Parenting styles play a crucial role in shaping a childs emotional, social, and cognitive development (Johari et al., 2011; Lanjekar et al., 2022). While numerous factors influence parenting approaches, one often overlooked aspect is the role of childhood experiences with physical touch. Physical touch, ranging from affectionate gestures such as hugs and cuddles to disciplinary actions like spanking, contributes significantly to a childs understanding of emotional security, trust, and interpersonal relationships. These early experiences can leave lasting impressions, influencing how individuals later interact with their children (Sanvictores & Mendez, 2021). 

This study explores the influence of childhood experiences with physical touch on parenting styles across generations. By examining how parental touch - whether nurturing or disciplinary - impacts how individuals parent their children, this research aims to uncover patterns of continuity or change in caregiving behaviors. A cross-generational analysis will provide insights into whether individuals replicate the touch-related behaviors they experienced in childhood or consciously modify them based on personal reflections and societal shifts in parenting norms.

Understanding these dynamics is essential in fostering healthy parent-child relationships and guiding interventions that promote positive, nurturing touch practices. By shedding light on the intergenerational transmission of physical touch behaviors, this study contributes to the broader discourse on parenting, attachment theory, and child development.

Impact of childhood experiences with physical touch on Parenting Styles

Parents early childhood experiences with physical touch - whether affectionate, neglectful, or abusive - can significantly shape an individuals parenting style (Carozza & Leong, 2021). For instance, parents can model behavior by replicating the physical affection they received as children. Those raised in nurturing environments with hugs, cuddles, and positive touch tend to express warmth and affection toward their children. In terms of attachment and emotional regulation, secure attachment, which is often fostered by positive physical touch, helps parents respond empathetically to their childrens emotional needs. Conversely, a lack of affectionate touch may make it difficult for a parent to comfort and connect with their child. 

Furthermore, parents early childhood experiences can also impact discipline approaches. For instance, children who experienced harsh or punitive physical touch (e.g., spanking, slapping) may be more likely to use physical discipline. Alternatively, some may actively avoid it, choosing gentler approaches to discipline as a reaction to their childhood experiences. It can also influence the way parents give comfort with affection. A parent who lacked physical affection as a child may struggle with expressing warmth through touch, leading to emotionally distant interactions. They might either hesitate to provide affection or overcompensate to ensure their child does not experience the same lack. 

Likewise, it can result in intergenerational trauma or healing. Adverse childhood experiences can perpetuate cycles of neglect or harsh discipline, but some individuals become aware of these patterns and consciously work to break them, fostering a more affectionate and responsive parenting style. Lastly, it can impact parental stress and resilience. Positive physical touch in childhood is linked to lower stress and better emotional regulation in adulthood (Morris et al., 2021). Parents who have received warmth and care in their childhood are often more resilient and patient with their children. Ultimately, childhood experiences with physical touch contribute to shaping parenting behaviors, whether through direct imitation, avoidance, or conscious adaptation. 

The following are specific ways early childhood experiences with physical touch influence parenting styles. In Authoritative Parenting, individuals who experience nurturing and affectionate physical touch are more likely to develop authoritative parenting styles characterized by warmth, responsiveness, and appropriate discipline (Kim & Kochanska, 2019). Contrastingly, Authoritarian Parenting is exhibited by those who received minimal or inconsistent physical affection, who, in turn, may adopt stricter, less affectionate parenting styles, which may be due to internalized patterns of emotional suppression and control (Simons & Conger, 2007). 

Meanwhile, Permissive Parenting is displayed by individuals who lacked physical touch during childhood who may overcompensate by adopting overly permissive parenting styles, seeking to provide their children with the affection they lacked (Mills-Koonce et al., 2022). Lastly, Neglectful Parenting, which can occur in extreme cases, may be exhibited by parents who were deprived of physical touch in their childhood and have been associated with neglectful or detached parenting styles, potentially leading to difficulties in forming close emotional bonds with offspring (Schore, 2001). 

Theoretical  Framework

Several psychological theories support the relationship between childhood touch experiences and parenting styles. Attachment Theory (Bowlby et al., 1992) suggests that early interactions with caregivers form the foundation for future relational patterns, including parenting behaviors. Additionally, Eriksons Psychosocial Development Theory posits that early tactile interactions contribute to a sense of trust and security, which may influence how individuals later interact with their children (Maree, 2022; Saki et al., 2024).).

Adult-child interactions enable the child to detect and construct patterns of vocal, visual, and emotional structures and form biological rhythms and attentive states into a lived experience in the present moment (Rondal, 1985). This prior experience becomes the childs prototype for symbolic perceptions, empathy, affective patterns, and self-regulation that serve as the foundation for his/her ability to build and maintain intimacy in later life (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2002).

The influence of childhood physical touch on parenting styles may also be explained through neurobiological mechanisms. Research indicates that physical touch influences the development of the oxytocin system, which plays a critical role in bonding and social behaviors (Feldman, 2012). Additionally, childhood experiences shape neural pathways associated with empathy and emotional regulation, impacting how individuals respond to their childrens needs (Narvaez, 2014).

The concept of physical touch stems from various schools of thought. For instance, Field  (2010b) considers physical touch as a mental or theoretical concept of experiencing pleasure in connecting with others. He claims that man is designed to be emotionally nourished by situations, fate, and people in the quest for truth. In simple terms, physical touch provides the same level of care and attention to our emotional needs as we do to our physical health (Joule, & Guéguen, 2007).

Cultural norms surrounding physical touch in childhood also shape parenting behaviors. In some cultures, high levels of physical affection are normative and associated with positive parenting outcomes, while in others, more restrained physical interactions are common but not necessarily indicative of a lack of warmth (Bornstein, 2012). Contextual factors such as socioeconomic status, family dynamics, and social support further moderate these relationships. Mans natural inclination to seek answers to questions drives him to form groups and relationships. Thus, man establishes norms of morality that would regulate his/her behavior to protect this co-existence (Manstead, 2000). Barnet, (2005) and Field, (2010a; 2010b) describe physical touch as one of the earliest parent-child interaction patterns. Touch as an expression of physical touch, is the first sensory modality to mature in the infant. It continues to play a significant role in the childs physiological, biological, and social development (Montagu, 1986), particularly from infancy to childhood (Rubin, 1963; Diego et al., 2004). Then, it establishes the foundation for all the other forms of communication that would develop later in life (Hertenstein, 2002; et al., 2006). 

Very little scientific research dealing with parents early childhood experiences with physical touch and their influence on parenting has been conducted over the years despite its apparent importance in our daily social interactions from birth to old age. Parents are considered the primary caregivers in the family and whose physical touch behaviors and practices can leave pleasant memories or dark scars on children and affect their dealings with others in later life; thus, it is crucial to examine how parents experienced physical touch in their early years and how it influenced their parenting styles.

Therefore, this study aimed to explain how parents early childhood experiences with physical touch influenced their parenting styles. Specifically, it explored which aspects of physical touch in childhood correlate with different parenting behaviors and whether the level of positive or negative physical touch in a parents childhood predicts a particular parenting style.

This study used a combination of Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and cross-generational analysis in approaching the study (Moran, 2005; Tuohy et al., 2013). IPA is a qualitative research method that explores how individuals make sense of their lived experiences, focusing on the subjective meanings and interpretations attached to those experiences while the cross-generational analysis is the study of various age groups, or generations, to determine how their distinct experiences, values, and viewpoints affect their interactions and behaviors (Eatough & Smith, 2017). The instruments used were a demographic survey to elicit participants data; and in-depth interviews to obtain comprehensive information from participants regarding their childhood experiences with physical touch and how it influenced their parenting styles (Houtkoop-Steenstra, 2000). Observations were conducted to actively observe behaviors, interactions, and events in their natural environment to collect rich, detailed, and contextually relevant data. 

Before gathering data, the consent form was obtained from the participants indicating the studys purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits (Hasan et al., 2021). Personal data were kept strictly confidential. Steps were taken to minimize potential emotional distress. Participants were encouraged to share only what they were comfortable with, and access to psychological support resources was provided as needed. Participation was entirely voluntary, and no pressure or coercion was exerted. A certification from the Ethics Review Board was also obtained to ensure that the study adhered to ethical standards. The study respects diverse cultural perspectives on physical touch and parenting. I approached discussions with sensitivity and avoided imposing value judgments on participants experiences (Allmark et al.,  2009; Hesse-Biber, 2017).

Using purposive sampling, 13 parents, composed of 4 males and 9 females in 4 generations, joined the study (Pilcher, 1994). They comprised 2 Millennials, 3 Generation Xers, 4 Baby Boomers, and 4 Traditionalists. In choosing the samples, a set of inclusion/exclusion criteria was utilized to filter participant entry into the study, which were as follows: (a) should have at least one child; (b) must be willing to participate in the study; (c) and should be able to expound on ideas orally or in writing (Patton, 2002). As a result of filtering participant entries using the inclusion criteria, the researcher failed to obtain the desired equal number of participants in every group, which can be considered a limitation of the study.

The demographic survey showed that the youngest Millennial was 23 years old, the 3 Gen X parents were 28-43 years old; the 4 Baby Boomers were 44-62 years old; and the 4 Traditionalists were 63-86 years old. Most of them were middle children. Only three were the eldest and 1 was an only child. Seven of them were wed in church; 4 were widowed while 2 were living with partners without a certificate of marriage. Most were degree holders except for one who finished secondary education; two completed their elementary education while one could neither read nor write. In terms of religious affiliation, 12 of them were Roman Catholics while one was a Baptist. Five of them were government employees; the four Traditionalists were retired teachers; three were self-employed and only one was not working. About six of them were in the middle class; two in the upper class; one in the upper middle class; two in the lower middle; one in the working class and another one was the poor class category. Half of the participants indicated they do not bond in the family. Only 2 declared they bonded often while the rest did it rarely. 7 of them said they currently have a happy atmosphere while the others have mixed and normal ambiance at home. Only one indicated "sad" due to poverty. Concerning early child family orientation, 7 parents confirmed their parents were authoritarian, 4 had authoritative parents, and 2 followed democratic parental training. Employed participants had an average income of Php 23,000.00 per month.

As the sole author, I acted as the primary instrument for data collection; hence, I claimed my subjectivity in interpreting the data (Boss et al., 1996; Creswell & Poth, 2016). To prevent the researchers beliefs and doubts from influencing the interpretations, the assumptions and biases on the phenomenon were declared before the investigation as follows: Women can be more affectionate than men; There can be variations in expressing physical touch when dealing with the opposite sex in response to social norms; and  Children can receive physical touch more from their mothers than their fathers. Finally, physical touch can carry a polar effect, wherein, it can be both therapeutic and destructive depending on the motive for which it is being demonstrated. 

Concerning data analysis, Thematic Analysis was used to identify patterns in the data that can be generalized to a larger population  (Clarke & Braun, 2017). This method also gives a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon at hand. This is a flexible method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data. The six steps included 1) familiarization with the data; 2) generating initial codes; 3) searching for themes; 4) reviewing themes  5) defining and naming themes, and 6) producing the report.

To ensure that the information is accurate and credible, I applied triangulation where I examined multiple sources of data such as surveys, interviews, and observations (Creswell & Poth, 2016; Mathison, 1988). I also analyzed the responses of four (4) groups of participants – Millennials, Gen X, Baby Boomers, and Traditionalists to see any convergence divergence, or inconsistency in the interpretations generated from the data (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Merriam, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994). I conducted member-checking and scrutinized the passages of the data (Guest & MacQueen, 2008; Erickson, 2012). The participants were likewise allowed to review and provide approval of the interview transcripts regarding their content. I kept a record of all messages to and from the participants and encouraged them to give external feedback in the process (Creswell, 2007)

In this section, the results are presented based on the questions of the study and supplemented by brief discussions and implications. 

Question#1. How do parents childhood experiences with physical touch influence their current parenting styles? 

Participants responses to their experiences can be categorized as either emancipatory - meaning they are freeing themselves and their children from longstanding family traditions of physical distance -or retaliatory, which involves perpetuating the no physical touch pattern due to having been deprived of it. This means that physical touch or no physical touch practices were either strengthened or modified depending on the personal choices of individuals.

Theme 1: Emancipatory 

An example of an emancipatory response would be that of a 42-year-old baby boomer-mother who recalled, ‘When we were growing up, han usual nga traditional way- diri ka pwede magyakan, diri ka pwede mag join, or maghatag hin input. Sugad kami hadto. Very strict. (..when we were growing up, it was in a traditional setting. We were not allowed to talk, join, or give input in family discourse. That was how we were. Strict. –Transcript # 5). When asked if she followed that pattern in parenting, she answered, ‘baga hin ginpa-upay ko pa- open communication (I somehow improved the context by establishing open communication- Transcript # 5). 

In the case of the 49-year-old baby boomer mother,  although she grew up in a stoic atmosphere, she was torn between following her parents practices and adapting to the modern way of dealing with children. She recalls, “Kay iba na man it mga bata  yana”. (The children today are already different from our times.)  Referring to the practice of physical touch, she added, “Kay kinahanglan ma experience man nira an waray ko ka experience. (But they need to have what I could not experience- Transcript # 7).  She sounded like if she had a choice she would still copy her parents style, as seen in her next statement, “pero mayda gihapon mga bagay, batasan, buruhaton nga diri pwede”. (..however, there are still behaviors and activities that will not be allowed. -Transcript # 7). For a 34-year-old Gen X mother who was blind from childhood, physical touch is very difficult to express because as she recalls, ‘Didto ako dumako nak mga dada. Nagtrabaho ako ha ira ngada nak pgdako. (I grew up with my aunts working for them until I reached adolescence –Transcript # 1). Luckily she got married and bore three wonderful children. After her husband had a stroke, her efforts to meet the familys needs doubled. Despite her challenging life situation, which others might view as tragic, I noticed during the interview how often she smiled and expressed gratitude for her many blessings. She says, that even if she did not experience physical touch in her childhood, her children are the ones who show it to her now and she tries her best to always reciprocate with the same affection. 

Theme 2- Retaliatory

A retaliatory response was manifested by a 28-year-old Gen X mother who did not experience being hugged or kissed by her parents. When she became a mother, she, too, decided to focus on feeding her children without thoughts of going beyond it. When asked why she was being cold, she replied, ‘kay waray ako hiton mag-agi. Pirmi waray hira mama.(..because I did not experience that. My parents were not always there.- Transcript # 2). She elaborated that she struggles to express her love to her husband and children. She finds it awkward. This is similar to the experience of a 52-year-old baby boomer father who hesitates to express physical touch even to his wife simply because his orientation conditioned his mind that it is only for family members who miss each other for being distant. He no longer says “I love you” because he sees his wife every day.

Most participants learned to be more caring and loving especially to family members because they did not feel good being deprived of hugs and kisses. The manner of expressing would depend on the degree of deprivation causing an intense longing for loving physical touch and affection. The intensity of expressing physical touch was also conditioned by past experiences or life situations. For instance, a 34-year-old Gen X father who was abandoned by his parents became overprotective of his children to the point of saying, ‘mapatay ako hin bisan hino nga maglalabot tak anak. (I will kill anyone who harms my child in any way.- Transcript # 3). The statement is not an exaggeration, but an extreme opposite reaction to being abandoned by his parents. Conversely, he tends to become excessively controlling.

It was noticeable that when questions diverted to expressing physical touch to people outside the family circle, their collective response was characterized with caution. They all believe that physical touch should be given with restraint because it can create misunderstanding or misperception, ill will, and malicious thoughts. Furthermore, it can breed selfish motives, illicit affairs, inordinate affection for another person, or sexual harassment. 

Question # 2. What specific aspects of physical touch in childhood correlate with different parenting behaviors? 

Theme 1: Contextual Aspect

The participants demonstrate contextual and dimensional aspects when dealing with physical touch. From a contextual level, they see physical touch as generally good when it is given to family members. For instance, A 42-year-old baby boomer mother expresses that ‘physical touch is okay Kun ha (if in the) family, especially with my children and when they have problems. Meanwhile, A 44-year-old baby boomer father states,  “‘..physical touch liwat ha family, you hug and kiss, bagan hi-ara man kami hito sugad.” (In the family, we used to hug and kiss. We are used to that).

At the threshold of expressing it to people outside the family circle, they set parameters based on the degree of closeness or intimacy of the relationship. They think it is impossible to physically touch someone without being suspected of malicious intent. Everyone agrees that even those closest to you need space to prevent familiarity from leading to an abusive relationship. The Traditionalists and Baby Boomers are more firm in saying that physical touch is inappropriate when expressed to outsiders. “…Kun ha iba, depende man la ito ha tawo.”; depende kun hin.o it ginkaka deal  (When working with others, the outcome depends on the individuals involved.- Trans. # 5; 10-13). This observation may be explained by their early childhood orientation which showed stoicism. Their parents did not show their real feelings, so the children were inclined to follow the same pattern.

Theme 2: Dimensional aspect

From a dimensional level, participants responses were filtered by generational age, gender, educational background, socioeconomic status, and early experiences. It was worth noting how age and generational differences influenced the way participants expressed physical touch. The youngest Millennials among the participants displayed more bluntness when sharing their experiences.Kay pinadako ak tak parents nga malambing, pirmi ako na I love you.” (Since my parents brought me up in a loving way, I often say, I love you), says a 23-year-old Millennial mother. She added that whenever she commits mistakes she can easily say sorry to her father with a hug and “I love you”. 

In contrast, the other Millennial, a 28-year-old mother, expressed her frustration about not knowing how to give or receive physical touch due to a lack of prior experience. (‘..kay waray man iton ha am. An akon parents waray man hira dida. Waray ako pagtubo nga mayda hito. (It is because we did not demonstrate physical touch at home. My parents were not present in my life, and I did not grow up experiencing pleasant physical touch). The absence of physical touch in her childhood made it difficult for her to even describe physical touch as pleasant or not. The Gen X parents regarded physical touch as a way of determining how much they are loved by family members while Baby Boomers perceive it as a way to establish connection and peace of mind. They believe that it is the missing link among humans. The Traditionalists are not physically touchy. A 76-year-old traditionalist recalls, “Diri kami hi-ara hiton. Waray mat kami ha balay.” (We are not used to it because we do not have it at home). However, they perceive physical touch today as a source of comfort, happiness, sympathy, and love. 

Meanwhile, the 23-year-old Millennial mother confessed that anywhere she could express physical touch more openly and would not be ashamed of it, compared to some older participants who confessed they are too shy to even hug or kiss their parents and children. A 49-year-old mother from the baby boomer generation regretted how her children changed as they grew older. She related that they used to wrap their arms around her when they were young, but began to distance themselves as they reached puberty and onwards. Sometimes, she wished they had never grown up so they could continue showing love through hugs and kisses. (Sana waray nala hira dumako- Trans.#5) .

It is worth noting that all participants, regardless of gender, unanimously declared that they felt uncomfortable expressing physical touch to the opposite sex. They provided two reasons to explain this sentiment: first, they are fully aware of the laws prohibiting unlawful physical contact with another person without proper permission and with malicious intent, which is considered sexual abuse. The other reason is connected to moral norms that regard physical touching of the opposite sex as sinful or an act leading to various forms of sexual immorality. The Filipinos, in particular, are typically conservative; hence, despite the influence of Western culture, they still raise their brows over males who are physically touching females and vice versa even within the family. This could be due to the collective Filipino culture of conservatism.

Participants with lower education levels were less likely to express physical affection towards family and others compared to those with higher education.. They are direct descendants of parents who were likewise deprived of physical touch. They stated that due to poverty, most of their time would be allotted to earning a living. They reasoned that they prioritize feeding their children more than socializing or going to parties. Their connections are primarily with immediate family and a few friends and neighbors who also prefer subtle verbal affection over physical touch. The absence of physical touch may also be the reason why there are more delinquents among economically challenged families. Contrastingly, most parents who finished schooling tend to express tactile and verbal physical touch through kissing and hugs to family members, while with others, the most common is a friendly handshake. 

In terms of socioeconomic status, participants who belonged to the elite society exchanged tactile and verbal physical touch more often than those in the suburbs. A 52-year-old baby boomer father feels awkward with the idea of tactile and verbal physical touch. When asked whether he says “I love you” to his wife, he just replied, ‘baga korni man iton.. (It sounds corny). In an attempt to justify this, he reasoned that being with his wife daily does not give him a reason to say those words anymore. His presence is his expression of love.

Most of the early childhood experiences of the participants followed an authoritarian parental training- where the children were not given the chance to say something before the stick reached their skin as an expression of their parents anger. This created an imbalance, with a greater emphasis on strict discipline and only a little pleasant physical touch. For instance, a 34-year-old Gen X father recalled that his parents left to work in a metropolitan city far from his home when he was only two years old. He was brought up by a neighbor who could not give him the emotional feeding essential for developing trust, a positive self-concept, and high self-esteem. He did not experience love at all. As a result, he “almost killed his peer” one day, in a sudden outburst of fury. (Trans. # 3). 

In another context, except for the 23-year-old Millennial, the rest of the participants had parents who were not demonstrative or showy in their affection. Based on the testimony of a 49-year-old baby boomer mother, her father implemented rigid rules at home. She narrated, ‘Istrikto hi Tatay. diri kami nakakagawas ha balay. Waray hugs, kisses, I love yous..waray hiton”. (Father was strict. We could not go out of the house. We had no hugs or kisses, and endearing words like I love you. We had none of those.) 

Meanwhile, a 28-year-old Millennial mother seemed uncomfortable answering the question because she could not remember being hugged or kissed by her parents. Recalling her childhood years, she related that whenever she would get sick, she would get the typical attention parents would give, such as letting them take medicine, and eat their food; yet the pleasant, tactile physical touch would always be excluded from the routine. There were no hugs or comforting words, lullabies, or even holding their hands. Contrastingly, the 23-year-old Millennial mother revealed that she became a spoiled brat due to being physically touchy at home. She was so highly favored that with just a little physical touch, her father would give her anything she wanted, which adversely resulted in her early pregnancy. 

Question #3.   Does the level of positive or negative physical touch in a parents childhood predict a particular parenting style? 

Theme 1: Cycle of Gentle Parenting Regardless of Childhood Experience

This theme explores how parenting styles are not always direct reflections of a parents own childhood experiences. While many believe parents shape their styles based on their upbringing, research indicates that some break or continue cycles in surprising ways. One of the key insights that can be derived from this is consistency across generations. Some parents who experienced positive physical touch in childhood naturally continue this pattern by practicing gentle parenting, as was the case of a 23-year-old Millennial who was raised in a loving atmosphere and who became a loving mother to her children. Their upbringing reinforces the idea that love and affection are essential in raising children. However, some parents who had negative childhood experiences still choose gentle parenting, showing that a difficult past does not always lead to harsh parenting as was the case of a 42-year-old Baby Boomer who grew up in a traditional and strict setting that prohibited them from self-expression but still chose to adopt gentle parenting to make up for what he missed in childhood.

Another insight is personal growth and self-awareness in parenting. Some parents reflect on their upbringing and make intentional choices about how they want to raise their children. Their parenting is influenced by personal beliefs, relationships, and exposure to new parenting philosophies rather than just their childhood experiences (Wilson, 1982). A 76-year-old traditionalist who was raised in a home devoid of pleasant physical touch now considers physical touch as a source of comfort, happiness, sympathy, and love. In terms of emotional adaptability and resilience, parenting styles are shaped not only by past experiences but also by an individuals ability to process emotions and seek positive change. The 49-year-old baby boomer mother, raised in a stoic environment, was torn between continuing the cycle or breaking free from it. She then decided to acknowledge her past pain but did not let it define her future relationships with her children. This theme, therefore, challenges the idea that childhood experiences rigidly determine parenting styles. Instead, it shows that while some parents naturally continue what they experienced, others consciously break cycles to create a nurturing environment. Parenting is influenced by a mix of past experiences, self-awareness, emotional resilience, and personal values.

Theme 2: Breaking the Cycle of Negativity

This theme explores how some parents, despite experiencing a lack of positive physical touch or even negative experiences in childhood, make a conscious effort to change their approach to parenting. Instead of repeating patterns of emotional neglect or harsh discipline, they choose to provide the love, care, and affection they wished they had received (Islam, Jaffee, & Widom, 2023). One of the key insights here is recognizing and understanding the past. The narrative of the 28-year-old Gen X mother who did not experience being hugged or kissed by her parents tried to break the cycle and developed self-awareness about her childhood experiences. She acknowledged that her upbringing was lacking in warmth, affection, or positive touch. She grew up in an environment where physical touch was used negatively (e.g., corporal punishment) or was absent. However, she chose gentle parenting and became a loving mother to her children. 

The above premise is the conscious decision to parent differently. Instead of unconsciously adopting the same parenting style they experienced, these parents actively seek to provide their children with the emotional support they lacked. They educate themselves about different parenting approaches, such as gentle parenting, attachment parenting, or other nurturing styles. Many of them may turn to therapy, parenting books, support groups, or personal reflection to redefine their parenting philosophy (Sanvictores & Mendez, 2021). 

Another insight is overcoming emotional barriers. Breaking a negative cycle is not always easy; parents may struggle with emotional wounds from their childhood. Some parents find it challenging to express affection because they never experienced it themselves, yet they push through this discomfort to provide a different experience for their children. Emotional healing is crucial, as parents address their past trauma to prevent inadvertently passing it on to their children (Ozturk, 2022).

Next is the role of empathy and intention in parenting. Baby Boomer parents who lacked positive physical touch often develop deep empathy for their childrens emotional needs. They recognize how a lack of affection affected them and strive to ensure their children feel loved and secure. Instead of seeing discipline as punishment, they may emphasize connection, communication, and emotional validation. Surprisingly, the Traditionalists in this study expressed that hugging, kissing, and saying “I love you” in the family is good (“Mas maupay ko an yana nga trend, kay talaga it nga na-hug, na-kiss, na sing nga I love you, maupay gud ito.” - Transcripts # 10, 11, 12, 13). 

Another insight generated from the data is parenting as a form of healing. The Millennial parents in this study described their choice to provide love and warmth to their children as a way of healing their inner child. By giving their children what they lacked, they find a sense of fulfillment and closure. Some even say that witnessing their childs happiness helps them cope with their childhood pain (Kong & Yasmin, 2022). Breaking the cycle of negativity in parenting is a testament to human resilience and the power of conscious change. While childhood experiences shape people, they do not have to define their future. Through self-awareness, emotional healing, and intentional choices, parents can create a nurturing environment for their children - one that is different from the one they experienced (Bahmani et al., 2023). 

This study examined how parenting methods among four generational cohorts - Millennials, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Traditionalists - are influenced by early encounters with physical touch. The results show that attitudes regarding physical contact and its function in parenting vary significantly between generations. 

Traditionalists frequently reported less affectionate touch as children since they were typically brought up in a more restrained and strict setting. Their parenting philosophies, which prioritized discipline, structure, and emotional control, were impacted by this. Nonetheless, several participants reported making a deliberate attempt to distance themselves from their parents by showing their kids more love (Islam et al., 2023). Baby Boomers, raised during a time when social norms were changing, displayed more variety. Others grew up in more loving homes, particularly when cultural views on childrearing started to change, but many had comparable emotionally guarded parental experiences to Traditionalists. Their approaches to parenting became divided as a result, with some adopting more warmth and emotional transparency and others sticking to more traditional discipline-oriented techniques (Kong & Yasmin, 2022). 

Generation X parents believed that physical touch is now widely accepted as a way to show love and security. Many of them were brought up in homes that struck a balance between affection and punishment, and they carried this balance into their parenting (Barnett, 2005). Nonetheless, others said they found it difficult to show physical affection if they had not received it regularly as children. 

The Millennials, the youngest generation in the study, showed the most favorable views of physical touch in parenting (Stack, 2001; 2008; 1990; 1992). They were more likely to emphasize affectionate touch as a crucial element of their parenting style since they grew up during a time when emotional intelligence and attachment parenting were more widely recognized (DeFrain & Asay, 2007). Regardless of their own early experiences, many made a conscious effort to give their children a loving and physically caring atmosphere.

Overall, there was a cross-generational trend that indicated a slow change in parenting practices toward more acceptance and use of physical affection. Individual differences throughout each generation, however, draw attention to the intricate interactions between societal changes, individual experiences, and thoughtful parenting decisions. These generational inequalities have also been impacted by cultural factors like growing conversations about emotional well-being, shifting family patterns, and improvements in psychological science.

The study underscores the lasting impact of childhood experiences with physical touch on parenting practices across generations. While Traditionalists and Baby Boomers often encountered a more reserved approach to physical affection, Generation X and Millennials have increasingly embraced its importance in fostering secure parent-child relationships. These findings suggest that societal norms surrounding touch and parenting continue to evolve, with younger generations placing greater emphasis on physical affection as a means of nurturing emotional bonds. This shift reflects broader cultural trends toward emotional openness and holistic child development. Future research could explore how external influences, such as media, technology, and changing family dynamics, further shape parenting styles. Additionally, examining how these generational differences influence childrens long-term emotional well-being could provide deeper insight into the importance of physical touch in parenting. Overall, this study highlights the significance of childhood experiences in shaping parenting philosophies, emphasizing the need for continued awareness and intentionality in fostering healthy, affectionate relationships across generations.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to GOD for His guidance and strength in completing this research project. The author also extends heartfelt thanks to the participants for their willingness to share their childhood experiences of physical touch and for reflecting on how these shaped their parenting styles. 

I declare no conflict of interest that may have influenced the writing and publication of this manuscript.