Flirtatious Communication: An Experimental Examination of Perceptions of Social-Sexual Communication Motivated by Evolutionary Forces (original) (raw)

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

Brandi N. Frisby ⋅\cdot Megan R. Dillow ⋅\cdot
Shelbie Gaughan ⋅\cdot John Nordlund

Published online: 19 August 2010
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract

Guided by Relational Framing and Parental Investment Theories, this investigation examined experimentally induced flirtatious interactions. United States undergraduates (N=252)(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.

Keywords Flirting ⋅\cdot Parental Investment Theory ⋅\cdot Relational Framing Theory ⋅\cdot Attraction ⋅\cdot Conversational effectiveness

Introduction

The acts of beginning and maintaining romantic and sexual relationships are essential in meeting our interpersonal

[1]needs (e.g., Schutz 1966). These interpersonal needs and unconscious desires to continue a genetic pool through reproduction are salient across culture (Buss 1989). Preferences and decisions in mate selection can be explained using Relational Framing Theory (Burgoon and Hale 1984) and mid-level evolutionary perspectives such as Parental Investment Theory (PIT, Trivers 1972). Using the intersection of Relational Framing and Parental Investment perspectives, this investigation sought to understand experimentally induced initial flirtatious interactions between strangers. In the early stages of romantic and sexual encounters, flirting is a tactic that can be used to facilitate interpersonal events. Scholars have examined the impact of flirtatious communication in both initial interactions and ongoing relationships, but the perceptions and effects of flirtation in interpersonal contexts are not yet fully understood.

Flirting is of importance to relational and communication scholars for several reasons. First, flirtatious communication requires both conscious and unconscious encoding and decoding (Givens 1978), as the transactional process of flirting is interpersonal and motive driven (Henningsen 2004). Second, flirtation is traditionally studied as a relationship initiation tactic (Downey and Damhave 1991; Downey and Vitulli 1987; Greer and Buss 1994) or in initiating sexual activities (Abrahams 1994; Henningsen 2004). The persuasive element in both relationship initiation and negotiating sexual intercourse imply that they are communication-laden (Jesser 1978). Third, and most importantly for the purposes of this study, it is clear that flirtation, whether effective or ineffective, impacts the subsequent outcomes of an interaction. Directly relevant to relational communication is developing evaluations of others (Burgoon and Hale 1984). These brief encounters can play a “pivotal role in determining whether initial encounters lead to dating” (Clark et al. 2004, p. 699), because a receiver evaluates a

1. B. N. Frisby ( ⊠)\boxtimes)
   Department of Communication, University of Kentucky, 240 Grehan Building, Lexington, KY40506, USA
   e-mail: brandi.frisby@uky.edu
   M. R. Dillow ⋅\cdot S. Gaughan ⋅\cdot J. Nordlund
   Department of Communication Studies, West Virginia University, Armstrong Hall 108, P.O. Box 6293, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA ↩︎

conversation partner during a first encounter and this evaluation informs the decision to continue interacting with the individual (Sunnafrank and Ramirez 2004).

This study seeks to develop a deeper understanding of flirtatious interactions, communication, and mate choices among college-aged individuals in the United States. In general, it was anticipated that men would be perceived as more dominant and women would be perceived as more affiliative in flirtatious interactions. In addition, it was hypothesized that women would find dominant men more physically attractive, socially attractive, and conversationally effective; conversely, men would find affiliative women more physically attractive, socially attractive, and conversationally effective. Further, we examined the differences in perceptions of dominance, affiliation, physical attractiveness, social attractiveness, and conversational effectiveness as a result of motive for flirting for both men and women. The approach toward answering the research questions and testing hypotheses begins with the examination of flirting as a mate attraction tactic.

Flirting

Flirting is defined as “messages and behaviors perceived by a recipient as purposefully attempting to gain his or her attention and stimulate his or her interest in the sender, while simultaneously being perceived as intentionally revealing an affiliative desire” (Abrahams 1994, p. 283). In addition, scholars recognize that flirting may also be perceived as sexual in nature (Henningsen et al. 2008). To date, the majority of extant research centers around gender differences in flirtatious behaviors. Specifically, men report flirting for sexual reasons (Henningsen 2004; Henningsen et al. 2006), and perceive women as flirting for sexual reasons (Abbey 1982; Johnson et al. 1991; Shotland and Craig 1988). However, women report flirting for friendly reasons (Abrahams 1994) and perceive men as flirting for friendly reasons (Abbey et al. 1987). These mixed perceptions increase the possibility of miscommunication and suggest men and women are not attaching the same meanings to some flirting cues (Abbey et al. 1987). Error Management Theory (EMT) provides one lens through which to explain gender differences in the perception of flirting behaviors (Haselton and Buss 2000). EMT suggests men and women tend to err on the side of caution when interpreting behaviors of the opposite sex. In explaining previous findings that men interpret women’s flirting as sexual in nature, EMT would suggest that assuming sexual interest decreases men’s chance of a missing a sexual opportunity. Conversely, women have been found to interpret men’s flirting as relational in nature, which EMT explains by suggesting that women infer the existence of commitment to avoid missing out on a potential long-term
mate. Thus, men and women are often making faulty, but predictable, mistakes in interpreting sexual behaviors.

An effective flirting encounter stimulates interest and attraction in the receiver (Schmitt 2002). The more attracted an individual is to another, the more that individual will attempt to communicate (McCroskey et al. 2006). Attractiveness is a predictor of interaction quality, and flirtatious behaviors in an interaction have the potential to stimulate attraction in the receiver (Berry and Miller 2001). Thus, if the sender is seen as attractive, then the flirtatious encounter will also be evaluated as effective, according to Schmitt’s (2002) conceptualization. Effectiveness can also be defined according to the content or quality of the conversation, as effective communication achieves the goals of each member of the relationship (Papa and Canary 1995). Communication can be declared effective using criteria including whether or not it is rewarding, helpful, or useful (Gross and Guerrero 2000). In general, an effective flirtatious interaction should enhance attraction levels and be perceived as rewarding, helpful, or successful. This study focuses on flirtatious communication guided by six different flirting motives, to assess perceptions of the flirter’s behavior and their impact on physical and social attraction and on conversational effectiveness.

Recently, a typology of six motivations for flirtatious behaviors was developed by Henningsen (2004). Sexual motivation is flirting to engage in sexual relations, relational motivation is flirting to increase intimacy, exploring motivation is flirting to test another’s interest, fun motivation is flirting to have fun, esteem motivation is flirting to enhance one’s own self esteem, and instrumental motivation is flirting to gain rewards. Men reported their flirting behaviors were motivated by sex, while women reported they flirted for relational and fun motivations (Henningsen). Interestingly, Moore (1995) found that adolescent females flirted nonverbally in a manner similar to adult women. Furthermore, Abbey et al. (1987) noted gender differences in flirting are clearly established by age three. These studies suggest that flirtatious behaviors and their underlying motives may have both socialized and innate elements.

Sociocultural values are influential in determining mens’ and womens’ attitudes, and consequently, their behaviors toward sexuality (Penke and Asendorpf 2008). The attitudes that are cultivated can encourage and restrict sexual courtship and mate preferences. However, Tolman and Diamond (2001) argued for the inclusion of both biology and sociocultural approaches in understanding human sexuality, and that through both, individuals enact what they perceive to be natural sexual behaviors. The influence of sociocultural ideas determines appropriate and desirable behaviors, especially for women. Evidence suggests that flirtatious behaviors were the manifestation of social presentation and cultural socialization (Penke and Asendorpf

2008). Informed by these findings, this study considers the biological and cultural differences in flirting as they are differentiated by gender. As such, consideration of the tenets of both Relational Framing Theory and Parental Investment Theory offers a useful foundation for examining perceptions and outcomes of flirtatious communication.

Relational Framing Theory

Relational Framing Theory (RFT) is built on the assertion that there are two primary categorizations that encompass all social interactions: dominance and affiliation (Burgoon and Hale 1984). Dominance is the extent to which one individual has influence over the other, while affiliation involves the level of regard and value one individual has for another (Burgoon and Hale 1984). Affiliation is further broken down into three sub-groups: intimacy, personalism, and affection, all of which suggest general liking and positive regard (Knobloch 2006). Importantly, the two primary frames (i.e., dominance and submission) allow individuals to understand and form judgments about the interactions they are involved in and/or observe. According to RFT and related research, every communicative interaction should be directly linked to the innate human needs of affiliation and dominance. In the broadest sense, RFT provides a general lens through which others’ communicative behaviors are categorized and interpreted. As a communicative mate attraction tactic, flirting would naturally be evaluated in terms of dominance and/or affiliativeness, and these evaluations are expected to impact elements of mate attraction, selection, and retention.

The dominance-submissiveness continuum is considered a prevalent aspect of communication within relationships (Burgoon and Hale 1984; Dillard et al. 1999). Relatedly, the motivational and behavioral predispositions highlighted by Parental Investment Theory focus on the social behaviors of men and women, describing men’s predilection toward dominance behaviors and women’s displays of intimacy and attempts to build social alliances, and the preference of each sex with regard to the dominance and intimacy behaviors that are displayed by potential mates (Geary et al. 2003). In some research, men perceived women as more attractive when they portrayed lower levels of dominance (Kenrick et al. 1994). Women have reported finding men who display both dominance and affiliation behaviors more attractive, as long as the dominance is prosocial (Jensen-Campbell et al. 1995).

It is important to note that some level of affiliation will simultaneously exist even in primarily dominant interactions. In fact, McAdams et al. (1984) argued that the affiliative function emerges as most salient in many human encounters, especially romantic relationships. Perceptions of affiliation are higher when the sender of a message is a woman
(Edwards 2000), and women expect affiliation from both men and women when these individuals are either submissive or friendly (Baldwin and Keelan 1999). Additionally, biological predispositions have been identified as explanations for affiliative behavior with friends (Furman 1999). These biological predispositions may also explain affiliation within romantic relationships, in which individuals report positive perceptions and more satisfaction when their partner interacted with a high level of affiliation and remained neutral with respect to dominance during conflicts about important topics (Ebesu Hubbard 2001).

Although extant research does not provide specific information on the role of relational framing in initial flirtatious interactions, this review of related RFT literature reveals several themes. First, each gender appears to be differentiated by their interpersonal attraction preferences for affiliativeness and dominance. Specifically, men prefer less dominance from women (e.g., Brown and Lewis 2004), while women both expect affiliation (e.g., Baldwin and Keelan 1999) and report increased attraction in situations where men display prosocial dominance (e.g., Jensen-Campbell, et al. 1995). In addition, Buunk et al. (2002) found that women prefer mates who are dominant and of higher social positions than themselves, consistent with parental investment perspectives. Dominance and affiliation are cognitive structures resulting from our evolutionary heritage, and communication is guided by framing relational messages using the structures of dominance and affiliation (Dillard et al. 1996; Dillard et al. 1999). Evolutionary theories such as Parental Investment Theory (PIT) posit that needs to affiliate and/or dominate are survival and reproductive adaptations. More specifically, PIT focuses on the differences between men and women with regard to their survival and reproductive goal differences. The expression and perception of dominance and affiliation, as delineated by RFT, serve important functions within romantic relationships. That is, these functions may be evolutionary in origin. Therefore, flirtatious interactions should be perceived differently by men and women who are driven by specialized evolutionary forces, the perceptions of these interactions will be framed differently based on these gender differences, and individuals are likely to experience dissimilar outcomes and engage in different communicative behaviors based on both the relational frames utilized and the evolutionary forces which guide them.

Parental Investment Theory

The bulk of evolutionary theory research focuses on mate attraction. Of particular interest is Parental Investment Theory (PIT), which argues that men and women both seek a partnership to assist in child-rearing (Bale et al. 2006; Townsend and Wasserman 1997; Trivers 1972). Men

are attracted to physical beauty and youth as characteristics that signal fertility and health, essential features for women to produce offspring (Archer 1996; Berry and Miller 2001; Buss 1989). Women, on the other hand, are attracted to men’s resources and dominance, which are sought for personal and offspring protection (Archer 1996; Buss 1989; Graziano et al. 1997). Further, women may in fact sacrifice physical attractiveness in men to obtain paternal investment (Todd et al. 2007). PIT also suggests that women are more selective than men when choosing a mate (Archer 1996; Kenrick et al. 1993; Trivers 1972). Providing support for this assertion, McCormick and Jones (1989) found that women were more active than men in both escalation and de-escalation of flirtation, such that women intensified flirtatious behaviors with men they were willing to consider as a possible mate and de-intensified flirting with those who were not perceived as appropriate or desirable mates. Although the process of choosing a mate is widely studied and practiced, Graziano et al. (1997) claimed the idea of social selectivity is poorly understood. They postulated that work on human behavior through an evolutionary lens has progressed, “but nearly all of it is nonexperimental, correlational, and based on self-reports or responses to vignettes” (p. 148). As such, a primary goal of this study is to further understand social selectivity through experimental methods.

Competition derogation and self-promotion are two specific tactics used by individuals in order to attract a mate (Greer and Buss 1994; Schmitt 2002). Men’s derogation tactics typically focus on demonstrating more dominance than the competition. Conversely, women derogate the attraction level of their competition. Self-promotion involves enhancing traits that are desired by mates-physical attraction for women, and enhancing the appearance of resources and dominance for men (Buss 1988; Buss and Schmitt 1993). In support of these arguments, Schmitt’s (2002) meta-analysis revealed that women were rated as effective in attracting mates when using appearance enhancing strategies, while men were rated as effective when using resource enhancing tactics or dominance over the competition during mate attraction.

Overall, little is known about the tactics employed to self-promote or the effectiveness of these tactics in interactions between men and women (Greer and Buss 1994). When examined closely, the mate attraction tactics are closely aligned with courtship and flirtatious communication. For example, a woman may attempt to improve her appearance and men may offer to buy a drink to enhance perceptions of available resources. In fact, different attractiveness-enhancing tactics are employed by women (e.g., wearing makeup, acting nice) and men (e.g., touch, certain postures) in courtship (Singh 2004). Furthermore, Singh noted that flirting is used to enhance attraction for both men and women, and human courtship expressivity relies on nonverbal signs of submissiveness and affiliation
for women (Givens 1978), or dominance for men (Buss 1988; Schmitt 2002). Thus, the tactics employed in mate attraction and self-promotion can be further understood through relational frames (i.e., dominance, affiliation) and flirtation in interpersonal relationships.

Taken together, and consistent with PIT, these findings suggest that although men and women are both unconsciously motivated by reproduction, women’s behavior is often affiliative in order to secure reproductive partners (i.e., fun, relationship-enhancing) while men’s behavior is often sexual in nature in order to secure reproductive partners. However, flirting itself has been characterized as ambiguous, introducing difficulty for the receiver with regard to accurate interpretation of what the flirting actually means (e.g., Abbey 1982; Abbey et al. 1987). In striving to resolve the ambiguity in flirtatious interactions, individuals may consider the apparent motive behind the flirtatious behavior, and employ the relational frames of dominance and affiliation in interpreting the messages. In this way, the flirting motives are likely to be perceived differently by men and women in terms of dominance and affiliation. Given the basic tenets of PIT and RFT, it is expected that men will be perceived as more dominant than women when flirting for all motivations. Conversely, women should be perceived as more affiliative than men when flirting, regardless of the underlying motive for the flirtatious behavior. Formally:

H1: Men will be perceived by women as more dominant than women will be perceived by men when flirting for all motivations.
H2: Women will be perceived by men as more affiliative than men will be perceived by women when flirting for all motivations.

In addition to examining gender differences across the various flirting motivations, the extent to which gender differences are present among the flirting motives was also investigated. That is, although we expect men to be rated as dominant when flirting regardless of motivation, we anticipate that will be particularly true for those flirting motives that are explicitly goal-driven. Specifically, if men flirt for sexual or instrumental reasons, it is likely they will be perceived as dominant because of the tactics employed to engage in sexual relations or to gain some other specific outcome from their interaction partner. On the other hand, when men flirt for relational, exploring, fun, or self-esteem motives, the use of flirting tactics may be perceived as less dominant, and perhaps even as affiliative. This rationale leads to the following:

H3: When flirting for sexual and instrumental motivations, men will be perceived by women as more dominant than when men are flirting for relational, exploring, fun, or self-esteem motivations.

RQ1: When flirting for relational, exploring, fun, or self-esteem motives, are men perceived by women as more dominant or affiliative?

As decisions about the future of the relationship often occur within the initial interaction (Redmond and Vrchota 1997), it is important to understand how a receiver’s perception of a flirtatious episode determines her/his perception of potential relational outcomes. As flirting is a mate attraction strategy, the receiver is likely to make judgments about the sender’s physical and/or social attraction levels when flirting and in early relational stages (Buunk et al. 2002; Redmond and Vrchota 1997). Mate attraction and mate preferences affect initial interactions and continuing interactions, because “all close relationships begin at some point with such an initial interaction” (Berry and Miller 2001, p. 74). Other scholars agree (e.g., Schmitt 2002), and contend that the underlying biological mate preferences unconsciously affect relationship satisfaction, commitment, and mate retention. Therefore, it is important to understand initial interactions in complex ways, allowing the interactants’ perceptions to determine what is attractive and what is conversationally effective. Taken together, the PIT and RFT literature suggests that women generally find dominant men to be attractive and conversationally effective (Archer 1996; Buunk et al. 2002; Graziano et al. 1997; Jensen-Campbell et al. 1995; Schmitt 2002) and men find affiliative women to be attractive and conversationally effective (Brown and Lewis 2004; Kenrick et al. 1994; Schmitt 2002). With this in mind, the following hypotheses were posed:

H4: Women’s ratings of men’s dominance will be positively correlated with women’s ratings of men’s physical attractiveness, social attraction, and conversational effectiveness.
H5: Men’s ratings of women’s affiliation will be positively correlated with men’s ratings of women’s physical attraction, social attraction, and conversational effectiveness.

While RFT and PIT perspectives naturally lend themselves to explicit postulations regarding dominance and affiliation and how these are evaluated in terms of physical/ social attraction and conversational effectiveness, less is known about how the various flirting motivations will impact these perceptions. If women prefer (appropriately) dominant men, and if goal-driven motives are seen as more dominant, then men flirting for sexual or instrumental reasons may be perceived by women as most attractive and conversationally effective. However, women may prefer equal amounts of affiliation from men (e.g., Jensen-Campbell et al. 1995), in which case flirtation for affiliative reasons (e.g., fun) may lead to improved perceptions of attraction and
conversational effectiveness. Conversely, if men prefer affiliative women, and some flirting motives are seen as affiliative, then women flirting for relational reasons may be perceived as most attractive and conversationally effective. However, because men perceive women as flirting for sexual reasons (e.g., Johnson et al. 1991), it is equally possible that men may view women who they perceive as flirting for sexual reasons as attractive and conversationally effective. These conflicting possibilities lead to the following research question:

RQ2: In what ways, if any, will the perceived physical attraction, social attraction, and conversational effectiveness of senders be related to their flirting motives?

Method

Participants

Participants ( N=250,48.4%N=250,48.4 \% men, 51.6%51.6 \% women) were recruited from undergraduate communication courses at a large Mid-Atlantic university, and ranged in age from 18 to 26 years (M=19.93,SD=1.52)(M=19.93, S D=1.52). The sample was made up of heterosexual individuals who were either in relationships ( 51.6%51.6 \% ) or considered themselves single ( 47.6%47.6 \% ). Of those in relationships, 18.8%18.8 \% were casually dating (n=47),36.8%(n=47), 36.8 \% were seriously dating (n=92),1.2%(n=92), 1.2 \% were engaged (n=3)(n=3), and .8%.8 \% were married (n=2)(n=2). Additionally, 87.6%87.6 \% of participants reported their race as White/Caucasian, 3.6%3.6 \% as Asian, 3.6%3.6 \% as African American, and 4.8%4.8 \% as other.

Procedures

Using a random number table, participants were randomly assigned to view one of the six flirting motivations, with 17 to 25 participants in each of the 12 conditions (gender x motive). Participants were informed they would be watching a videotaped initial interaction and they would evaluate the individual of the opposite sex. First, participants were shown a still shot of the confederate they would be rating, and were asked to provide evaluations of the confederate’s physical attractiveness prior to the interaction. Then, participants watched the 4-minute clip which depicted the confederate flirting with another individual. After the viewing, participants completed measures of their perception of the flirter’s physical attraction, social attraction, affiliativeness, dominance, and conversational effectiveness. All measures were assessed on Likert-type scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).

Confederates

Four confederates (two men, two women) were recruited from an upper level communication course to assist in the

research. They remained blind to the purposes of the study and were not trained to exhibit affiliativeness or dominance. Instead, the confederates spent 10 hr in training (both in groups and individually) to manipulate their flirting motivations. Each confederate received training in three motivations; all six motivations were employed by both the female and male confederates (thereby creating 12 experimental conditions). During training, the confederates received definitions and examples of flirtatious behaviors, completed practice scenarios, wrote scripts, and practiced their flirting behaviors with volunteers. Once training was complete, the confederates were paired with one another to engage in a conversation during which only one confederate flirted, and the other confederate was unaware of the motivation behind the flirting. These conversations were videotaped, and served as the experimental stimulus for the study. In order to conceal their identities as confederates, study participants were told the confederates were students who were demonstrating typical initial conversations for extra credit. Each of the 12 video sessions lasted approximately 4 min .

Manipulation Checks

Prior to the experiment, three independent coders who were blind to the purposes of the research assisted in manipulation checks. The coders were educated on each of the six motives, then they watched each of the 12 videos and identified the motive behind the behavior of the confederate in question. Manipulation checks supported the success of the manipulations in the laboratory conditions. Coders reached 100%100 \% agreement on correctly identifying five flirting motivations including fun, self-esteem, sexual, exploring, and instrumental. Accurate agreement in the relational motivations was achieved in 75%75 \% of cases. Furthermore, the coders provided an indication of realism assessed by a 3-item, 7 point Likert-type scale (e.g., How realistic was the interaction you viewed). These data reveal that the coders perceived the behavior of the confederate as moderately realistic (M=4.37,SD=1.21)(M=4.37, S D=1.21). In sum, the data from this portion of the investigation revealed that the flirting manipulations were both realistic and sufficiently reflective of their underlying motive.

Instrumentation

Affiliation was measured using the similarity (e.g., The target made the other person feel that they were similar), affect (e.g., The target acted like s/he was good friends with the other person), and receptivity/trust (e.g., The target was sincere) subscales of the Relational Message Scale (Burgoon and Hale 1987), as suggested by Dillard et al. (1999). The scale was modified as reflected above, so the items referred
to the individual the participants observed. Items about attraction were removed to avoid repetition with the attraction scales, resulting in a final 14 -item scale. The three affiliation subscales were subjected to factor analysis for the purposes of data reduction. Criteria for factor and item retention were: 1) eigenvalues greater than 1.0 for retained factors, 2) primary factor loadings of .50 or greater, 3) no secondary factor loading exceeding .30, 4) loading on a factor with a minimum of two items, and 5) theoretical interpretability (Comrey and Lee 1992). As expected, three subscales emerged and were subsequently labeled affect, trust, and similarity. Cronbach’s alpha for the 6 -item affect dimension was .85(M=4.90,SD=1.22).85(M=4.90, S D=1.22), and the 4 -item trust dimension was .77(M=4.83,SD=1.12).77(M=4.83, S D=1.12). The 2 -item similarity dimension was not reliable and was dropped from subsequent analyses.

Dominance was measured using two conversational influence items from the Relational Message Scale (e.g., The target tried to control the interaction, Burgoon and Hale 1987), three items from the conversational effectiveness scale (e.g., The target dominated the conversation, Canary and Spitzberg 1987), and three items created for this study (e.g., The target directed the interaction, See “Appendix A”). All items were modified to target the participants’ observations of an individual in the video, as indicated. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that all of the dominance items loaded on one factor. Cronbach’s alpha for this modified and extended dominance scale was .92(M=4.95,SD=1.20).92(M=4.95, S D=1.20).

Physical attraction was measured using the scales from McCroskey et al. (2006). The original physical attraction scale included 12 items (e.g., I think the target is handsome/ pretty). However, two items (i.e., I do not like the way the target looked, and the target is good looking) were dropped because of their overlap with other items on the physical attraction scale and concerns about participant fatigue. Cronbach’s alpha for the final 10 -item physical attraction scale was .97(M=4.97,SD=1.44).97(M=4.97, S D=1.44).

Social attraction was measured using the scales from McCroskey et al. (2006). The original social attraction scale included 12 items (e.g., I think the target could be a friend of mine). However, one item (i.e., the target is pleasant to be around) was dropped because of redundancy with another item on the social attraction scale and concerns about participant fatigue. Cronbach’s alpha reliability for the final 11 -item scale was .93(M=4.87,SD=1.18).93(M=4.87, S D=1.18).

Conversational effectiveness was assessed using the 20item Conversational Effectiveness Scale (Canary and Spitzberg 1987) to assess the participants’ evaluations of the success of the interaction (e.g., The target found the conversation rewarding). The scale was modified for use in this study, such that three items were redundant with dominance and were removed (i.e., the other person dominated the conversation, the other person controlled

the conversation, and the target was in control of the conversation), and because our conceptualization of an effective interaction is not equated with the target behaving in a dominant manner. Cronbach’s alpha for the modified version in this study was .82(M=5.00,SD=.76).82(M=5.00, S D=.76).

Results

Gender Differences

An initial examination of gender differences (of primary interest in this study) using a MANOVA revealed that there were significant differences, Λ=.39,F(1,243)=52.89\Lambda=.39, F(1,243)=52.89, p<.001,ηp2=.61p<.001, \eta_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}=.61. Specifically, participants differed significantly in how they rated flirters on post-interaction physical attraction, F(1,243)=131.08,p<.001F(1,243)=131.08, p<.001, with men rating women flirters as higher in post-interaction physical attraction (M=5.87,SD=.99)(M=5.87, S D=.99) than women rated men flirters (M=(M= 4.18,SD=1.29)4.18, S D=1.29). Participants differed significantly in how they rated flirter post-interaction social attraction, F(1,243)=F(1,243)= 5.44,p<.055.44, p<.05, with women rating men flirters as higher in post-interaction social attraction (M=5.07,SD=1.08)(M=5.07, S D=1.08) than men rated women flirters ( M=4.72,SD=1.23\mathrm{M}=4.72, S D=1.23 ). Participants significantly differed in their ratings of flirter conversational effectiveness, F(1,243)=6.34,p<.05F(1,243)=6.34, p<.05, with women rating men flirters as higher in conversational effectiveness ( M=M= 4.95,SD=.76)4.95, S D=.76) than men rated women flirters (M=4.69(M=4.69, SD=.85S D=.85 ). Participants significantly differed on their ratings of flirter dominance, F(1,243)=36.38,p<.001F(1,243)=36.38, p<.001, with women rating men as higher in dominance (M=5.38(M=5.38, SD=.96)S D=.96) than men rated women flirters (M=4.51,SD=(M=4.51, S D= 1.28). Last, participants were significantly different in their ratings of flirter affective affiliation, F(1,243)=F(1,243)= 49.79,p<.00149.79, p<.001, with women rating men flirters as higher in affective affiliation (M=5.41,SD=.87)(M=5.41, S D=.87) than men rated women flirters (M=4.41,SD=1.31)(M=4.41, S D=1.31). These gender differences are explicated further in the following tests of hypotheses and research questions.

Hypothesis one predicted that, across the various motives, men will be perceived by women as more dominant when flirting. Consistent with this postulation, results of an independent samples tt-test with gender as the independent variable and dominance as the dependent variable indicate there are significant gender differences in perceived dominance during flirting, t(177)=5.82,p=.001t(177)=5.82, p=.001, Cohen’s d=.87d=.87, such that men are perceived by women ( M=M= 5.43,SD=.955.43, S D=.95 ) as more dominant than women are perceived by men (M=4.43,SD=1.33)(M=4.43, S D=1.33) across flirting motivations.

The second hypothesis proposed that women will be perceived as more affiliative than men when flirting, regardless of their flirting motivation. An independent samples tt-test with gender as the independent variable and
affect and trust as the dependent variables indicated a significant difference in the affect factor of affiliativeness between men and women, t(178)=5.98,p<.001t(178)=5.98, p<.001, Cohen’s d=.88d=.88. Closer examination of the means shows men are rated as more affectively affiliative by women (M=5.35(M=5.35, SD=.93S D=.93 ) than women are rated by men (M=4.33,SD=(M=4.33, S D= 1.34) when flirting for all six motives. Thus, hypothesis two was not supported.

Hypothesis three posited that males will be perceived as more dominant when flirting for sexual and instrumental motives as compared to flirting for relational, exploring, fun, and self-esteem motives. An ANOVA was utilized to examine the group differences among the flirting motives, entered as the independent variable, with regard to dominance. The model was significant, F(5,126)=5.42F(5,126)=5.42, p<.001,ηp2=.18p<.001, \eta_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}=.18, suggesting differences among flirting motives do exist for men with regard to dominance. Results of a Scheffe post-hoc test indicate that men who flirted for sexual motives were perceived by women as significantly more dominant (M=5.55,SD=.74)(M=5.55, S D=.74) than men who flirted for relational motives (M=4.59,SD=.92)(M=4.59, S D=.92). The remaining flirting motives were not significantly different with regard to women’s perceptions of men’s dominance. In other words, men were rated by women as more dominant in flirting interactions which were sexually motivated, as compared to men who flirted for relational motives, and H3 was partially supported.

Research question one inquired whether men would be perceived by women as more dominant or affiliative when flirting for relational, exploring, fun, and selfesteem motives. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with these four flirting motives as the independent variables and dominance, affect, and trust as the dependent variables was used. Using Wilks’ criteria, flirting motives differed significantly with regard to affiliation, Λ=.68,F(3,81)=3.48,p<.001,ηp2=.12\Lambda=.68, F(3,81)=3.48, p<.001, \eta_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}=.12. Scheffe post- hoc analyses indicated only one significant difference, in that exploring motives (M=5.99,SD=.75)(M=5.99, S D=.75) differed significantly from relational motives (M=4.59(M=4.59, SD=.92S D=.92 ). That is, men flirting with the intent to explore relational potential were rated by women as significantly more dominant than those who were flirting to increase their relational intimacy. No significant differences emerged among the flirting motives with regard to the affect and trust dimensions of affiliation.

Hypothesis four predicted that more dominant men will be perceived by women as more physically attractive, socially attractive, and conversationally effective than men perceived as low in dominance. Pearson correlations indicated that there was no significant relationship between women’s evaluations of men’s dominance and social attraction, r(125)=−.13,p=r(125)=-.13, p= ns, no significant relationship between women’s ratings of men’s dominance and physical attraction, r(125)=−.05r(125)=-.05,

p=nsp=\mathrm{ns}, and no significant relationship between men’s dominance and conversational effectiveness, r(125)=.14r(125)=.14, p=nsp=\mathrm{ns}. Overall, men’s dominance was not related to women’s judgments of their physical or social attraction, or their conversational effectiveness; therefore H4 was not supported. See Table 1 for a complete correlation matrix.

Conversely, hypothesis five posited that women perceived by men as highly affiliative will also be seen as more physically attractive, socially attractive, and conversationally effective than women rated low in affiliation. Pearson correlations indicated that there were significant relationships between the affect and trust dimensions of affiliation and each of the dependent variables. More specifically, affect was positively related to social attraction, r(118)=.55,p<.001r(118)=.55, p<.001, as was trust r(118)=.64,p<.001r(118)=.64, p<.001. There were also significant positive relationships between physical attraction and affect, r(118)=.37,p<.01r(118)=.37, p<.01 and physical attraction and trust, rr (118)=.42,p<.001(118)=.42, p<.001. Finally, women’s affect, r(117)=.77r(117)=.77, p<.001p<.001 ), and trust, r(117)=.49,p<.001r(117)=.49, p<.001 were both significantly related to conversational effectiveness. Thus, H5 was supported, as women who were seen as highly affiliative (i.e., in terms of affect and trust) were also rated as both physically and socially attractive, as well as conversationally effective, by men. See Table 2 for correlations by gender.

When examining the patterns of correlations by gender, four Pearson correlations were significant for women, but not for men. These include pre-interaction physical attraction and affect, pre-interaction physical attraction and trust, conversational effectiveness and dominance, and dominance and affect. To compare the relative strength of the correlations among these variables for women versus men, Fisher’s Z tests were used. Only two sets of correlations were significantly different for men and women. Specifically, the correlations between conversational effectiveness and affect were significantly different (z=−3.44,p<.001)(z=-3.44, p<.001), with the relationship being stronger for women (r=.78)(r=.78) than for men (r=.48)(r=.48) and the correlations between affect and trust were significantly different (z=−2.28,p<.05)(z=-2.28, p<.05), with the relationship being stronger for women (r=.53)(r=.53) than for men (r=.24)(r=.24).

The second research question inquired whether the flirting motives would differentially affect the perceived
conversational effectiveness, physical attractiveness, and social attractiveness of the source of the flirtatious behavior. Firstly, a series of ANOVAs was used to assess the relationship between flirting motives and the dependent variables for men. Significant differences were found in men’s conversational effectiveness based on flirting motive, F(5,127)=3.04,p<.01,ηp2=.19F(5,127)=3.04, p<.01, \eta_{\mathrm{p}}{ }^{2}=.19. Specifically, a Scheffe post-hoc test indicated men flirting for exploring motives were perceived by women as significantly more conversationally effective (M=5.64,SD=.74)(M=5.64, S D=.74) than men flirting for sexual motives (M=4.80,SD=.71)(M=4.80, S D=.71), instrumental motives (M=4.84,SD=.64)(M=4.84, S D=.64), and relational motives (M=4.46,SD(M=4.46, S D =.66=.66 ). No significant differences by flirting motives were found for physical attractiveness, F(5,127)=1.44,p=nsF(5,127)=1.44, p=\mathrm{ns}, η2=.06\eta^{2}=.06, or social attractiveness, F(5,86)=1.58,p=nsF(5,86)=1.58, p=\mathrm{ns}, ηp2=.13\eta_{\mathrm{p}}{ }^{2}=.13, for women’s ratings of men.

Secondly, a series of ANOVAs was used to assess the relationship between flirting motives and conversational effectiveness, physical attractiveness, and social attractiveness for women. There were significant differences in men’s perceptions of women’s conversational effectiveness with regard to flirting motive, F(5,118)=11.18,p<.001F(5,118)=11.18, p<.001, ηp2=.33\eta_{\mathrm{p}}{ }^{2}=.33. That is, a Scheffe post-hoc test revealed women flirting for fun motives (M=5.28,SD=.58)(M=5.28, S D=.58) were perceived by men as significantly more conversationally effective than women flirting for instrumental (M=4.44,SD=.67)(M=4.44, S D=.67), exploring (M=4.17,SD=.58)(M=4.17, S D=.58), or esteem motives (M=3.94(M=3.94, SD=.98S D=.98 ). Women flirting for relational motives (M=5.17(M=5.17, SD=.98S D=.98 ) were seen as more conversationally effective than women flirting for exploring motives (M=4.17,SD=.58)(M=4.17, S D=.58) and esteem motives (M=3.94,SD=.98)(M=3.94, S D=.98). ANOVAs revealed a significant model for both physical attractiveness, F(5F(5, 119)=3.78,p<.01,ηp2=.14119)=3.78, p<.01, \eta_{\mathrm{p}}{ }^{2}=.14, and social attractiveness, F(5F(5, 119)=3.52,p<.01,ηp2=.13119)=3.52, p<.01, \eta_{\mathrm{p}}{ }^{2}=.13, for women’s ratings of men. However, post-hoc Scheffe analyses did not indicate that the motives were perceived differently in terms of physical or social attraction.

Post Hoc Analyses

PIT focuses on mate selection, within which attraction plays an influential role. Given the primary purpose of

Table 1 Participant perceptions of flirters-entire sample

Table 2 Participant perceptions of flirters by gender

Correlations representing men’s perceptions of women flirters are on the top half of the diagonal, while correlations representing women’s perceptions of men flirters are on the bottom half of the diagonal
∗p<.05,∗∗p<.01{ }^{*} p<.05,{ }^{* *} p<.01
flirtatious behaviors to stimulate interest and attraction in another (Schmitt 2002; Singh 2004), it was deemed appropriate to further test the tenets of PIT. According to PIT, men are likely to choose mates for sexual and reproductive reasons, while women are likely to choose mates who can relationally invest in her and any resulting offspring (Archer 1996; Berry and Miller 2001; Graziano et al. 1997). As such, we expected ratings of attractiveness might change over time under certain conditions (i.e., when different motivations for flirtatious behavior are exhibited). Thus, post hoc analyses were utilized to examine the changes in perceptions of physical attraction following the observation of flirtatious interactions.

Hierarchical regressions were conducted to test this possibility. Time 2 physical attractiveness (i.e., the final rating of confederates’ physical attraction, made after viewing the flirtatious interaction) served as the outcome, Time 1 physical attractiveness (i.e., the initial ratings of confederates’ still shots, made before participants viewed the flirtatious interaction) was entered in the first step, and flirting motivation followed in the second step. The flirting motivations were dummy-coded as either 0 to indicate the absence of that motivation or as 1 to indicate the presence of the flirting motivation. Regression of a Time 2 variable on its Time 1 assessment is the preferred method of producing the equivalent of a change score because it does so without complications in the reliability and variance of change scores (see Allison 1990 for discussion of these issues, with special attention to his reference to the “true causal effect” condition, pp. 107-108). It is important to note, however, that the resultant outcome is the residual of Time 2 immediacy after the removal of variance because of Time 1 states. As such, it is not a change score per se, but an indication of the degree of attraction perceived after the interaction having statistically created equality in the level of attraction perceived before the interaction. Regardless, it is considered the best computational assessment of change over time (Allison 1990).

Using this procedure, twelve regressions were employed (i.e., one per condition). Only two flirting motivations significantly impacted physical attraction. When men flirted for fun, women’s ratings of their physical attractiveness significantly decreased from Time 1 to Time 2(β=−.102(\beta=-.10, t=−2.93,p<.01t=-2.93, p<.01 ), suggesting women find men less physically attractive when they flirt for personal amusement. When women flirted for sexual motives, men’s ratings of their physical attractiveness significantly increased from Time 1 to Time 2(β=.07,t=2.17,p<.05)2(\beta=.07, t=2.17, p<.05), suggesting men find women who flirt for sexual reasons more attractive.

Discussion

Considered together, the results of this study inform the literature on flirtatious communication and PIT, suggesting important implications for the ways in which men and women communicate with one another and providing theoretical insight into the gender-stereotyped roles which pervade human interaction. Moreover, while these findings are derived from experimentally manipulated initial interactions, the results are relevant to consider in both initial and anticipated ongoing interactions. The findings will be discussed as they contribute to previous research on flirting, PIT, RFT, and stereotypical gender roles.

This study extends the extant literature on flirtatious communication in three ways. First, the behaviors which the confederates exhibited were altered to reflect the motive which guided their flirting. The participants in this study perceived the confederates differently in terms of physical attraction, social attraction, affiliation, and conversational effectiveness depending on the motive they viewed. Specifically, men were perceived by women as more dominant when flirting for sexual reasons, and more conversationally effective when flirting to explore. Women were perceived by men as more conversationally effective when flirting for fun and relational reasons. Second, the results garnered here support

the notion that flirting is an affiliative interpersonal event (Givens 1978; Henningsen et al. 2008), as both men and women were perceived as affiliative when flirting. Third, the affiliative judgments women had of men parallel previous work which suggests women perceive men as flirting for friendly reasons (Abbey et al. 1987).

Of particular importance to this study was testing the major assumptions of PIT in the context of flirtatious initial interactions. In support of PIT, women who were perceived by men as affiliative were also perceived as more physically attractive, socially attractive, and conversationally effective (Brown and Lewis 2004; Kenrick et al. 1994; Schmitt 2002). Scholars (i.e., Spitzberg and Cupach 2002) have recognized affiliativeness as a communicative skill that is necessary for the successful initiation and establishment of close relationships. Thus, it is not surprising that demonstrating this prosocial aptitude and dexterity results in greater perceptions of conversational effectiveness. Interestingly, when men’s flirtatious behavior was motivated by fun, women’s perceptions of their physical attractiveness decreased in comparison to initial evaluations of the men’s physical attractiveness. According to PIT, women are most attracted to potential mates who have resources they can, and will, invest in partner and offspring protection. Men who are perceived as simply flirting for fun may not be seen as sufficiently serious and available to invest these resources in a potential partner. Also consistent with PIT, women who flirted for sexual motivations were perceived by men as more attractive than in the original evaluation of physical attraction. Buss and Schmitt (1993) argued that men face problems in identifying females who are sexually available and will not require extensive commitment or investment. Thus, women flirting for sexual motivations may be perceived as available and reduce the time spent by males in acquiring sexual resources.

Contrary to predictions drawn from PIT, dominance was not related to men’s physical attraction, social attraction, or conversational effectiveness. A potential explanation for this unexpected finding can be found in Graziano et al.'s (1997) work, which specified that PIT does not adequately differentiate between an individual’s choices and preferences. That is, while it may be true women unconsciously choose dominant male partners because of survival of their offspring, they may not report that they actually prefer men who behave in a dominant fashion. Moreover, Todd et al. (2007) argued that people are unable to recognize or verbalize their preferences, and found verbalized preferences and actual choices did not match. A second explanation is that men may exhibit dominance as an evolutionary adaptation; however, women’s preferences for dominance may have been reduced through the same evolutionary processes. While men’s perceptions of women aligned with the tenets from PIT (i.e., men rated affiliative women as socially attractive, physically attractive, and conversationally
effective), women’s perceptions of men were in the opposite direction (i.e., women did not rate dominant men as socially attractive, physically attractive, or conversationally effective). Thus, women’s preferences may be changing in a way that rejects both biological adaptations and gender-stereotyped expectations and the associated desirable mate characteristics.

Also contrary to expectations and previous research (Edwards 2000), men were evaluated as both more affiliative and more dominant than women when flirting across all motivations. PIT predicts that women prefer longterm partners and may achieve this goal through affiliative behaviors, but men have different goals such as engaging in sexual activity (Geary et al. 2004). Despite the differences in goals, it is possible men are beginning to use similar affiliative strategies in addition to dominance to attain these goals. Although dominance is considered a skill that may be used as a means to achieve certain objectives, many other skills-such as affection or compromise-can also be used to successfully meet one’s needs (e.g., Spitzberg and Cupach 2002). In fact, these other skills are likely to be even more successful in certain contexts, such as the initial flirtatious encounters that were observed in this study. Further, Bale et al. (2006) found that men were more adept at predicting what women wanted in a mate. In short, men may be becoming socialized to recognize that although dominance may be an important skill to posses and display, it is likely that affiliative behaviors are particularly influential in interpersonal relationships.

In regards to Relational Framing Theory, both affiliation and dominance evaluations appeared to play a role in either enhancing or detracting from perceptions of physical attraction, social attraction, and conversational effectiveness. These two frames are the primary lenses used by individuals to make judgments about conversation partners; however, the results of this study suggest affiliation is powerful in interpreting flirtatious interactions. Specifically, the receptivity/trust aspect of affiliation revealed the strongest relationships to social attraction, physical attraction, and conversational effectiveness. The affiliative nature of the flirtatious episodes in this study is consistent with prior research, which indicates that predominantly affiliative judgments are made in the context of flirting (Givens 1978; Henningsen et al. 2008). As expected, RFT and PIT work in conjunction with one another. RFT suggests that individuals do interpret messages through an affiliative or dominant frame. However, the role of PIT is particularly important in driving the final evaluations of individuals.

Important implications emerged from this investigation for the gender-stereotyped roles for men and women in interpersonal relationships. Overall, men are perceived as more dominant and as more affiliative than women in the context of a flirtatious encounter. Men were rated as especially dominant when flirting for sexual reasons. These

findings may have emerged because of the display of communicative behaviors evident in stereotypical gender roles (Archer 1996; Bem 1974), in which men may exhibit masculine traits (e.g., assertiveness) and women exhibit feminine traits (e.g., responsiveness). In addition, scholars (Archer 1996; Greer and Buss 1994) have reported that men, not women, characteristically initiate romantic and sexual encounters. The assertiveness required to initiate interactions and engage in flirting may be perceived by third party observers as dominant.

Traditional gender-stereotyped roles, as well as recent research, suggest that women perform relational work and conversational work, both of which may increase perceptions of affiliativeness and responsiveness (Canary and Wahba 2006; Mulac 2006). However, the women in this study were not perceived to be as affiliative as the men in this study. Moreover, the women in this study did not find the traditional gender-stereotyped masculine and dominant male as desirable. Instead, women may be moving toward the preference for an androgynous male-that is, one who is both affiliative and dominant, or at least prosocially dominant (Graziano et al. 1997). As such, males may be adapting to this preference by displaying both behaviors in flirtatious interactions. In recent studies, men and women have been more similar than different in mate preferences, indicating the gender differences are decreasing (Buss et al. 2001). Buss et al. (2001) argued that cultural, societal, and generational influences have decreased the traditional and stereotypical gender difference gap. Similarly, the results from this study appear to support the changing genderstereotyped roles in the current culture.

The results of this experimental investigation, while useful, should be interpreted with an awareness of its limitations. First, rather than participating in a flirting interaction with the confederate, participants watched a video of two strangers. By nature, this methodological decision reduced participants’ involvement in the interaction, which in turn may have affected perceptions of flirting, affiliation, dominance, and conversational effectiveness. Second, coders had difficulty in distinguishing between relational motives and exploring motives, necessitating additional training sessions focused only on these two motivations. Participants likewise may have had difficulty distinguishing some of the subtle differences among the motivations. In short, flirtatious communication has been labeled an ambiguous activity (Henningsen, et al. 2008), and was in this experiment no less ambiguous.

This investigation sought to examine initial flirtatious interactions and how the evaluations of such interactions are differentiated according to perceptions of affiliativeness, dominance, physical/social attraction, and conversational effectiveness. The differences which emerged further illuminate how Parental Investment Theory may operate in initial
flirtatious interactions, how traditional gender roles may be influenced by biology, how changes in traditional gender role expectations/desires are diffusing biological adaptations, and how perceptions of a snapshot of flirtatious behaviors may impact mate selection. Of noteworthy importance are the gender differences that emerged, which shed light on and provide additional evidence for the ways in which stereotypical gender roles are changing. This study provides additional insight into how these processes facilitate the initiation of relationships which satisfy essential needs: both interpersonal and reproductive. Although support was gleaned for PIT, the results from this study suggest societal changes in genderstereotyped roles and their relationship to interpersonal communication.

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.

Appendix A

Dominance Measure

1. He/\mathrm{He} / she directed the interaction.***
2. He/\mathrm{He} / she was in control of the conversation.**
3. He/\mathrm{He} / she guided the interaction.***
4. He/\mathrm{He} / she tried to dominate her/him.*
5. He/\mathrm{He} / she dominated the conversation.**
6. He/\mathrm{He} / she controlled the conversation.**
7. He/\mathrm{He} / she tried to control the interaction.*
8. He/\mathrm{He} / she was in charge of the interaction.***

*Item from Relational Message Scale
**Item from Conversational Effectiveness Scale
***Item created for this study

References

Abbey, A. (1982). Misperceptions of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 173-194.
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.
Abrahams, M. F. (1994). Perceiving flirtatious communication: An exploration of the perceptual dimensions underlying judgments of flirtatiousness. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 283-303.
Allison, P. D. (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Sociological Methodology, 20, 93-114.
Archer, J. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible? The American Psychologist, 51, 909-917.

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.
Bale, C., Morrison, R., & Caryl, P. G. (2006). Chat-up lines as male sexual displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 655-664.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
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.
Brown, S. L., & Lewis, B. P. (2004). Relational dominance and mateselection criteria: Evidence that males attend to female dominance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 406-415.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 193-214.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.
Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616-628.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
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.
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.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93-118.
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.
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.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1996). Framing social reality: The relevance of relational judgments. Communication Research, 23, 703-723.
Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Palmer, M. T. (1999). Structuring the concept of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 66, 49-65.
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.
Downey, J. L., & Vitulli, W. F. (1987). Self-report measures of behavioral attributions related to interpersonal flirtation situations. Psychological Reports, 61, 899-904.
Ebesu Hubbard, A. (2001). Conflict between relationally uncertain romantic partners: The influence of relational responsiveness and empathy. Communication Monographs, 68, 400-414.
Edwards, R. (2000). Interpreting relational meanings: The influence of sex and gender-role. Research Reports, 17, 13-21.
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.
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.
Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27-42.
Givens, D. (1978). The nonverbal basis of attraction: Flirtation, courtship, and seduction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 41, 346-359.
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.
Greer, A. E., & Buss, D. M. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 185-201.
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.
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.
Henningsen, D. D. (2004). Flirting with meaning: An examination of miscommunication in flirting interactions. Sex Roles, 50, 481-489.
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.
Henningsen, D. D., Braz, M., & Davies, E. (2008). Why do we flirt? Journal of Business Communication, 45, 483-502.
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.
Jesser, C. J. (1978). Male responses to direct verbal sexual initiatives of females. Journal of Sex Research, 14, 118-128.
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.
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.
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.
Knobloch, L. K. (2006). Relational uncertainty and message production within courtship: Features of date request messages. Human Communication Research, 32, 244-273.
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.
McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1989). Gender differences in nonverbal flirtation. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 15, 271-282.
McCroskey, L., McCroskey, J., & Richmond, V. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly, 54, 1-31.
Moore, M. (1995). Courtship signaling and adolescents: ‘Girls just wanna have fun’. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 319-328.
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.
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.
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.
Redmond, M. V., & Vrchota, D. A. (1997). The effects of varying lengths of initial interaction on attraction. Communication Reports, 10, 47-53.
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.
Schutz, W. C. (1966). FIRO: A three dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. Palo Alto: Science & Behavior Books.
Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66-73.

Singh, D. (2004). Mating strategies of young women: Role of physical attractiveness. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 43-54.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1997). The perception of sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in variability. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 243-269.
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.