Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flirtatious Communication: An Experimental Examination of Perceptions of Social-Sexual Communication Motivated by Evolutionary Forces

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrahams, M. F. (1994). Perceiving flirtatious communication: An exploration of the perceptual dimensions underlying judgments of flirtatiousness. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 283–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Sociological Methodology, 20, 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible? The American Psychologist, 51, 909–917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bale, C., Morrison, R., & Caryl, P. G. (2006). Chat-up lines as male sexual displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 655–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616–628.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1996). Framing social reality: The relevance of relational judgments. Communication Research, 23, 703–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Palmer, M. T. (1999). Structuring the concept of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 66, 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downey, J. L., & Vitulli, W. F. (1987). Self-report measures of behavioral attributions related to interpersonal flirtation situations. Psychological Reports, 61, 899–904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebesu Hubbard, A. (2001). Conflict between relationally uncertain romantic partners: The influence of relational responsiveness and empathy. Communication Monographs, 68, 400–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, R. (2000). Interpreting relational meanings: The influence of sex and gender-role. Research Reports, 17, 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Givens, D. (1978). The nonverbal basis of attraction: Flirtation, courtship, and seduction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 41, 346–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer, A. E., & Buss, D. M. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henningsen, D. D. (2004). Flirting with meaning: An examination of miscommunication in flirting interactions. Sex Roles, 50, 481–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henningsen, D. D., Braz, M., & Davies, E. (2008). Why do we flirt? Journal of Business Communication, 45, 483–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jesser, C. J. (1978). Male responses to direct verbal sexual initiatives of females. Journal of Sex Research, 14, 118–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch, L. K. (2006). Relational uncertainty and message production within courtship: Features of date request messages. Human Communication Research, 32, 244–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1989). Gender differences in nonverbal flirtation. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 15, 271–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCroskey, L., McCroskey, J., & Richmond, V. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly, 54, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (1995). Courtship signaling and adolescents: ‘Girls just wanna have fun’. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 319–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, M. V., & Vrchota, D. A. (1997). The effects of varying lengths of initial interaction on attraction. Communication Reports, 10, 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, W. C. (1966). FIRO: A three dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. Palo Alto: Science & Behavior Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D. (2004). Mating strategies of young women: Role of physical attractiveness. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 43–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1997). The perception of sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in variability. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 243–269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Department of Communication, University of Kentucky, 240 Grehan Building, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA

    Brandi N. Frisby

  2. Department of Communication Studies, West Virginia University, Armstrong Hall 108, P.O. Box 6293, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA

    Megan R. Dillow, Shelbie Gaughan & John Nordlund

Authors
  1. Brandi N. Frisby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megan R. Dillow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shelbie Gaughan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Nordlund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brandi N. Frisby.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Dominance Measure

  1. 1.

    He/she directed the interaction.***

  2. 2.

    He/she was in control of the conversation.**

  3. 3.

    He/she guided the interaction.***

  4. 4.

    He/she tried to dominate her/him.*

  5. 5.

    He/she dominated the conversation.**

  6. 6.

    He/she controlled the conversation.**

  7. 7.

    He/she tried to control the interaction.*

  8. 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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9864-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation