Sex Roles

, Volume 15, Issue 5–6, pp 283–298 | Cite as

The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent

  • Antonia Abbey
  • Christian Melby


The effects of several nonverbal cues on perceptions of male and female stimulus persons' sexuality were examined. Based on the findings of Abbey (“Sex Differences in Attributions for Friendly Behavior: Do Males Misperceive Females' Friendliness?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 42, 830–838) and other investigators, we hypothesized that in general males would attribute more sexuality to both male and female targets than would females. Furthermore, we hypothesized that males' and females' perceptions of sexual intent would be most divergent in situations in which the nonverbal cues were most ambiguous (e.g., causal touch, moderate interpersonal distance). To test this hypothesis, the effects of three nonverbalcues were examined: interpersonal distance, eye contact, and touch. Males rated female targets as more seductive, sexy, and promiscuous, and expressed more sexual attraction to the opposite-sexed target, than females did for both ambiguous and nonambiguous nonverbal cues. Males' ratings of the male targets' sexuality were higher than females' ratings in two of the three studies. Also, across the three studies both female and male subjects rated the female target higher than the male target on the sexual traits. The implications of these findings for future research are discussed.


Gender Difference Social Psychology Male Subject Sexual Attraction Sexual Trait 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbey, A. Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females' friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 42, 830–838.Google Scholar
  2. Abbey, A., Cozzarelli, C., McLaughlin, K., & Harnish, R. J. The effects of clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
  3. Aiello, J. R., & Cooper, R. E. Use of personal space as a function of social affect. Paper presented at the 80th Annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., August 1972.Google Scholar
  4. Byrne, D., Ervin, C. R., & Lamberth, J. Continuity between the experimental study of attraction and real-life computer dating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 157–165.Google Scholar
  5. Evans, G. W., & Howard, R. B. Personal space. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 334–344.Google Scholar
  6. Exline, R. V., & Winters, L. C. Affective relations and mutual glance in dyads. In S. Tomkins & C. Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and personality. New York: Springer, 1965.Google Scholar
  7. Gifford, R. Projected interpersonal distance and orientation choices: Personality, sex, and social situation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1982, 45, 145–152.Google Scholar
  8. Gross, A. E. The male role and heterosexual behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 1978, 34, 87–107.Google Scholar
  9. Guardo, C. J. Personal space in children. Child Development, 1969, 40, 143–151.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, E. T. The silent language. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959.Google Scholar
  11. Hayduk, L. A. Personal space: An evaluative and orienting overview. Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85. 117–134.Google Scholar
  12. Henley, N. M. Status and sex: Some touching observations. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2, 91–93.Google Scholar
  13. Henley, N. M. Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. New York: Prentice Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  14. Heslin, R., & Alper, T. Touch: A bounding gesture. In J. M. Wiemann & R. P. Harrison (Ed.), Nonverbal communication (Vol. 11, Sage Annual Reviews of Communications Research). Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982.Google Scholar
  15. Heslin, R., & Boss, D. Nonverbal intimacy in airport arrival and departure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1980, 6, 248–252.Google Scholar
  16. Heslin, R., & Patterson, M. L. Nonverbal behavior and social psychology. New York: Plenum Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  17. Kanin, E. J. Selected dyadic aspects of male sex aggression. Journal of Sex Research, 1969, 5, 12–28.Google Scholar
  18. Kelly, F. D. Communicational significance of therapist promexic cues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 39, 345.Google Scholar
  19. Kiesler, C., & Goldberg, G. Multi-dimensional approach to the experimental study of interpersonal attraction: Effect of a blunder on the attractiveness of a competent other. Psychological Reports, 1968, 22, 693–705.Google Scholar
  20. Kleinke, C. L. Interpersonal attraction as it relates to gaze and distance between people. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1972, 3, 105–120.Google Scholar
  21. Kleinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., & LaFong, C. L. Effects of gaze, touch, and use of name in evaluation of “engaged” couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974, 7, 368–373.Google Scholar
  22. Major, B. Gender patterns in touching behavior. In C. Mayo & N. M. Henley (Eds.), Gender and nonverbal behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  23. Major, B., & Heslin, R. Perceptions of cross-sex and same-sex nonreciprocal touch: It is better to give than to receive. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1982, 6, 148–162.Google Scholar
  24. Mehrabian, A. Relationship of attitude to seated posture, orientation, and distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 26–30.Google Scholar
  25. Mehrabian, A. Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71(5), 359–372.Google Scholar
  26. Mehrabian, A. Nonverbal communication. Chicago, Ill.: Aldine-Atherton, 1972.Google Scholar
  27. Rubin, Z. Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16(2), 265–273.Google Scholar
  28. Rytting, M. B. Sex or intimacy: Male and female versions of heterosexual relationships. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, Ill., May 1976.Google Scholar
  29. Scherer, S. E., & Schiff, M. R. Perceived intimacy, physical distance, and eye contact. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1973, 36, 835–841.Google Scholar
  30. Stass, J., & Willis, F. N. Eye contact, pupil dilation, and personal preference. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 7, 375–376.Google Scholar
  31. Stier, D. S., & Hall, J. A. Gender differences in touch: An empirical and theoretical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 47, 440–459.Google Scholar
  32. Umiker-Sebeok, J. The seven ages of women: A review from American magazine advertisements. In C. Mayo & N. M. Henley (Eds.), Gender and nonverbal behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  33. Zellman, G. L., & Goodchilds, J. D. Becoming sexual in adolescence. In E. A. Allgeier & N. B. McCormick (Eds.), Changing boundaries: Gender roles and sexual behavior. Palo Alto, Calif.: Mayfield, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonia Abbey
    • 1
  • Christian Melby
    • 1
  1. 1.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations