Abstract
Although flirting behaviors tend to be covert, subtle signals of sexual interest, people are routinely able to employ and decipher such signals successfully to attract mates. Flirting research often focuses on the accuracy of interpreting flirting signals, but the creation and employment of flirting signals has been understudied. The present set of studies examined whether mating strategy would impact preferences for typical or atypical flirting behaviors. In study 1, we conducted an act nomination followed by two rounds of pilot testing to generate a set of flirting behaviors rated on typicality and effectiveness (total N = 416). For study 2, participants (N = 396) read scenarios in which an opposite sex individual showed sexual interest in them, and then chose a response from a set of flirting behaviors that varied in typicality. Consistent with our hypothesis, pursuing a short-term mating strategy was associated with selecting more atypical behaviors. Finally, study 3 explored whether short-term mating would also be associated with preferring atypical flirting behaviors when one is the target rather than the initiator. Participants (N = 486) responded to the same scenarios and flirting behavior options as in study 2 but this time selected which flirting behavior would be most attractive to them as the target. Interestingly, the relationship between mating strategy and typicality of flirting behaviors disappeared; almost all participants preferred the initiator to use the most typical flirting behavior. The apparent mismatch for short-term maters between flirting strategies employed and preferred is discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, R. C., Surbey, M. K., & Mitchell, D. A. (2018). Mate copying is moderated by relationship recency and potentially by breakup responsibility. Evolutionary Psychological Science . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0141-0.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.245.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 countries. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.
Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 707–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025006006.
Day, R. C., & Hamblin, R. L. (1964). Some effects of close and punitive styles of supervision. American Journal of Sociology, 69(5), 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/223653.
Dillon, H. M., Adair, L. E., Geher, G., Wang, Z., & Strouts, P. H. (2016). Playing smart: the mating game and mating intelligence. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 35(3), 414–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9309-y.
Driver, P. M., & Humphries, D. A. (1988). Protean behaviour: the biology of unpredictability. New York: Clarendon Press.
Farley, S. D. (2014). Nonverbal reactions to an attractive stranger: the role of mimicry in communicating preferred social distance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-014-0174-4.
Farris, C., Viken, R., & Treat, T. (2010). Perceived association between diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues of women’s sexual interest: general recognition theory predictors of risk for sexual coercion. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2008.10.001.
Gersick, A., & Kurzban, R. (2014). Covert sexual signaling: human flirtation and implications for other social species. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(3), 549. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491401200305.
Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14(4), 209–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989317.
Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A., & Fink, B. (2000). Non-verbal behavior as courtship signals: the role of control and choice in selecting partners. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(6), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00053-2.
Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Oxford: John Wiley.
Greengross, G., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39(4), 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.006.
Guéguen, N. (2008). The effect of a woman’s smile on men’s courtship behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(9), 1233–1236. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.9.1233.
Hall, J. A. (2015). Sexual selection and humor in courtship: a case for warmth and extroversion. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915598918.
Hall, J. A., & Xing, C. (2015). The verbal and nonverbal correlates of the five flirting styles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(1), 41–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-014-0199-8.
Hall, J. A., Xing, C., & Brooks, S. (2015). Accurately detecting flirting: error management theory, the traditional sexual script, and flirting base rate. Communication Research, 42(7), 939–958. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534972.
Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., & Valde, K. S. (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9050-y.
Jones, K. A., Jackson, A. L., & Ruxton, G. D. (2011). Prey jitters, protean behaviour in grouped prey. Behavioral Ecology, 22(4), 831–836. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr062.
Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101. New York: Springer Publishing Co..
Koukounas, E., & Letch, N. M. (2001). Psychological correlates of perception of sexual intent in women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 14(4), 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600564.
Kurzban, R. (2010). Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite: evolution and the modular mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kurzban, R., & Aktipis, C. A. (2007). Modularity and the social mind: are psychologists too self-ish? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 131–149.
Lee, J. J., & Pinker, S. (2010). Rationales for indirect speech: the theory of the strategic speaker. Psychological Review, 117(3), 785–807. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019688.
McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1989). Gender differences in nonverbal flirtation. Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, 15(4), 271–282.
Miller, G. F. (1997). Protean Primates: the evolution of adaptive unpredictability in competition and courtship. In A. Whiten & R. W. Byrne (Eds.), Machiavellian intelligence II: Extension and evaluations (pp. 312–340). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, G. (2000). The mating mind: how sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. New York: Doubleday & Co..
Miller, G. F. (2001). Aesthetic fitness: how sexual selection shaped artistic virtuosity as a fitness indicator and aesthetic preferences as mate choice criteria. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 2(1), 20–25 Special issue on Evolution, creativity, and aesthetics.
Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: context and consequences. Ethology & Sociobiology, 6(4), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(85)90016-0.
Moore, M. M. (1995). Courtship signaling and adolescents: ‘girls just wanna have fun. Journal of Sex Research, 32(4), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499509551805.
Moore, M. M. (2002). Courtship communication and perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94(1), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.94.1.97-105.
Moore, M. M. (2010). Human nonverbal courtship behavior—a brief historical review. Journal of Sex Research, 47(2–3), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903402520.
Nettle, D. (2008). Why is creativity attractive in a potential mate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(3), 275–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08004366.
Nettle, D., & Clegg, H. (2008). Personality, mating strategy, and mating intelligence. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 121–134). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
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(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.
Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A., & Lee, J. J. (2008). The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(3), 833–838. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707192105.
Prokosch, M. D., Cross, R. G., Scheib, J. E., & Blozis, S. A. (2009). Intelligence and mate choice: Intelligent men are always appealing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.07.004.
Renninger, L. A., Wade, T. J., & Grammer, K. (2004). Getting that female glance: patterns and consequences of male nonverbal behavior in courtship contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(6), 416–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.006.
Schmitt, D. P. (2002). A meta-analysis of sex differences in romantic attraction: do rating contexts moderate tactic effectiveness judgments? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602760344278.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next big five inventory (BFI-2): developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096.
Stajkovic, A. D. (2006). Development of a core confidence-higher order construct. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1208–1224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1208.
Stanik, C., Kurzban, R., & Ellsworth, P. (2010). Rejection hurts: the effect of being dumped on subsequent mating efforts. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(4), 682–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491000800410.
Stillman, T. F., & Maner, J. K. (2008). A sharp eye for her SOI: perception and misperception of female sociosexuality at zero acquaintance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.09.005.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.
Wade, T. J., & Slemp, J. (2015). How to flirt best: the perceived effectiveness of flirtation techniques. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 9(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178.
Wade, T. J., Burtie, L. K., & Hoffman, K. M. (2009). Women’s direct opening lines are perceived as most effective. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(2), 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.016.
Walsh, D. G., & Hewitt, J. (1985). Giving men the come-on: effect of eye contact and smiling in a bar environment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61(3, Pt 1), 873–874. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1985.61.3.873.
Weisberg, R. W. (2009). On “out-of-the-box” thinking in creativity. In A. B. Markman & K. L. Wood (Eds.), Tools for innovation: The science behind the practical methods that drive new ideas (pp. 23–48). New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(DOCX 85 kb)
Appendix Vignettes and Behavior Choices (Study 2 and Study 3)
Appendix Vignettes and Behavior Choices (Study 2 and Study 3)
Note: Vignette titles were not displayed to participants. Behavior choices were presented in a random order to each participant. Vignette order was also randomized for each participant.
Park
It’s a beautiful Saturday afternoon, and since you have no plans, you decide to go to the local park and take your dog for a long walk. Your puppy has been stuck inside all morning and is eager for a chance to get outside and play. Once at the park, you and your dog have a great time running around and playing fetch. Out of the corner of your eye, you spot another owner playing around with her puppy. You recognize her because you are both regulars at the park, and you remember her in particular because her dog is the same breed as yours. You think to yourself that she is quite attractive and seems to be at the park alone too. When you look back you make eye contact and she smiles. You decide that now would be the perfect time to finally approach her. You:
-
play with your hair.
-
tell her she looks like a movie star.
-
set up a scavenger hunt for her.
Gym
It’s a Thursday evening and after getting off of work, you head to gym to get in a late workout. To start, you warm up on the stationary bike and then head to the treadmills. After running for a few minutes or so, a woman comes over and begins to jog on the machine next to yours.You’ve seen her around the gym for a while now and have always found her attractive, but she has always been too far away for you to introduce yourself. However, now she is on the machine right next to you, and when you look over at her, she smiles. You:
-
demonstrate knowledge about specific things mentioned by her.
-
mimic her body language.
-
write her a poem.
Bar
You leave work for the day and decide to head to the local bar. You arrive alone and order a drink. Only a few other people are in the bar, but it’s early and you stay to have a few drinks while listening to music. You notice an attractive woman sitting across the bar, and after a few minutes you realize that she is probably here by herself. She isn’t someone you know personally, but you might have seen her in the bar before. You ask the bartender who she is, but he doesn’t know her either. When you look back at her after a few minutes you make eye contact with each other. She seems receptive and smiles. You:
-
wink at her.
-
act as if you need help.
-
do something charitable or donate to a charity she likes.
Alumni
You receive an invitation to an upcoming alumni event from your alma mater. You decide to go, and you volunteer to help set up some of the tables where guests will be sitting. The planning committee splits you up into groups to organize the chairs for different rooms. You are put into a group with an attractive woman whom you’ve seen at a prior alumni event. Now, while getting to know her, you learn that she recently moved back to the area and is single. You continue to talk and set up rooms when you realize that the two of you have broken off from the other group members. She seems to be highly engaged in the conversation you are having and could be someone you would be interested in. As you talk, she smiles. You:
-
recite Shakespeare to her.
-
ask her to do you a favor.
-
add her on Instagram.
Coworker
It’s Tuesday morning at 9:00, and you stroll into your office ready to start the work week. You had a Monday off for Labor Day, and you head to the break room to catch up with your coworkers who are already there chatting about their holiday weekends. Amongst them is the office’s newest associate, hired last week. You’ve seen her in passing around the office once or twice, but now that you are seeing her closer, you notice that she is quite attractive. As your other coworkers scatter, she stays behind waiting for the coffee pot to refill. She smiles toward you. You:
-
offer her a ride.
-
tell her “I love you”.
-
dress unusually to get her attention.
Class
It’s the first day of class of your spring semester. It’s an 8:30 am lecture, so you are still pretty groggy, but you’ve also excited because you’ve heard really great things about this professor. As the other students are filtering in, you say hello to a few friends that you haven’t seen since last semester. Right before class begins, a girl that you vaguely recognize sits next to you. You slowly realize you know her face from a class you took last year, but you never had the chance to speak to her before. After class, she gives you a friendly smile, and you notice that she is actually quite attractive. You decide to approach her. You:
-
offer to give her a foot rub.
-
talk in a sexy voice.
-
ask her advice on something.
Party
It’s a Friday night, and one of your good friends is a having a house party to celebrate a recent birthday. On your way over, you swing by the store to grab a few chocolates as a small birthday gift. When you arrive, your friend warmly greets you at the door, thanks you for the gift, and tells you to put it on the dining room table. Already gathered in the dining room are a handful of your mutual friends from the office. In addition, you also notice someone that you don’t know as well, but you quickly recognize her from your friend’s birthday party last year. She is quite attractive and makes friendly eye contact with you when you enter the room. As the group in the dining room breaks up, you and she are the last ones left. You:
-
offer to buy a gift for her mother.
-
ask her to accompany you to an event because “you want the hottest partner there.”
-
ask her to teach you something.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
White, J., Lorenz, H., Perilloux, C. et al. Creative Casanovas: Mating Strategy Predicts Using—but Not Preferring—Atypical Flirting Tactics. Evolutionary Psychological Science 4, 443–455 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0155-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0155-7