The Verbal and Nonverbal Correlates of the Five Flirting Styles
The present investigation identifies the nonverbal and verbal behaviors associated with the five flirting styles (i.e., physical, traditional, sincere, polite, playful) (Hall et al. in Commun Q 58:365–393, 2010). Fifty-one pairs (N = 102) of opposite-sex heterosexual strangers interacted for 10–12 min and then reported their physical attraction to their conversational partner. Four independent coders coded 36 nonverbal and verbal behaviors. The residual variance of the interaction term between each flirting style and physical attraction was calculated, accounting for variance associated with the other styles. These five residual terms were separately correlated with the coded verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Each flirting style was correlated with behaviors linked to the conceptualization of that style: more conversational fluency for physical flirts, more demure behaviors for traditional female flirts and more assertive and open behaviors by traditional male flirts, less fidgeting, teasing, and distraction and more smiling for sincere flirts, more reserved and distancing behavior by polite flirts, and more obviously engaging and flirtatious behaviors by playful flirts.
KeywordsCourtship Flirting styles Nonverbal behavior Physical attraction
- Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
- Dindia, K., & Timmerman, L. (2003). Accomplishing romantic relationships. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 685–722). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Hall, J. A. (2013). The five flirting styles: Use the science of flirting to attract the love you really want. Don Mills, Ontario, CA: Harlequin Nonfiction.Google Scholar
- Hall, J. A., Cody, M. J., Jackson, G., & Flesh, J. O. (2008). Beauty and the flirt: Attractiveness and opening lines in date initiation. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference in Montreal, Canada. http://hdl.handle.net/1808/9917.
- Kenny, D., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Koeppel, L. B., Montagne-Miller, Y., O’Hair, D., & Cody, M. J. (1993). Friendly? Flirting? Wrong? In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 13–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- McBain, K. A., Hewitt, L., Maher, T., Sercombe, M., Sypher, S., & Tirendi, G. (2013). Is this seat taken? The importance of context during the initiation of romantic communication. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3, 79–89.Google Scholar
- Morris, D. (1971). Intimate behavior. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
- Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.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. doi:10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1993.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Perper, T. (1985). Sex signals: The biology of love. Philadelphia: ISI Press.Google Scholar
- Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The evolutionary psychology handbook (pp. 258–291). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Trost, M. R., & Alberts, J. K. (2006). How men and women communicate attraction: An evolutionary view. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 317–336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar