Abstract
Guided by Relational Framing and Parental Investment Theories, this investigation examined experimentally induced flirtatious interactions. United States undergraduates (N = 252) from the Mid-Atlantic region viewed a flirtatious interaction and rated a confederate on physical and social attraction, affiliation, dominance, and conversational effectiveness. Generally, it was hypothesized that different flirting motivations would lead to different evaluations of the flirters, and perceptions of flirters would vary based on gender. Results revealed that men were evaluated as more dominant and affiliative than women when flirting, but dominance in men was not perceived as attractive or conversationally effective. In addition, men’s attraction to women increased significantly when women flirted for sexual motives, and women’s attraction to men decreased significantly when men flirted for fun. Overall, the results provide mixed support for both theories.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbey, A. (1982). Misperceptions of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 173–194.
Abbey, A., Cozzarelli, C., McLaughlin, K., & Harnish, R. J. (1987). The effects of clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 17, 108–126.
Abrahams, M. F. (1994). Perceiving flirtatious communication: An exploration of the perceptual dimensions underlying judgments of flirtatiousness. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 283–303.
Allison, P. D. (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Sociological Methodology, 20, 93–114.
Archer, J. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible? The American Psychologist, 51, 909–917.
Baldwin, M. W., & Keelan, J. P. (1999). Interpersonal expectations as a function of self-esteem and sex. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 822–833.
Bale, C., Morrison, R., & Caryl, P. G. (2006). Chat-up lines as male sexual displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 655–664.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
Berry, D. S., & Miller, K. M. (2001). When boy meets girl: Attractiveness and the five-factor model in opposite-sex interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 62–77.
Brown, S. L., & Lewis, B. P. (2004). Relational dominance and mate-selection criteria: Evidence that males attend to female dominance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 406–415.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 193–214.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19–41.
Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616–628.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 491–503.
Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271–278.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93–118.
Canary, D. J., & Wahba, J. (2006). Do women work harder than men at maintaining relationships? In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 359–377). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Clark, R. A., Dockum, M., Hazeu, H., Huang, M., Luo, N., Ramsey, J., et al. (2004). Initial encounters of young men and women: Impressions and disclosure estimates. Sex Roles, 50, 699–709.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1996). Framing social reality: The relevance of relational judgments. Communication Research, 23, 703–723.
Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Palmer, M. T. (1999). Structuring the concept of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 66, 49–65.
Downey, J. L., & Damhave, K. W. (1991). The effects of place, type of comment, and effort expended on the perception of flirtation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 35–43.
Downey, J. L., & Vitulli, W. F. (1987). Self-report measures of behavioral attributions related to interpersonal flirtation situations. Psychological Reports, 61, 899–904.
Ebesu Hubbard, A. (2001). Conflict between relationally uncertain romantic partners: The influence of relational responsiveness and empathy. Communication Monographs, 68, 400–414.
Edwards, R. (2000). Interpreting relational meanings: The influence of sex and gender-role. Research Reports, 17, 13–21.
Furman, W. (1999). Friends and lovers: The role of peer relationships in adolescent romantic relationships. In A. W. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), Relationships as developmental contexts (pp. 133–154). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Geary, D. C., Byrd-Craven, J., Hoard, M. K., Vigil, J., & Numtee, C. (2003). Evolution and development of boys’ social behavior. Developmental Review, 23, 444–471.
Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27–42.
Givens, D. (1978). The nonverbal basis of attraction: Flirtation, courtship, and seduction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 41, 346–359.
Graziano, W., Jensen-Campbell, L., Todd, M., & Finch, J. (1997). Interpersonal attraction from an evolutionary psychology perspective: Women’s reactions to dominant and prosocial men. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 141–167). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Greer, A. E., & Buss, D. M. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 185–201.
Gross, M. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An application of the competence model to Rahim’s organizational conflict styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 200–226.
Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.
Henningsen, D. D. (2004). Flirting with meaning: An examination of miscommunication in flirting interactions. Sex Roles, 50, 481–489.
Henningsen, D., Henningsen, M., & Valde, K. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions of women’s sexual interest during cross-sex interactions: An application and extension of Cognitive Valence Theory. Sex Roles, 54, 821–829.
Henningsen, D. D., Braz, M., & Davies, E. (2008). Why do we flirt? Journal of Business Communication, 45, 483–502.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & West, S. G. (1995). Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 427–440.
Jesser, C. J. (1978). Male responses to direct verbal sexual initiatives of females. Journal of Sex Research, 14, 118–128.
Johnson, C. B., Stockdale, M. S., & Saal, F. E. (1991). Persistence of men’s misperceptions of friendly cues across a variety of interpersonal encounters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 463–476.
Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969.
Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Zierk, K. L., & Krones, J. M. (1994). Evolution and social cognition: Contrast effects as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 210–217.
Knobloch, L. K. (2006). Relational uncertainty and message production within courtship: Features of date request messages. Human Communication Research, 32, 244–273.
McAdams, D. P., Jackson, R. J., & Kirshnit, C. (1984). Looking, laughing, and smiling in dyads as a function of intimacy motivation and reciprocity. Journal of Personality, 52, 261–273.
McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1989). Gender differences in nonverbal flirtation. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 15, 271–282.
McCroskey, L., McCroskey, J., & Richmond, V. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly, 54, 1–31.
Moore, M. (1995). Courtship signaling and adolescents: ‘Girls just wanna have fun’. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 319–328.
Mulac, A. (2006). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 359–377). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Papa, M. J., & Canary, D. J. (1995). Conflict in organizations: A competence-based approach. In A. M. Nicotera (Ed.), Conflict and organizations: Communicative processes (pp. 153–179). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.
Redmond, M. V., & Vrchota, D. A. (1997). The effects of varying lengths of initial interaction on attraction. Communication Reports, 10, 47–53.
Schmitt, D. P. (2002). A meta-analysis of sex differences in romantic attraction: Do rating contexts moderate tactic effectiveness judgments? The British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 387–403.
Schutz, W. C. (1966). FIRO: A three dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. Palo Alto: Science & Behavior Books.
Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66–73.
Singh, D. (2004). Mating strategies of young women: Role of physical attractiveness. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 43–54.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2002). Interpersonal skills. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 564–612). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sunnafrank, M., & Ramirez, A., Jr. (2004). At first sight: Persistent relational effects of get acquainted conversations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 361–379.
Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 15011–15016.
Tolman, D. R., & Diamond, L. M. (2001). Desegregating sexuality research: Cultural and biological perspectives on gender and desire. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 33–74.
Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1997). The perception of sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in variability. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 243–269.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Shay Niland, Cole Eller, Daniel Stefancin, and Stacie Batiste. We would also like to thank the editor, Dr. Irene H. Frieze, the special issue editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their insight on this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A
Appendix A
Dominance Measure
-
1.
He/she directed the interaction.***
-
2.
He/she was in control of the conversation.**
-
3.
He/she guided the interaction.***
-
4.
He/she tried to dominate her/him.*
-
5.
He/she dominated the conversation.**
-
6.
He/she controlled the conversation.**
-
7.
He/she tried to control the interaction.*
-
8.
He/she was in charge of the interaction.***
*Item from Relational Message Scale
**Item from Conversational Effectiveness Scale
***Item created for this study
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Frisby, B.N., Dillow, M.R., Gaughan, S. et al. Flirtatious Communication: An Experimental Examination of Perceptions of Social-Sexual Communication Motivated by Evolutionary Forces. Sex Roles 64, 682–694 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9864-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9864-5