) .

52. Diamond, L. M. (2000). "Are friends as good as lovers? Attachment, physical affection, and effects on
cardiovascular arousal in young women's closest relationships". Dissertation Abstracts International,
Section B the Sciences and Engineering. 60: 4272.

53. Mackey, R. A.; Diemer, M. A.; O'Brien, B. A. (2000). "Psychological intimacy in the lasting relationships
of heterosexual and same-gender couples". Sex Roles. 43 (3/4): 201–227.
doi:10.1023/A:1007028930658 (https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1007028930658) .
S2CID 142528528 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:142528528) .

54. The Michigan Journal - Volume 25, Issue 18 - Page 7, 1996

55. "the definition of get a room" (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/get-a-room) . Dictionary.com.

Retrieved 11 February 2018.

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Public_display_of_affection&oldid=1044789
351"
 Last edited 5 days ago by Hamrtem

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.