Sex Roles

, Volume 50, Issue 7–8, pp 481–489 | Cite as

Flirting with Meaning: An Examination of Miscommunication in Flirting Interactions

  • David Dryden Henningsen


Men tend to view women's behaviors as more sexual than do women in cross-sex interactions (e.g., Abbey, 1982). This difference may result because men view specific behaviors as sexually motivated, whereas women attribute a different motivation to the behaviors. It is proposed that people flirt for a variety of different reasons including the desire to increase sexual interaction. Six flirting motivations derived from the literature are considered in this study: sex, fun, exploring, relational, esteem, and instrumental. The motivations attributed to flirting behaviors by men and women in typical flirting interactions are explored. Gender differences emerge for several flirting motivations (i.e., sex, relational, and fun). Men tend to view flirting as more sexual than women do, and women attribute more relational and fun motivations to flirting interactions than do men. No gender differences emerge for esteem, exploring, or instrumental motivations. The discussion focuses on how miscommunication may occur during flirting interactions.

courtship initiation flirting miscommunication quasi-courtship 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive female friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830-838.Google Scholar
  2. Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 173-194.Google Scholar
  3. Abbey, A., Cozarelli, C., McLaughlin, K., & Harnish, R. (1987). 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, 17, 108-126.Google Scholar
  4. Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent. Sex Roles, 15, 283-298.Google Scholar
  5. Abrahams, M. F. (1994). Perceiving flirtatious communication: An exploration of the perceptual dimensions underlying judgments of flirtatiousness. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 282-292.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55.Google Scholar
  7. deWeerth, C., & Kalma, A. (1995). Gender differences in awareness of courtship initiation tactics. Sex Roles, 32, 717-734.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Egland, K. L., Spitzberg, B. H., & Zormeier, M. M. (1996). Fliration and conversational competence in cross-sex platonic and romantic relationships. Communication Research, 9, 105-117.Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, D., Guerrier, Y., & Guy, J. (1998). Sexual harassment issues in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10, 48-53.Google Scholar
  12. Givens, D. B. (1978). The nonverbal basis of attraction: Flirtation, courtship, and seduction. Psychiatry, 41, 346-359.Google Scholar
  13. Grammer, K., Honda, M., Juette, A., & Schmitt, A. (1999). Fuzziness of nonverbal courtship communication unblurred by motion energy detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 487-508.Google Scholar
  14. 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, 371-390.Google Scholar
  15. Greer, A. E., & Buss, D. M. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 185-201.Google Scholar
  16. Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2001). Close encounters: Communicating in relationships. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  17. Harnish, R., Abbey, A., & Debono, D. (1990). Toward an understanding of “the sex game”: The effects of gender and self-monitoring on perceptions of sexuality and likability in initial interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1333-1344.Google Scholar
  18. Hecht, M. L., DeVito, J. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1999). Perspectives on nonverbal communication: Codes, functions, and contexts. In L. K. Guerrero, JA DeVito, & M. L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader: Classic and contemporary readings (2nd ed., pp. 3-18). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jesser, C. J. (1978). Male responses to direct verbal sexual initiatives of females. Journal of Sex Research, 14, 118-128.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, C., Stockdale, M., & Saal, F. (1991). Persistence of men's misperceptions of friendly cues across a variety of interpersonal encounters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 463-475.Google Scholar
  21. 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 relationship (pp. 13-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, J. W., & Guerrero, L. K. (2001). Types of touch in cross-sex relationships between coworkers: Perceptions of relational and emotional messages, inappropriateness, and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 197-220.Google Scholar
  23. Loe, K. (1996). Working for men—At the intersection of power, gender, and sexuality. Sociological Inquiry, 66, 399-421.Google Scholar
  24. McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1989). Gender differences in nonverbal flirtation. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 15, 271-282.Google Scholar
  25. Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, equity, and the use of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 67-94.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: Context and consequences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 237-247.Google Scholar
  27. Moore, M. M. (1995). Courtship signaling and adolescents: “Girls just wanna have fun”? Journal of Sex Research, 32, 319-328.Google Scholar
  28. Moore, M. M. (2002). Courtship communication and perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 97-105.Google Scholar
  29. Moore, M. M., & Butler, D. L. (1989). Predictive aspects of nonverbal courtship behavior in women. Semiotica, 76, 205-215.Google Scholar
  30. Muehlenhard, C. L., Koralewski, M. A., Andrews, S. L., & Burdick, C. A. (1986). Verbal and nonverbal cues that convey interest in dating: Two studies. Behavior Therapy, 17, 404-419.Google Scholar
  31. Muehlenhard, C. L., Miller, C. L., & Burdick, C. A. (1983) Are high-frequency daters better cue readers? Men's interpretations of women's cues as a function of dating frequency and SHI scores. Behavior Therapy, 14, 626-636.Google Scholar
  32. Perper, T. (1985). Sexual signals: The biology of love. Philadelphia: ISI Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rowland, D. L., Crisler, L. J., & Cox, D. J. (1982). Flirting between college students and faculty. Journal of Sex Research, 18, 346-359.Google Scholar
  34. Saal, F., Johnson, C., & Weber, N. (1989). Friendly or sexy? It may depend on whom you ask. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 263-276.Google Scholar
  35. Scheflen, A. E. (1965). Quasi-courtship behavior in psychotherapy. Psychiatry, 27, 245-257.Google Scholar
  36. Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66-73.Google Scholar
  37. Sigal, J., Gibbs, M., Adams, B., & Derfler, R. (1988). The effects of romantic and nonromantic films on perceptions of female friendly and seductive behavior. Sex Roles, 19, 545-554.Google Scholar
  38. Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Biek, M. (1993). Personality and nonverbal social behavior: An ethological perspective of relationship initiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 434-461.Google Scholar
  39. Tolhuizen, J. H. (1989). Communication strategies for intensifying dating relationships: Identification, use, and structure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 413-434.Google Scholar
  40. Trost, M. R., & Alberts, J. K. (1998). An evolutionary view on understanding sex effects in communicating attraction. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 233-255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. 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, 873-874.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, C. L., Giuffre, P. A., & Dellinger, K. (1999) Sexuality in the workplace: Organizational control, sexual harassment, and the pursuit of pleasure. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 73-93.Google Scholar
  43. Yarab, P., Allgeier, E., & Sensibaugh, C. C. (1999). Looking deeper: Extradyadic behaviors, jealousy, and perceived unfaithfulness in hypothetical dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 6, 305-316.Google Scholar
  44. Yelvington, K. A. (1996). Flirting in the factory. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2, 313-333.Google Scholar
  45. Yount, K. R. (1991). Ladies, flirts, and tomboys: Strategies for managing sexual harassment in an underground coal mine. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19, 396-422.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northern Illinois UniversityDekalb

Personalised recommendations