ABSTRACT
GETTING THE BALLS ROLLING: FLIRTATIOUS BEHAVIORS IN HOMOSEXUAL MEN
The purpose of this study is to compare the flirting behaviors, motivations for flirting, and communication styles of romantic attraction between heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals. A dearth of research exists on the romantic communication of non-heterosexual individuals, as most research in this area is comprised entirely of the flirting behaviors of heterosexual individuals. Two exploratory studies were conducted to determine whether there are differences between sexual orientations in flirtatious communication. In Study 1, 307 heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual individuals completed a survey assessing their scores on five different flirting styles. Overall scoring trends were similar for heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual individuals on each of the flirting styles. The sincere flirting style had the highest scores, and the traditional flirting style had the lowest scores for each group. Significant differences in sexual orientation were found in the scores on the traditional, playful, and polite flirting styles. In Study 2, 30 heterosexual men and 30 homosexual men were systematically observed in bars and clubs on their flirting behaviors. The same flirting behaviors were used by heterosexual and homosexual men, but results indicated that heterosexual men more frequently exhibited touch, eye contact, signaling, and playful behavior within a 5-minute interaction. The most striking findings in the present study are the similarities, rather than the differences, that occur between heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals.
Meaghan McCready August 2016
GETTING THE BALLS ROLLING: FLIRTATIOUS BEHAVIORS IN HOMOSEXUAL MEN
by Meaghan McCready
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology in the College of Science and Mathematics California State University, Fresno August 2016 APPROVED For the Department of Psychology:
We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree.
Meaghan McCready Thesis Author
Michael Botwin (Chair) Psychology
Lorin Lachs Psychology
Rebecca Slaton Psychology
For the University Graduate Committee:
Dean, Division of Graduate Studies AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS
X I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in its entirety without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of authorship.
Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must be obtained from me.
Signature of thesis author: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Michael Botwin, for his endless encouragement and guidance for the past two years, and to my committee members, Dr. Lorin Lachs and Dr. Rebecca Slaton, for their insight and for challenging me to write the best thesis possible. I would also like to thank Dr. Ronald Yockey, for his statistical advice, Dr. Robert Levine, for his helpful suggestions for a smooth observational procedure, and Hugo Valencia, for his insight into the LGBT community. This research could not have been possible without the efforts of my amazing lab team, Hope Castro, Liz Williams, Matthew Islas, and Megan Dawes. Thank you for sacrificing your weekends to come out with me and watch men flirt. Also, thank you to my friends and family who took the time to complete and share my survey online. Additionally, a special thanks to my mother, Karin McCready, for her editing, support, and patience, and to my cohort, for preserving my spirit and sanity when this project became overwhelming. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
LIST OF TABLES ...... ix LIST OF FIGURES ...... x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 4 Verbal Flirtation Techniques ...... 4 Nonverbal Flirtation Techniques ...... 5 Gender Differences ...... 9 Evolutionary Psychology ...... 13 Same-sex Flirting ...... 14 CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND MATERIALS ...... 20 Study 1 ...... 20 Study 2 ...... 22
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...... 24 Study 1 ...... 24 Study 2 ...... 32 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...... 34 Study 1 ...... 34 Study 2 ...... 40 General Discussion ...... 42 REFERENCES ...... 44 APPENDICES ...... 53
APPENDIX A: SEXUAL ORIENTATION SCALE ...... 54 APPENDIX B: FLIRTING STYLES INVENTORY - REVISED ...... 56 viii viii Page
APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT FORM ...... 59
APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 61 APPENDIX E: FLIRTING ACTS ...... 63 APPENDIX F: FLIRTING ACT CATEGORIES AND EXAMPLE BEHAVIORS ...... 71
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Results Comparing Homosexual and Heterosexual Men’s Flirting Behavior Frequencies ...... 32
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Means and standard deviations of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual scores on the five flirting styles...... 25 Figure 2. Means and standard deviations of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men and women’s scores on the traditional flirting style. .. 27 Figure 3. Means and standard deviations of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men and women’s scores on the polite flirting style...... 30 Figure 4. Average frequencies of homosexual and heterosexual men’s flirting behaviors during a 5-minute interaction...... 33
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Flirtation, defined as a behavior that demonstrates a sexual attraction to or interest in someone is paramount in obtaining a mate. Flirtation consists of verbal and nonverbal cues used to gain attention from, and signal interest to potential mates (Abrahams, 1994; Henningsen, 2004; Moore 1985, 2002). Evolutionarily, individuals who are more adept at flirting are more successful in obtaining a mate and reproducing quickly (Simpson, Gangestad, & Biek, 1993). Therefore, flirting is a beneficial tool for gaining sexual access to mates. Nonverbal cues, including eye contact, physical proximity, and touching account for the majority of flirting behaviors (Moore, 2010). Certain postures, gestures, and facial expressions are universal cues of attraction observed cross culturally (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1971; Givens, 2006). Several behaviors including specific facial expressions: raising an eyebrow paired with smiling, a half smile paired with lowered eyes or, a ‘coy glance’, and prolonged eye contact demonstrate significant cross-cultural consistency. Gestures demonstrating cross- cultural consistency include using hands to emphasize points, brief touching, and moistening lips. Individuals also assumed common postures including body mirroring of the interested person, and condensing proximity. Since Eibl-Ebesfeldt’s (1971) study, these same nonverbal behaviors are found to be consistently used in flirtatious interactions. Givens (2006) claimed that during courtship, 99% of communication is nonverbal. Even when verbally communicating, nonverbal behaviors are the primary tool of communication in flirting. Morris (1971) viewed verbal exchanges between two individuals as more of a blunt signal of interest, rather than a primary flirtation technique. 2 2
Although there are no significant gender differences in flirting behaviors, there are gender differences in the detection, interpretation, and motivations behind flirting (Farris, Treat, Viken, & McFall, 2008; Henningsen, Braz, & Davies, 2008; Moore, 2002). These differences are likely caused by the difference in parental investment between males and females (Trivers, 1972). Because producing offspring is so costly for females, and a failed offspring is a devastating reproductive loss to her limited number of fertile years, the evolutionary goal of females is to produce a high quality of offspring with a mate who can provide support for her and her offspring (Geher & Kaufman, 2013). With a lifetime of fertility and a low reproduction cost, males are limited only by females in the number of offspring they can produce (Geher & Kaufman, 2013). The evolutionary goal for males is to produce as many offspring as possible to increase their genetic fitness (Geher & Kaufman, 2013). Mating strategies therefore evolved differently for males and females, as their needs from sexual encounters differ (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Schmitt, 2005). The differences between men and women in detecting and interpreting the motivations behind flirting can lead to some problems in successfully and mutually establishing a relationship (Mongeau, Serewicz, & Therrien, 2004; Moore, 2002). Without the limitations of typical gender roles and behavioral influences from reproductive constraints, flirting motivations of non-heterosexual individuals may be different (VanderMolen, 2013). When homosexual individuals interact with one another the basic conflict between the sexes is nonexistent. The few studies that have examined homosexual individuals’ mating strategies have found that homosexual flirting encounters employ the same nonverbal flirting behaviors as heterosexual flirting encounters, but the motivations behind flirting differ (Potapova, 2012; Rose & Zand, 2002; VanderMolen, 2013). The same 3 3 biological urges exist in homosexual individuals as in heterosexual individuals, however, their urges do not lead to reproductive success when expressed toward a member of the same-sex. Thus, the motivations underlying same-sex flirting are not to reproduce. There is a dearth of research about same-sex courtship behaviors. The present study attempts to address some of the gaps in our knowledge about same-sex flirting and mating strategies.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Verbal Flirtation Techniques Pick-up lines are typically used to establish verbal communication when individuals are flirting. Three categories of opening lines have been identified: cute-flippant, innocuous, and direct (Kleinke, Meeker, & Staneski, 1986). Cute- flippant lines are stereotypical, “is it hot in here, or is it just you?” or “Your daddy must be a drug dealer, because you’re dope.” Several studies have shown that these cute-flippant pick-up lines are not received favorably, particularly by women (Givens, 2005; Kleinke et al., 1986; Levine, King, & Popoola, 1994; Weber, Goodboy, Cayanus, 2010). Innocuous pick-up lines tend to be the most well- received by women. These lines include harmless questions pertaining to a mutually shared situation, such as “What did you think of the band?” (Weber et al., 2010). Direct, or assertive pick-up lines are more well-received by men. These include statements such as, “I feel a little embarrassed about this, but I just wanted to meet you” (Kleinke et al., 1986). Men utilize verbal flirtation strategies more than women and respond more positively to these than women (Clark, Shaver, & Abrahams, 1999; de Weerth & Kalma, 1995). Verbal flirting behaviors are judged as strong indicators of sexual intent by both men and women (Henningsen, 2009). Although pick-up lines show a clear, unambiguous interest in a potential mate, these statements alone do not influence attraction. Senko and Fyffe (2010) found that women were more responsive to an imagined attractive man using a pick-up line to initiate a conversation, rather than an imagined unattractive man. Women were more likely to converse with and consider a long-term relationship with an imagined attractive man. This was found even when the imagined attractive man used a cute-flippant type of pick-up line, 5 5 which has been previously shown to be the least desirable type of pick-up line. Therefore, for women, a verbal interaction does not seem to influence attraction as much as physical appearances do. Several other studies conclude that nonverbal flirtation behaviors are more effective for expressing interest than verbal flirtation cues (Givens, 2005; Grammer, 1990). Even when conversing, nonverbal behaviors guide perceptions of interest and receptive cues (Givens, 2005).
Nonverbal Flirtation Techniques Several nonverbal courtship behaviors that signal interest in another individual are consistently found in the literature. These flirting behaviors are displayed by both men and women, are universally found, and are identified across decades of research (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1971; Moore, 2010; Scheflen, 1965). The most common nonverbal courtship behaviors are maintained eye contact, pleasant facial expressions (smiling, raising eyebrows), touching the other person, engaged posture, and hand gestures (Moore, 2010). These behaviors are used to display interest in another individual, and are easily recognized as displays of interest by others. In one of the first studies on nonverbal courtship behaviors in humans, Scheflen (1965) identified four nonverbal flirting categories: courtship readiness, preening behaviors, positional cues, and actions of appeal. Courtship readiness includes behaviors that lead to an appealing appearance to attract the opposite sex. An example of this is having an ideal, fit body. Preening behaviors refer to actions like adjusting clothing, fixing makeup, or stroking hair that signal to another individual an interest in looking good. Positional cues involve having an interested and alert body posture, and strategic body positioning. Leaning forward is a good example of a positional cue. It implies an interest in what the other individual is 6 6 doing or saying. Strategic body positioning isolates the individual of interest from having an open posture that may welcome sexual competitors. Actions of appeal include maintaining eye contact and open palmed hand gestures while interacting with an individual. These four nonverbal flirting categories continue to encompass the most common flirting behaviors used to communicate attraction. In 1971, Eibl-Eibesfeldt discretely observed nonverbal flirting behaviors of men and women in several different cultures. Throughout these different cultures, the same cues were used as displays of interest. Maintained eye contact, smiling, raising an eyebrow, light touching, decreasing body proximity, body mirroring, moistening lips, and excessive hand gestures were the observed flirting techniques used by individuals to signal their interest during an interaction. These eight behaviors fit within Scheflen’s (1965) four categories of nonverbal courtship behaviors. These common behaviors are shown to signal interest to strangers in any situation (Grammer, 1990; Maxwell, Cook, & Burr, 1985; Perper, 1985). Perper examined interactions of individuals in dance clubs. Perper found that when strangers meet, they display their sexual or romantic interest with the same behaviors: eye contact, smiling, touching the other person, self-grooming, and posture mirroring. Grammer also found that unacquainted adults used the same behaviors when observed in his laboratory. Even in a controlled, laboratory setting, flirting behaviors remain consistent. Unacquainted teenagers also use the same flirting behaviors as adults. Maxwell et al. looked at interactions between high school teenagers. The teenagers attracted to each other showed a maintained mutual gaze, smiling and alert facial expressions, and synchronized gestures and movements. Grammer aimed to study laughter as a flirting signal among unacquainted individuals, but found that amount of laughter did not correlate with 7 7 interest levels. Instead, individuals attracted to each other displayed specific nonverbal posturing behaviors along with laughter that better predicted interest levels. Individuals who indicated an interest in their partner displayed an open body position, active limb movements, and oriented their posture more toward their partner. Not only are flirtatious behaviors important to convey interest in unacquainted individuals, but the same behaviors are important for individuals in long-term relationships as well (Moore, 2010). Lockard and Adams (1980) examined nonverbal behaviors in the interactions between established couples, rather than strangers. Even for established couples, the same common nonverbal courtship behaviors are used. Long-term couples exchange glances and maintain prolonged eye contact with each other, lightly touch, smile, synchronize movements, and self groom (Lockard & Adams, 1980). Both men and women recognize these common nonverbal behaviors as courtship behavior (Abbey & Melby, 1986; Abrahams, 1994; Greer & Buss, 1994). Not only are the same behaviors displayed by men and women as signaling their interest in another individual, but these behaviors are also easily recognized by men and women as displays of interest from another individual. There are minor discrepancies in determining which nonverbal behaviors men and women primarily use to flirt. The same behaviors remain consistent, but the frequency with which men or women utilize them is inconsistent. For example, some studies show that women display interest with eye contact, smiling, self- grooming, and touching more than men in a flirtatious interaction (Grammer, Kruck, & Magnusson, 1998; McCormick & Jones, 1989). However, other studies have found that men display interest with eye contact, smile, and touch more than women in a flirtatious interaction (Renninger, Wade, & Grammer, 2004; Simpson 8 8 et al., 1993). Grammer (1990) found that men use an open body posture and lean in toward a woman they are interested in, while Simpson et al. and Grammer et al. found that women use an open body posture while interacting with a man they are interested in. Several studies found that men may initiate touch in a flirtatious interaction (Clark, Shaver, & Abrahams, 1999; McCormick & Jones, 1989; Willis & Briggs, 1992), but women use touch more often (McCormick & Jones, 1989). Ficheten, Taglakis, Judd, Wright, and Amsel (1992) did not find any significant differences between gender flirting behaviors, and concluded that men and women equally smile, touch, and lean in to people they are interested in when flirting. The inconsistency in previous studies indicates that perhaps there are no differences in flirting behaviors between men and women. An alternative explanation is that differences in personality or in situations may cause a behavior frequency to fluctuate. The same core flirting behaviors are found in different cultures, different ages, and at varying stages of relationships (Eibl-Eibsfeldt, 1975; Lockard & Adams, 1980; Maxwell et al., 1985). It could also be assumed that differences in sexual orientation may not affect flirting behaviors. However, a lack of research exists as to whether sexual orientation influences flirting behaviors. There appear to be no differences in flirting behavior between sexes, but men and women differ in detection and interpretation of flirting behavior. It is unclear whether these differences in detection and interpretation occur in same-sex courtship interactions. An argument could be made that because there are no sex differences in a same-sex couple, flirtation behaviors may differ from common heterosexual flirtation behaviors. 9 9 Gender Differences Although men and women display the same nonverbal flirting behaviors, women tend to guide the courtship at several different stages. Women nonverbally initiate the first interaction in a courtship through eye contact (Cary, 1976). In an interaction between two strangers, a man will not approach a woman unless she has glanced at him two or more times, or made eye contact while smiling (Cary, 1976). This seemingly innocuous behavior sends signals of interest to a man, and essentially provides permission for him to approach. de Weerth and Kalma (1995) found that both men and women are aware of this process. Both sexes know that women initiate a flirting interaction, and that this initiation is done through eye contact. Women also regulate the speed with which a relationship progresses (Birdwhistell, 1970; Eibl-Eibsfeldt, 1971; Morris, 1971). There are typical steps with which a relationship progresses, from initial contact to intimacy (Birdwhistell, 1970; Morris, 1971). The progression and regression of these steps is determined by women (Birdwhistell, 1970; Morris, 1971). Birdwhistell offered the example that when holding hands, a man may present the initial physical move, but it is not until the woman reciprocates pressure onto his hand that he may take the next step, and intertwine his fingers with hers. Female signaling is so influential that Moore and Butler (1989) accurately predicted outcomes of flirtatious interactions by examining the frequency of a woman’s nonverbal signals, primarily smiling and coy glances. Surprisingly, the physical attractiveness of a woman was less important than the number of signals she displayed. Men approached average women who displayed a higher frequency of nonverbal flirting signals more often than very attractive women who displayed 10 10 a low frequency of signals. Nonverbal flirting signals from women appear to have an advantage over physical attractiveness in terms of influencing a man’s interest. Considering the prevalence of nonverbal behavior in flirting, the detection and accurate interpretation of nonverbal information is incredibly important. Nonverbal sensitivity is defined as the ability to perceive and accurately interpret the nonverbal cues of another person (Burgoon & Bacue, 2003). Without nonverbal sensitivity, developing and maintaining relationships would be an extremely difficult task (Burgoon & Bacue, 2003). The nonverbal signals of flirting would be irrelevant without an accurate ability to detect and infer appropriate behavior responses from them. Several studies illustrate a significant difference between men and women in their nonverbal sensitivity levels. Women, in general, are better at accurately understanding nonverbal behaviors (Hall, Murphy, & Mast, 2006; Riggio & Feldman, 2005; Watkins & Hall, 2014). The Social Skills Inventory (SSI), a self- report measure that assesses encoding, decoding, and regulation skills of social communication, consistently shows a sex difference in scores, with women scoring higher than men on emotional and social sensitivity (Riggio & Feldman, 2005, Watkins & Hall, 2014). Women consistently score higher than men do on the nonverbal sensitivity scale of the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity instrument (Hall et al., 2006). Women also excel at assessing flirting perceptions (Farris et al., 2008). Good flirting perception is correctly recognizing when another individual is displaying behaviors indicative of romantic or sexual interest (Watkins & Hall, 2014). There is a discrepancy between men and women in the level of sexual interest signaled through flirting behaviors (Abbey, 1982). Men often overestimate the sexual intent of a woman’s behaviors (Abbey & Melby, 1986; Henningsen, 11 11
2004; Henningsen, Kartch, Orr, & Brown, 2009; Moore, 2002; Ostler, 2003). When men see any flirting behaviors from women, they interpret these behaviors as more sexual, serious, and intense than when women interpret the same behaviors (Moore, 2002). Haselton (2003) referred to this as the sexual overperception bias. Men also interpret flirting behaviors as more intense and sexual than the women displaying them intend them to be (Moore, 2010). Men perceive women as trying to be more seductive than women intend to be (Haselton & Buss, 2000; Levesque, Nave, & Lowe, 2006). Rejection signals are also judged to be weaker when viewed by a man, than when viewed by a woman (Moore, 2002). This tendency to overestimate a woman’s flirting intentions may have been something that developed evolutionarily. If men perceive more women as interested, they have more opportunity to produce more offspring (Haselton & Buss, 2000; Moore, 2002). These gender differences in flirting perceptions have been found in a number of studies. One reason for varying flirting perceptions can be attributed to the motivations behind flirting that varies between the sexes. People do not always flirt for the purpose of obtaining a sexual or romantic relationship (Mongeau et al., 2004). In a review of previous flirting studies, Henningsen (2004) found six motivations for flirting. These six motivations include facilitating sexual contact, having fun, exploring potential for a relationship, maintaining an existing relationship, raising self-esteem, and persuasion. Five similar reasons surfaced when Mongeau et al. had college students identify their personal goals for their most recent first date. Sex, fun, identifying romantic potential in flirting partners, promoting friendship, and reducing uncertainty in determining attraction were common motivations. 12 12
Differences have been found in the motivations underlying why men and women flirt (Henningsen, 2004; Henningsen et al., 2008; Henningsen, Henningsen, McWorthy, McWorthy, & McWorthy 2011). Men attribute sexual motivations to flirting interactions more often than any other motivation (Henningsen et al., 2008). Additionally, men attribute sexual motivations to flirting interactions more often than women do (Henningsen, 2004; Henningsen et al. 2008). Women attribute fun and relational motivations to flirting interactions more than men (Henningsen, 2004). Women appear to have more diverse motivations underlying their flirting interactions than men. These varying motivations could contribute to the disparity and miscommunication experienced between men and women in identifying flirting intentions. Ostler (2003) also demonstrated a discrepancy between the sexes in interpreting flirtatious and dating behaviors. Male and female participants were given 16 different female dating behaviors and judged how much these behaviors reflected sexual consent. Males rated more behaviors as reflective of sexual consent than did females. Moreover, males judged more behaviors as “definitive” of sexual consent, while females judged the same behaviors as “probative,” or displaying intrigue, but absolutely not “definitive.” Henningsen et al. (2009) had participants judge an interaction in a written scenario wherein a woman either verbally or nonverbally initiates flirting behaviors with a man. It was found that when the woman used verbal flirting cues, sexual interest was perceived to be equally high by males and females. It appears that verbal flirting techniques are unambiguous, and easily interpretable by both sexes. In the nonverbal flirting scenario, males perceived a greater sexual interest from the woman in the scenario than females did. Because nonverbal behaviors are ambiguous, they leave room for misinterpretation. This causes a potential 13 13 problem for interactions between men and women, as women almost exclusively flirt behaviorally and men flirt verbally and behaviorally.
Evolutionary Psychology Although the same basic flirting behaviors are used by men and women, there is a discrepancy in how men and women detect and interpret these flirting behaviors. The Parental Investment Theory, proposed by Trivers (1972), provides an evolutionary explanation for these discrepancies. This theory proposes that because parental investment differs between the sexes, the process by which males and females use mating strategies to select mates differs as well. Producing and rearing offspring is costlier for females than males (Trivers, 1972). The evolutionary goal for females is to create a better quality of offspring because the risks in parental investment are greater for females than males. Thus, females are more selective when choosing a partner (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Trivers, 1972). Because of this selectivity, males have to compete intrasexually for females. The evolutionary goal for males is to produce as many offspring as possible. Unlike females, producing offspring is of relatively low cost to males, as they can reproduce throughout their entire lives and are physically unhindered by pregnancy. These reproductive sex differences cause mating strategy differences, which may lead to the discrepancy in detecting and interpreting flirting behaviors between men and women (Schmitt, 2005). Flirting is beneficial to both men and women in finding a mate. For men, flirting is a way of displaying desirable traits to women. Desired traits, such as pro-social behavior and sense of humor are shown through flirting (Greengross & Miller, 2011). Good flirting skills are indicators of a high quality mate. Flirting is a good way for men to gauge a woman’s interest level as well (Clark et al., 1999; 14 14
Henningsen, 2004). Men can effectively assess which women are interested and which are not by evaluating the woman’s nonverbal behaviors (Ahmad & Fisher, 2010). When a woman displays rejection behaviors, the man can move on to a different woman to give himself more opportunities for finding a mate (Ahmad & Fisher, 2010). Flirting also benefits females. Because females suffer a major loss when an offspring fails, their flirtation strategies allow them to assess the beneficial qualities and possible risks of a potential mate (Moore, 2002). Flirting allows females to gain an understanding of whether the male would be a good investment of her time and resources for producing offspring. Flirting gives females a sense of the male’s personality and desirable traits (Clark et al., 1999; Greengross & Miller, 2011). Male flirting can help females decide if he is a good investment. Flirting also establishes a connection between men and women (Clark et al., 1999). This connection can further aid women in accurately determining whether a potential mate is a good investment.
Same-sex Flirting Previous studies about flirting and courtship behavior have been primarily focused on heterosexual men and women. Little research has examined gay or lesbian flirting and courtship behavior. Reproductive constraints and culturally defined gender roles give rise to male and female differences in flirting (VanderMolen, 2013). Different flirting techniques may be used in an interaction comprised of two partners of the same sex, because there are no sex differences. Two partners of the same sex may not show differences in detecting, interpreting, or motivations behind flirting. The interaction may not involve as many misunderstandings between two individuals who have similar motivations or 15 15 flirting styles, which are the primary influences of the problems in opposite sex flirting interactions. Men tend to overly assume that a woman’s flirting behavior indicates a sexual motivation (Henningsen, 2004; Moore, 2002; Ostler, 2003), men tend to have more sexual motivations underlying their own flirting (Henningsen et al., 2008), and men also utilize verbal flirtation techniques more often than women (Clark et al., 1999; de Weerth & Kalma, 1995). A flirtatious interaction between two homosexual men may therefore be quite brief, verbally direct, mutually well received, and motivated by sex. In one of the few studies that examined the mating preferences of homosexual men, Gobrogge et al. (2007) found that homosexual men sought sexual encounters from dating more than heterosexual men. This aligns with the previous findings that homosexual men report more casual sex than heterosexual men (Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, & Gladue, 1994). In an interaction between two men, who both assume and exhibit the same sexual motivations behind flirting, it would follow that homosexual men would have a high frequency of sexual encounters. Heterosexual men are hindered by the availability and acceptance of women. Lesbian women may have an entirely different flirting experience than gay men and heterosexual women. Women tend to assume less sexual intention from flirting behaviors and flirt for many reasons other than sexual intent (Henningsen et al., 2008). Women also tend to be more sensitive to nonverbal behaviors (Hall et al., 2006; Riggio & Feldman, 2005). Women regulate the progression of relationships, and initiate flirting with nonverbal signals (Cary, 1976; Morris, 1971). Flirting between lesbians may therefore be a more complicated interaction. Lesbian courtship behavior primarily involves mutual nonverbal communication, 16 16 and shared dating goals between partners (Bernarte, Alday, Calajatan, Fraginal, Lauchengco, 2015; Rose & Zand, 2002). Rose and Zand (2002) surveyed lesbian women about their dating and courtship initiation behaviors and relationship roles. It was found, unsurprisingly, that lesbians use the same common verbal and nonverbal flirting techniques as heterosexuals in order to initiate a relationship. However, there were several major differences between lesbians and heterosexual individuals in their flirting relationship roles. Heterosexual men and women often adhere to traditional gender roles in dating (Hall, Carter, Cody, & Albribright, 2010). Few lesbians reported adhering to traditional gender roles, primarily objecting to the notion that women should limit sexual contact. The majority of lesbian women surveyed reported a more serious relationship goal desired from dating. Flirting was primarily used by lesbians to initiate a relationship, rather than any other motivation. After a relationship had been established, lesbians tended to progress rapidly in their relationships. This is probably due to the high communication and assertiveness skills they displayed. This study supports the notion that flirting techniques and behaviors are universal, but detection, interpretation, and motivation behind these techniques vary between individuals. Potapova (2012) conducted interviews with 15 lesbian women about how they signal their erotic interest to other women. Nonverbal signals, not unlike in the common flirting behaviors found in previous studies on heterosexual flirting, were identified. Maintaining eye contact, light touching, and narrowing physical proximity were the three most commonly reported behaviors used to signal interest, and were identified as ways other women signal interest to them. An atypical flirting technique utilized by lesbian women and not by heterosexual women is the common use of verbal interaction. A majority of the lesbian women 17 17 claimed to use, or have experienced others use direct verbal communication of sexual intentions while also displaying the aforementioned nonverbal behaviors. According to previous research on heterosexual couples, this is not a common or successful approach to flirting (Givens, 2005; Grammer, 1990). Potapova determined that verbal communication is necessarily used by lesbian women to gain an understanding of the sexual orientation or openness to sexual experience of the woman of interest. Several lesbian women claimed to use verbal communication to avoid a misunderstanding of sexual interest with a heterosexual woman. Same-sex flirting may necessarily involve more verbal techniques due to the often ambiguous nature of an individuals’ sexual orientation, and avoidance of uncomfortable situations. The same nonverbal behaviors appear to be used regardless of sexual orientation. What is expected to differ between sexual orientations are the styles of communication and motivations behind flirting behaviors. VanderMolen (2013) found a significant interaction between flirting style and sexual orientation. A survey of homosexual and heterosexual men and women found that homosexuals and heterosexuals differ in the extent to which they identify with the five flirting styles in the Flirting Styles Inventory established in Hall et al. (2010). The Flirting Styles Inventory assesses the way a person communicates his or her romantic interest in others. The five styles include traditional, physical, sincere, polite, and playful. The difference in flirting styles between sexual orientations was greater than any differences found between sexes, as heterosexual men and women and homosexual men and women did not differ in their flirting styles. Both heterosexual men and heterosexual women scored highly on the same flirting styles, primarily favoring a traditional dating approach. Heterosexual men and women exhibit behaviors that align with the traditional dating approach in a 18 18 flirting situation (Frisby, Dillow, Gaughan, & Nordlund, 2010). Homosexual men and women also did not differ in their scores on the flirting styles. Homosexual individuals may not identify with traditional gender roles, which explains their overall low scores on the traditional flirting style. Homosexual individuals deviate from traditional gender roles regarding dating. Homosexual individuals create new dating scripts and stray from societal gender expectations (Riggle, Olson, Whitman, Rotosky, & Strong, 2008). Bernarte et al. (2015) found similar verbal and nonverbal flirting techniques in interviews with homosexual men and women. Eye contact, smiling, touching, alert posture, and reducing physical proximity were reported as the most common flirting behaviors. Verbal flirting techniques included flattery, humor, and disclosure. Homosexual men were found to excel in more verbal techniques. Like heterosexual men, homosexual men preferred using verbal flirtation in expressing their interest to other men, and also recognized verbal flirting techniques more readily. Homosexual women excelled at nonverbal techniques. The majority of these homosexual women reported a preference for using nonverbal techniques to signal their interest in other women. Nonverbal flirting techniques are universally used and identified as conveying sexual or romantic interest in someone (Greer & Buss, 1994; Moore, 2010). Although the use of nonverbal flirting techniques is frequent, verbal flirting techniques appear to be more common in same-sex interactions than in opposite sex interactions. These verbal techniques may appear out of the necessity for assessing the person of interest’s sexual orientation. Self-identified non- heterosexual individuals account for roughly 4% of the population in America (Gates, 2014). Because of the small likelihood of any given individual being 19 19 homosexual, nonverbal behaviors alone might not be adequate for detecting and interpreting sexual or romantic intentions. There is a lack of research in the area of the flirting behaviors, motivations, and styles of homosexual men in particular. More research has focused on homosexual women, but primarily all information known about flirting pertains to heterosexuals, which represent only one specific sexual orientation. The present study aims to fill this gap in knowledge about non-heterosexual flirting techniques in an exploratory approach using two parts. The goal of Study 1 was to determine whether non-heterosexual individuals use different flirting communication styles and motivations behind flirting than heterosexual individuals. A separate goal for Study 1 was to assess which approaches to flirting are most commonly used by non-heterosexual individuals. The goal of Study 2 was to determine whether the same nonverbal flirtation behaviors will be displayed at the same frequency by homosexual men as by heterosexual men.
CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND MATERIALS
Study 1
Participants Participants were recruited from a variety of online groups and forums and are a non-probability sample of convenience. A total of 307 (167 males, 134 females, 6 others) heterosexual (N = 161) and non-heterosexual (N = 146) individuals completed the survey. Non-heterosexual participants were recruited from Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and sexual minority equality (LGBT+) Facebook groups, local LGBT+ community websites, and Reddit forums for LGBT+ members. Heterosexual participants were recruited from Facebook and Reddit survey forums. Participants were primarily single (N = 153), White (N = 231) adults ranging from 18 to 60 years old (M = 26.6, SD = 8.16).
Materials Participants were given a survey that assesses sexual orientation and flirting style. Sexual orientation was assessed by a sliding scale similar to the Kinsey Scale (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; see Appendix A). The Kinsey Scale is a self-reported scale of sexual orientation. The scale rates exclusivity of sexual orientation on a scale of “0” (exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual tendencies or desires) to “6” (exclusively homosexual with no heterosexual tendencies or desires). This adaptation of the Kinsey Scale is a sufficient measure of sexual orientation because it is a self report measure, and sexual orientation can only be identified by each individual for themselves. Participants’ flirting style was assessed by The Flirting Styles Inventory- Revised (FSI-R; Xing & Hall, 2015). The FSI-R (see Appendix B) assesses the 21 21 way a person communicates his or her romantic interest in others. These styles are expressed through traditional, physical, playful, sincere, and polite approaches. The traditional flirting style assesses whether an individual adheres to traditional gender roles during courtship. A high score on the traditional style indicates that an individual believes a man, not a woman, should initiate interactions and display dominant and assertive behaviors when pursuing someone of interest. The physical flirting style assesses the degree to which an individual can comfortably and effectively communicate their sexual interest. A high score on the physical flirting style indicates that an individual easily expresses their courtship intentions through nonverbal behavior. The playful flirting style assesses whether flirting is regarded as a fun activity, rather than a signal of interest. A high score on the playful flirting style indicates that an individual flirts with people who they are not interested in sexually or romantically. The sincere flirting style assesses whether an individual flirts with the intention of creating an emotional bond with a person they are genuinely interested in. A high score on the sincere flirting style indicates that an individual flirts in ways that encourage self disclosure and bonding. The polite flirting style assesses how strictly an individual behaves according to societal rules in a flirtatious interaction. A high score on the polite flirting style indicates an individual who has difficulty expressing sexual desire and monitors their behavior to insure an adherence to proper manners. Flirting style is determined by agreement ratings on a “1” (strongly disagree) – “7” (strongly agree) Likert scale of 23 statements that correspond to attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors defined by one of the five flirting styles. Each style has been shown to be mutually exclusive of the other styles. The Flirting Styles Inventory has good internal consistency ( = .68 - .87 for each item) and predictive validity ( = .83; Hall et al., 2010). 22 22 Design and Procedure Study 1 employed a non-experimental research design. Participants completed an online survey consisting of an informed consent (see Appendix C), demographic questions (see Appendix D), Kinsey Scale, and Flirting Styles Inventory.
Study 2
Participants Participants consisted of 30 homosexual and 30 heterosexual men from bars and clubs in the city of Fresno. Men were assumed to be homosexual when exhibiting flirtatious behaviors with a person of the same sex while inside established gay bars and clubs. Although sexual orientation is fluid and may change over an individual’s lifetime (Diamond, 2008), current sexual behavior was the focus of the present study. Thus, current sexual orientation was determined by the individual’s participation in same-sex interactions in a known gay establishment. Men were assumed to be heterosexual when exhibiting flirtatious behaviors with a person of the opposite sex. The sample was a purposive, systematic observation of men who were exhibiting flirtatious behaviors.
Materials Participants were observed systematically in their nonverbal flirting behaviors for 5 minutes. Judges used a phone timer app for consistency. The specific flirting behaviors recorded were determined from a factor analysis on 163 commonly used flirting acts reported by heterosexual individuals (see Appendix E). The factor analysis of the nonverbal flirting acts resulted in seven categories of flirtatious behaviors: simple touch, eye contact, provocative display, attention 23 23 seeking behaviors, signaling interest, playful behaviors, and acting coy (see Appendix F). Behaviors were recorded on a tally counter phone app (Tsopanakis, 2015). The flirtatious behaviors were added to the app as separate categories.
Design and Procedure Study 2 employed a non-experimental, observational research design. Subjects were systematically observed for flirting behaviors in bars and clubs. The experimenter provided no interference or manipulation of the situation. Subjects had no knowledge of the observation taking place, and therefore acted naturally in the bar environment. Two judges were present in the establishment to determine presence and frequency of flirting behaviors. Subjects’ interactions were observed for 5 minutes. Flirting behaviors were rated by multiple judges. The judges recorded the target behaviors’ frequency of occurrence within the specified time on a tally counter app on their phones. When a behavior was observed, judges tapped a plus sign on that behavior’s category which kept a running tally of the frequency of that behavior.
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Study 1 The goal of study 1 was to determine whether heterosexual and non- heterosexual individuals differ in their flirting and communication styles. This goal was evaluated in two ways. First, mean scores of each flirting style were compared within heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual groups to determine which styles are utilized the most. Secondly, mean scores of each flirting style were compared between sexual orientation and gender. Individuals who reported their sexual orientation as a 0, or 1 on the Kinsey scale were categorized as heterosexual. Individuals who reported their sexual orientation as a 2, 3, or 4 on the Kinsey scale were categorized as bisexual. Individuals who reported their sexual orientation as a 5 or 6 on the Kinsey scale were categorized as homosexual. Only the results from participants who completed the entire survey were retained.
Flirting Style Trends Flirting style scores were analyzed to assess the most used flirting style for heterosexual (N = 142), bisexual (N = 71), and homosexual (N = 94) individuals. A repeated measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction was conducted for heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual individuals’ scores on the five flirting styles. The ANOVA revealed the mean scores of each flirting style significantly differed for heterosexual individuals, F(2.94, 414.40) = 222.40, p <
2 .001, p = .61. A Bonferroni post hoc test determined that scores on the sincere flirting style (M = 6.24, SD = .59) were significantly higher than all other flirting styles, and scores on the traditional flirting style (M = 3.14, SD = 1.10) were significantly lower than all other flirting styles. (p < .001 for each comparison). 25 25
The mean scores of each flirting style significantly differed for bisexual
2 individuals, F(2.75, 192.64) = 138.84, p < .001, p = .67. A Bonferroni post hoc test determined that scores on the sincere flirting style (M = 6.27, SD = .63) were significantly higher than all other flirting styles, and scores on the traditional flirting style (M = 2.42, SD = .99) were significantly lower than all other flirting styles (p < .001 for each comparison). The mean scores of each flirting style significantly differed for homosexual
2 individuals, F(3.09, 287.07) = 234.73, p < .001, p = .72. A Bonferroni post hoc test determined that scores on the sincere flirting style (M = 6.27, SD = .56) were significantly higher than all other flirting styles, and scores on the traditional flirting style (M = 2.43, SD = .84) were significantly lower than all other flirting styles (p < .001 for each comparison). Figure 1 shows means and standard deviations for heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual individuals on each of the five flirting styles.
Figure 1. Means and standard deviations of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual scores on the five flirting styles. 26 26 Flirting Style Differences In order to determine whether there are sexual orientation differences in flirting styles, five separate 2 x 3 factorial ANOVAs were conducted to compare the main effects of gender and sexual orientation and the interaction effect between gender and sexual orientation on the five flirting styles. Each two-way ANOVA was conducted on the influence of two independent variables (gender and sexual orientation) on the traditional, physical, playful, sincere, and polite flirting styles. Gender included two levels, men (N = 167) and women (N = 134), and sexual orientation included three levels, heterosexual (N = 142), bisexual (N = 66), and homosexual (N = 93). Six participants who endorsed the unlabeled gender option were not included in the analysis because of insufficient sample size.
Traditional. Gender did not show a significant effect on traditional style
2 scores, F(1, 295) = .66, p = .42, p = .002, meaning that men (M = 2.70, SD = .91) and women (M = 2.87, SD = 1.20) did not differ in their scores on the traditional flirting style. The main effect for sexual orientation indicated a significant difference between homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual scores on
2 the traditional style F(2, 295) = 17.56, p < .001, p = .11. A Bonferroni post hoc test indicated that heterosexual individuals (M = 3.14, SD = 1.10) scored significantly higher on the traditional style than homosexual (M = 2.44, SD = .84) and bisexual (M = 2.48, SD = .99) individuals (p < .001). There was a significant gender by sexual orientation interaction effect on the traditional flirting style, F(2,
2 295) = 4.06, p = .018, p = .03. This interaction effect indicates that the effect of sexual orientation on flirting style depends on the gender of the participant. Profile plots of the interaction effect show that heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men have less variance in their traditional style scores than heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual women. Figure 2 shows means and standard deviations of 27 27 heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men and heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual women’s scores on the traditional flirting style.
Figure 2. Means and standard deviations of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men and women’s scores on the traditional flirting style.
Two separate one-way ANOVAs were conducted as post hoc tests to determine if there was a difference between men’s sexual orientation and women’s sexual orientation separately. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to find the effect women’s sexual orientation has on the traditional flirting style. A significant difference was found between sexual orientation in scores on the traditional flirting style F(2, 131) = 10.49, p < .001, 2 = .138. A post hoc Tukey test revealed heterosexual women (N = 91, M = 3.18, SD = 1.18) scored significantly higher on the traditional flirting style than homosexual women (N = 21, M = 2.14, SD = .86, p = .001) and bisexual women (N = 22, M = 2.31, SD = 1.11, p = .004). There was no significant difference in scores between homosexual women and bisexual women on the traditional flirting style. 28 28
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to show whether men’s sexual orientation effects scores on the the traditional flirting style. Due to the violation of homogeneity of variance, a Welch adjustment was used. Men’s sexual orientation had a significant impact on the traditional flirting style, F(2, 66.2) = 3.82, p = .027, 2 = .049. A post hoc Games-Howell test determined that heterosexual men (N = 66, M = 2.95, SD = 1.02) scored significantly higher than homosexual men (N = 78, M = 2.52, SD = .83, p = .019) on the traditional flirting style. However, heterosexual men did not score higher than bisexual men (N = 23, M = 2.59, SD = .73). There was no significant difference in scores between bisexual men and homosexual men on the traditional flirting style.
Physical. The main effect for gender indicated a significant difference between men and women on physical flirting style scores, F(1, 295) = 12.97, p <
2 .001, p = .042. A Bonferroni post hoc test indicated that women (M = 4.53, SD = 1.48) scored significantly higher than men (M = 3.96, SD = 1.22) on the physical flirting style (p < .001). Sexual orientation showed no significant difference between homosexual (M = 4.20, SD = 1.23), heterosexual (M = 4.12, SD = 1.38), and bisexual (M = 4.44, SD = 1.52) scores on the physical style F(2, 295) = 1.04,
2 p = .35, p = .007. There was not a significant gender by sexual orientation
2 interaction effect on the physical flirting style, F(2, 295) = .46, p = .63, p = .003.
Playful. Gender did not show a significant effect on playful style scores,
2 F(1, 295) = .14, p = .71, p < .001, meaning that men (M = 3.56, SD = .85) and women (M = 3.60, SD = .90) did not differ in their scores on the playful flirting style. The main effect for sexual orientation indicated a significant difference between homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual scores on the playful style F(2,
2 295) = 3.28, p = .039, p = .022. A Bonferroni post hoc test indicated that 29 29 bisexual (M = 3.80, SD = .81) individuals scored significantly higher than heterosexual individuals (M = 3.49, SD = .93) on the playful style (p = .037). There were no significant differences between bisexual and homosexual (M = 3.56, SD = .79) individuals or heterosexual and homosexual individuals on the playful style. There was no significant gender by sexual orientation interaction
2 effect on the playful flirting style, F(2, 295) = .56, p = .57, p = .004.
Sincere. There was a significant main effect for gender on sincere style
2 scores, F(1, 295) = 5.02, p = .026, p = .017, meaning that men and women differed in their scores on the sincere flirting style. A Bonferroni post hoc test indicated that women (M = 6.32, SD = .57) scored significantly higher than men (M = 6.19, SD = .60). Sexual orientation indicated no significant difference between homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual scores on the sincere style F(2,
2 295) = .49, p = .62, p = .003. There was no significant gender by sexual orientation interaction effect on the sincere flirting style, F(2, 295) = .39, p = .68,
2 p = .003.
Polite. Levene’s test of equal variances indicated a significant variance of scores between groups on the polite flirting style. However, Howell (2002) indicated that if the largest variance is no more than four times larger than the smallest variance, the ANOVA is still valid. As the largest variance (bisexual scores) was only 1.33 times the smallest variance (heterosexual scores), the analysis continued as usual. Gender did not show a significant effect on polite style scores, F(1, 295) =
2 .17, p = .68, p = .001, meaning that men (M = 2.70, SD = .91) and women (M = 2.87, SD = 1.20) did not differ in their scores on the polite flirting style. The main effect for sexual orientation indicated a significant difference between 30 30 homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual scores on the polite style F(2, 295) = .59,
2 p = .003, p = .039. A Bonferroni post hoc test indicated that heterosexual individuals (M = 4.31, SD = .83) scored significantly higher on the polite style than homosexual (M = 3.84, SD = .92, p = .04) and bisexual individuals (M = 3.82, SD = .95, p = .01). There was a significant gender by sexual orientation interaction
2 effect on the polite flirting style, F(2, 295) = 4.13, p = .017, p = .03. This interaction effect indicates that the effect of sexual orientation on flirting style depends on the gender of the participant. A profile plot of the interaction effect shows that heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men have less variance in their polite style scores than heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual women. The interaction effect also shows that in bisexual individuals, men appear to score higher than women on the polite style. Figure 3 shows means and standard deviations of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men and women’s scores on the polite flirting style.
Figure 3. Means and standard deviations of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men and women’s scores on the polite flirting style. 31 31
An independent samples t-test comparing polite style scores for bisexual men and bisexual women confirmed a significant difference between the two groups, t(64) = 2.37, p = .02, d = .60, with bisexual men (M = 4.19, SD = .98) scoring higher than bisexual women (M = 3.63, SD = .89) on the polite flirting style. Two separate one-way ANOVAs were then conducted as post hoc tests to determine if there is a difference between men’s sexual orientation and women’s sexual orientation separately. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to find the effect women’s sexual orientation has on flirting style. Due to the violation of homogeneity of variance, a Welch adjustment was used. A significant difference was found between sexual orientation in scores on the polite flirting style F(2, 48) = 11.88, p < .001, 2 = .086. A Games-Howell post hoc analysis revealed bisexual women (M = 3.47, SD = .58) scored significantly lower on the polite flirting style than homosexual women (M = 4.22, SD = .71, p = .002) and heterosexual women (M = 4.22, SD = 1.01, p < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in scores between homosexual women and heterosexual women on the polite flirting style. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to find the effect men’s sexual orientation has on flirting style. Due to the violation of homogeneity of variance, a Welch adjustment was used. A significant difference was found between sexual orientation in scores on the polite flirting style, F(2, 58.49) = 5.90, p = .005, 2 = .066. A post hoc Games-Howell test determined that heterosexual men (M = 4.26, SD = .70) scored significantly higher than homosexual men (M = 3.79, SD = .94, p = .002) on the polite flirting style. However, heterosexual men did not score higher than bisexual men (M = 4.19, SD = .98). There was no significant difference between bisexual men and homosexual men on the polite flirting style.
32 32 Study 2 The goal for study 2 was to determine whether homosexual and heterosexual men use the same nonverbal flirting behaviors at the same rates. A series of independent sample t-tests were conducted to compare frequencies on the seven flirtatious behaviors between homosexual (N = 30) and heterosexual (N = 30) men. Due to a violation of Levene’s test for equality of variances, adjusted t- tests assuming non-equal variances were calculated. Simple touch, eye contact, signaling, and playful behavior show significant differences between groups. Table 1 shows the statistical results of the independent samples t-tests.
Table 1
Results Comparing Homosexual and Heterosexual Men’s Flirting Behavior Frequencies Heterosexual Homosexual
Behavior M SD M SD t df p d
Simple touch 5.87 3.90 3.13 3.06 -3.02 58 .004* .78
Eye contact 10.37 4.98 4.30 3.10 -5.67 48.53 <.001* 1.46
Provocative display 3.40 5.75 1.40 2.18 -1.78 37.13 .083 .46
Attention seeking 3.97 4.03 2.60 2.37 -1.60 46.94 .116 .41
Signaling 6.70 3.69 3.53 2.13 -4.07 46.40 <.001* 1.05
Playful behavior 4.93 6.64 1.63 1.67 -2.64 32.66 .013* .68
Acting coy .03 .18 .63 1.63 2.01 29.73 .054 .51
Note. M = Mean. SD = Standard Deviation. * Significant at the p < .05 level. 33 33
Figure 4 displays the average amount of frequencies of flirting behaviors during a 5-minute interaction for homosexual and heterosexual men.
Figure 4. Average frequencies of homosexual and heterosexual men’s flirting behaviors during a 5-minute interaction.
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Study 1
Flirting Style Trends A repeated measures ANOVA revealed similar trends in scores on each of the five flirting styles between heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual individuals. Each group had the highest mean scores in the sincere flirting style, and the lowest mean scores in the traditional flirting style. Physical, polite, and playful styles were all scored at relatively similar rates in between the sincere and traditional styles for each group. These results imply a similar hierarchy of desires from, and communication in a flirtatious interaction in heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals. The substantial significance in sincere style scores over every other flirting style indicates that heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals value emotional attachment and deep intimacy above any other relationship goal. An important motivation behind flirting for an individual who employs the sincere flirting style is developing an emotional connection with a partner (Hall et al., 2010). Honesty and disclosure are important tools in their communication with a potential partner (Hall et al., 2010). Regardless of who they are attracted to, what individuals seem to want is intimacy. An individual utilizing the traditional flirting style would have a strong belief in adhering to gender roles (Hall et al., 2010). Non-heterosexual individuals by definition cannot adhere to traditional gender roles (Xing & Hall, 2015), so it is unsurprising that this is the lowest scoring style of all the flirting styles. The low scores on the traditional flirting style for heterosexual individuals indicates that adhering to traditional gender roles is not a priority in their courtship behavior. It 35 35 appears that heterosexual individuals would rather have an interaction occur using any other style, than follow societal gender rules for their courtship behaviors. The approach many scientists take in this kind of research aims to discover the differences between heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals. In the present study, the most striking results are the similarities in trends between heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals.
Flirting Style Differences A factorial ANOVA comparing gender (men and women) and sexual orientation (homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual) on the five flirting styles showed several differences between groups. Heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals do differ in certain styles of flirting, however, sexual orientation did not have an effect on every flirting style. Sexual orientation was found to have a significant effect on the traditional, playful, and polite flirting styles. Heterosexual individuals scored significantly higher on the traditional and polite flirting styles than homosexual and bisexual individuals. The traditional flirting style places heavy importance on traditional gender roles. High scores on the traditional flirting style indicate a belief that men must be assertive and aggressive, and women must be passive, in the initiating of a relationship. For individuals employing a traditional flirting style, assertiveness and aggressiveness are important traits for men to exert, thus questions in this category assess how much an individual believes it is a man’s responsibility to initiate relationships (men should make the first move). A high score on the traditional flirting style also indicates a belief that it is inappropriate for a woman to assert her romantic interest (men should pursue women, not the other way around). 36 36
It is unsurprising that non-heterosexual individuals would score lower on the traditional flirting style. The evolutionary instincts of two individuals in a same sex couple do not differ. Additionally, the social boundaries that traditional gender roles create are non-existent in a same sex couple. Passive or assertive roles cannot be inherently placed onto one of the partners, as sex does not dictate which one must make the first move. Without these social and evolutionary boundaries, a same sex couple is free to create their own roles. These results are consistent with Hall et al. (2010)’s definition of the traditional flirting style. In a follow-up study of the Flirting Styles Inventory, which looked at a sample of heterosexual and bisexual individuals, Xing and Hall (2015) determined that because the traditional flirting style is a valid measure, the traditional style questions are not generalizable to non-heterosexual individuals. The polite flirting style is positively correlated with the traditional flirting style (Hall et al., 2010). This may be why non-heterosexual individuals had low scores on the polite flirting style as well. The polite flirting style is similarly defined by social convention and unspoken dating scripts for appropriate behavior. The polite flirting style also includes a question regarding traditional gender roles. Those who score low on the polite flirting style are described as being unfazed by social conventions and appropriate dating norms. Non-heterosexual relationships are unconventional by nature. Non-heterosexual individuals cannot have a strong adherence to courtship rules if there are no courtship rules in place for them to follow. Sexual orientation differences for the traditional and polite styles are expected based on the definitions of those styles. Post hoc analyses revealed that bisexual men and women tend to have inconsistent scores on these styles. Bisexual men did not score differently than heterosexual men on the traditional or polite flirting styles. This was the only non- 37 37 heterosexual group whose scores were not significantly lower than heterosexual scores on the two styles that indicate strong adherence to gender roles and societal norms. Carballo‐Diéguez et al. (2004) concluded that assertive and receptive roles in a sexual relationship between men are typically assigned by masculinity and femininity characteristics of partners. Bisexual and homosexual men reported that they take receptive sexual roles when their partner is more masculine, tall, aggressive, or handsome. More assertive roles are taken when the individual’s partner is more effeminate, shorter, less aggressive, or less handsome. Non- heterosexual male courtship behavior is still influenced by the masculinity and femininity of the partners, even though the partners are of the same sex. Bisexual men utilize the traditional and polite flirting styles as much as heterosexual men do. This is dissimilar to the scores of bisexual women. Bisexual women achieved the lowest scores on these styles compared to heterosexual and homosexual women. The interaction effect for the traditional and polite styles also indicated less variance in men’s scores than women’s scores. The smaller variance of men’s scores implies that women differ widely based on sexual orientation, but there is less discrepancy between sexual orientations in men. This reluctance of men to surrender societal norms and gender roles in their relationships may stem from more intense social distain and general unacceptance of male homosexuality when compared to female homosexuality (Herek, 2002a; LaMar & Kite, 1998). An interesting sexual orientation difference was found in the playful flirting style. Individuals who score highly on the playful flirting style may flirt with people with whom they are not necessarily sexually or romantically interested (Hall et al., 2010). Individuals employing the playful flirting style flirt for the fun of flirting. The present study found that bisexual individuals scored significantly higher than heterosexual individuals on this style. Xing and Hall (2015) similarly 38 38 showed that bisexual individuals scored higher than heterosexual individuals on the playful flirting style. Considering the pattern of bisexual men to score moderately between heterosexual and homosexual men on the other styles, their higher use of the playful style is difficult to explain. Heterosexual individuals tend to have harsh negative attitudes toward bisexual individuals (Herek, 2002b). Bisexuality is often viewed by heterosexual individuals as a phase or as an excuse to be sexually promiscuous (Ochs & Deihl, 1992). Bisexual individuals may therefore be more likely to employ the playful flirting style because of its lack of seriousness. Another reason for these higher playful style scores may simply be because bisexual individuals have more of a range of people to flirt with. There is a dearth of research on flirting goals and motivations of bisexual individuals specifically, so these attempted explanations are only speculation. Future research should expand upon the motivations underlying why bisexual individuals may be more prone to flirt just for fun and not because of an attraction. Individuals with high scores on the physical flirting style are good at expressing sexual interest. The physical flirter is also good at communicating nonverbally. Although Gobrogge et al. (2007) found that homosexual men sought sexual encounters from dating more than heterosexual men, there were no differences found between heterosexual and non-heterosexual men on the physical flirting style in the present study. Rose and Zand (2002) found that lesbian women greatly objected to the notion that women should limit their physical contact, which would predict higher scores on the physical style for non-heterosexual women, however this was not found in the present study. Individuals with high scores on the sincere flirting style seek emotional connection with potential partners. Sincere flirters want intimacy and honesty in a relationship. They desire a genuine connection and want to develop an emotional 39 39 bond with their potential partner. Hall et al. (2010) found the physical and sincere flirting styles positively correlated with physical chemistry and emotional connection in a relationship. Individuals who scored highly on the physical and sincere flirting styles also commonly experience a rapid escalation in their relationships (Hall et al., 2010). Although Rose and Zand (2002) found that lesbian women progress quickly in their relationships, are more interested in long term goals, and their primary goal for fliting is because they want a relationship, no sexual orientation differences were found on the sincere flirting style. Xing and Hall (2015) similarly did not indicate a difference between bisexual and heterosexual individuals on this style. The underlying goals of the physical and sincere flirting styles include initiating a physical relationship and a desire for intimacy, respectively. The lack of sexual orientation differences in these styles implies that these goals are based more on individual preferences, such as a desire for a short or a long term relationship, rather than being influenced by sexual orientation. Gender had a significant effect on the physical and sincere flirting styles. Consistent with the results of Hall et al. (2010) and McBain et al. (2013), women scored significantly higher than men on both the physical and sincere styles. Women typically seek long term relationships more often than men (Buss, 2015). This gender difference in a desire for obtaining a long-term relationship leads to more women using a physical and sincere style to communicate their attraction.
The Gender Inversion Hypothesis. The gender inversion hypothesis, proposed by Freud, states that homosexual men exhibit feminine traits and behave in ways that are associated more with women, and homosexual women exhibit masculine traits and behave in ways that are associated with men (Freud, 1905). 40 40
Although the gender inversion hypothesis has been highly criticized for its incorrect assumption that gender identity and sexual orientation are interchangeable (Fuss, 2013), it continues to be supported in multiple, modern studies (Lippa 2005, 2008) as well as being a general belief of individuals in society (Herek, 2002a; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2015; Mosier, 2014). The gender inversion hypothesis was not supported in the present study. Were this the case, the sexual orientation differences in flirting styles would have been similar to the gender differences in flirting styles. Non-heterosexual men would utilize the physical and sincere styles significantly more than heterosexual men, mirroring the scores of heterosexual women on those styles. Non- heterosexual women would have scored lower on the physical style, mirroring the scores of heterosexual men. This flirting style mirroring did not happen in the present study. Sexual orientation and gender appear to influence different aspects of flirting motivations and communication.
Study 2 Previous literature has emphasized the universal nature of specific flirting behaviors. In Scheflen’s (1965) research on nonverbal courtship behaviors, four categories of flirting were identified. These categories consisted of courtship readiness, preening behaviors, positional cues, and actions of appeal. Eibl- Eibesfeldt (1971) identified eight categories of flirting behaviors. These categories consisted of eye contact, smiling, raising an eyebrow, light touching, decreasing body proximity, body mirroring, moistening lips, and excessive hand gestures. Since these two seminal studies, the same kinds of behaviors have been identified as the most used flirting behaviors throughout decades of research (Grammer, 1990; Moore, 2010; Perper, 1985). Each of these previously identified behaviors 41 41 were accounted for in the seven categories created for the present study. These seven categories consisted of simple touch, eye contact, provocative display, attention seeking, signaling, playful behavior, and acting coy. These behaviors were all seen in the present study’s observations, however, the behaviors varied greatly in their frequency of use between homosexual and heterosexual men. Eye contact appeared to be the most utilized nonverbal behavior for both heterosexual and homosexual men. This is perhaps because when compared to the other behaviors, eye contact is the least risky, and still communicates effectively while using little effort. Neither heterosexual nor homosexual men were prone to acting coy. The behavior of acting coy has connotations of being a feminine action (Hrdy, 1986). Societal gender roles dictate that women must be conservative in their mate selection, or deal with consequences of being viewed as promiscuous (Bordini & Sperb, 2013). Acting coy became a woman’s solution to expressing interest while maintaining her reputation. It continues to be seen that men remain uncomfortable breaking a masculine barrier, despite being attracted to other men. Significant differences were found between heterosexual and homosexual men’s average frequency of simple touch, eye contact, signaling, and playful behavior. Heterosexual men consistently displayed these behaviors at higher frequencies within 5-minute interactions. It is entirely possible that although they are in a safe place that welcomes sexual diversity, homosexual individuals are accustomed to hiding their sexual orientation (Giddings & Smith, 2001; Harrison, 2001; Herek, 1993). Openly gay men are less likely to be offered jobs (Tilcsik, 2011) more likely to earn a lower pay rate (Berg, & Lien, 2002), and more likely to experience violence and abuse (Comstock, 1992; Sue, 2010) because of their sexual orientation. Perhaps homosexual men are not as comfortable displaying openly flirtatious behaviors at the same liberal rates as heterosexual men. 42 42
Heterosexual men have not had to worry about the violence and discrimination accompanied by their sexual expressions in the way homosexual men have.
General Discussion A major issue that occurred in the present study was the persistent violation of homogeneity of variances between sexual orientation groups. Heterogeneity of variances occurred in every analysis conducted in this study. The original analysis planned for examining this data included the comparison of two sexual orientation groups (heterosexual and non-heterosexual) instead of three (heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual). However, when bisexual and homosexual individuals were placed together in one ‘non-heterosexual’ group, the homogeneity of variances test for every flirting style in the factorial ANOVA was violated. When the group was separated into bisexual and homosexual groups, the variances were equal in all flirting styles except for the polite style. Separating the sexual orientations into different groups made the groups more legitimately comparable. The main implication of this solution is simply that bisexual and homosexual individuals are different, and problems arise when they are lumped together. This can be seen in the discrepancies of scores for bisexual and homosexual individuals for the traditional, playful, and polite styles. These sexual orientation boundaries should be considered in future research before analyzing bisexual and homosexual individuals as one group. Sexual orientation occurs on a spectrum, and is not a dichotomy. Another weakness of the present study is the lack of verbal communication assessment. Previous research has concluded that verbal communication among heterosexual flirtatious interactions is secondary to behavioral communications (Givens, 2005; Grammer, 1990). However, Potapova (2012) suggested that verbal 43 43 communication may be more important among non-heterosexual flirtatious interactions. Future researchers may want to focus on the verbal communication of non-heterosexual individuals. The present study aimed to fill some of the gaps in the literature about flirting and communication in non-heterosexual individuals. Although these gaps still remain, some conclusions can be made from the present study. The results suggest that a non-heterosexual person communicates romantically in a similar way as a heterosexual person, other than the non-heterosexual individual’s inability to conform to gender norms. However, there are differences between sexual orientations in their frequency of flirtatious behaviors and adherence to gender roles.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females' friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(5), 830-838.
Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent. Sex Roles, 15(5-6), 283-298.
Abrahams, M. F. (1994). Perceiving flirtatious communication: An exploration of the perceptual dimensions underlying judgments of flirtatiousness. Journal of Sex Research, 31(4), 283-292.
Ahmad, M., & Fisher, M. (2010). Men’s perspectives on women’s nonverbal cues of sexual interest. EvoS Journal: The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 2(2), 72-80.
Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1081- 1091.
Berg, N., & Lien, D. (2002). Measuring the effect of sexual orientation on income: Evidence of discrimination? Contemporary Economic Policy, 20(4), 394- 414.
Bernarte, R. P., Alday, J. R. I., Calajatan, E. M. O., Fraginal, J. A. F., & Lauchengco, C. A. L. (2015). Decoding the art of flirting: The techniques used by gays and lesbians in the Philippines. European Academic Research, 2(11), 14180-14196.
Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bordini, G. S., & Sperb, T. M. (2013). Sexual double standard: A review of the literature between 2001 and 2010. Sexuality & Culture, 17(4), 686-704.
Burgoon, J. K., & Bacue, A. E. (2003). Nonverbal communication skills. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), The handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 179-219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Buss, D. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. New York, NY: Routledge. 46 46 Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204-232.
Carballo‐Diéguez, A., Dolezal, C., Nieves, L., Díaz, F., Decena, C., & Balan, I. (2004). Looking for a tall, dark, macho man…sexual‐role behaviour variations in Latino gay and bisexual men. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 6(2), 159-171.
Cary, M. S. (1976). Do you want to talk? Negotiation for the initiation of conversation between the unacquainted. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 8-B.
Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 709-722.
Comstock, G. D. (1992). Violence against lesbians and gay men. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1971). Transcultural patterns of ritualized contact behavior. In: A.H. Esser (ed.), Behavior and environment: The use of space by animals and men (pp. 238-246). New York, NY: Plenum.
Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008). Sexual coercion and the misperception of sexual intent. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(1), 48-66.
Ficheten, Taglakis, Judd, Wright, and Amsel (1992). Verbal and nonverbal communication cues in daily conversations and dating. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132(6), 751-769.
Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. New York, NY: Global Grey.
Frisby, B. N., Dillow, M. R., Gaughan, S., & Nordlund, J. (2010). Flirtatious communication: An experimental examination of perceptions of social- sexual communication motivated by evolutionary forces. Sex Roles, 64, 682- 694.
Fuss, D. (2013). Inside/out: Lesbian theories, gay theories. New York, NY: Routledge. 47 47 Gates, G. J. (2014). LGBT Demographics: Comparisons among population-based surveys. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0kr784fx
Geher, G., & Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Mating intelligence unleashed: The role of the mind in sex, dating, and love. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Giddings, L. S., & Smith, M. C. (2001). Stories of lesbian in/visibility in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 49(1), 14-19.
Givens, D. (2006). Love signals: A practical field guide to the body language of courtship. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Gobrogge, K. L., Perkins, P. S., Baker, J. H., Balcer, K. D., Breedlove, S. M., & Klump, K. L. (2007). Homosexual mating preferences from an evolutionary perspective: Sexual selection theory revisited. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(5), 717-723.
Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14(4), 209-236.
Grammer, K., Kruck, K. B., & Magnusson, M. S. (1998). The courtship dance: Patterns of nonverbal synchronization in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(1), 3-29.
Greengross, G., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39(4), 188-192.
Greer, A. E., & Buss, D. M. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters. Journal of Sex Research, 31(3), 185-201.
Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Mast, M. S. (2006). Recall of nonverbal cues: Exploring a new definition of interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30(4), 141-155.
Hall, J. A., Carter, S., Cody, M. J., & Albright, J. M. (2010). Individual differences in the communication of romantic interest: Development of the flirting styles inventory. Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 365-393.
Harrison, J. (2001). It’s none of my business’: Gay and lesbian invisibility in aged care. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 48(3), 142-145.
Haselton, M. G. (2003). The sexual overperception bias: Evidence of a systematic bias in men from a survey of naturally occurring events. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 34-47. 48 48 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(1), 81-91.
Henningsen, D. D. (2004). Flirting with meaning: An examination of miscommunication in flirting interactions. Sex Roles, 50(7-8), 481-489.
Henningsen, D. D., Braz, M., & Davies, E. (2008). Why do we flirt? Flirting motivations and sex differences in working and social contexts. Journal of Business Communication, 45(4), 483-502.
Henningsen, D. D., Kartch, F., Orr, N., & Brown, A. (2009). The perceptions of verbal and nonverbal flirting cues in cross-sex interactions. Human Communication, 12(4), 371-381.
Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., McWorthy, E., McWorthy, C., & McWorthy, L. (2011). Exploring the effects of sex and mode of presentation in perceptions of dating goals in video‐dating. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 641-658.
Herek, G. M. (1993). Documenting prejudice against lesbians and gay men on campus: The Yale sexual orientation survey. Journal of Homosexuality, 25(4), 15-30.
Herek, G. M. (2002a). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(1), 40-66.
Herek, G. M. (2002b). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 39(4), 264-274.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2015). Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Stigma and Health, 1, 18-34.
Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury/Thomson Learning
Hrdy, S. B. (1986). Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In Bleier, R. (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 119-146). New York, NY: Pergamon.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. 49 49 Kleinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., & Staneski, R. A. (1986). Preference for opening lines: Comparing ratings by men and women. Sex Roles, 15(11-12), 585-600.
LaMar, L., & Kite, M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 35(2), 189-196.
Levesque, M. J., Nave, C. S., & Lowe, C. A. (2006). Toward an understanding of gender differences in inferring sexual interest. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 150-158.
Levine, T. R., King III, G., & Popoola, J. K. (1994). Ethnic and gender differences in opening lines. Communication Research Reports, 11(2), 143-151.
Lippa, R. A., (2005) Sexual orientation and personality. Annual Review of Sex Research 16, 119-153.
Lippa R. A., (2008) Sex differences and sexual orientation differences in personality: findings from the BBC internet survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior 37, 173-187.
Lockard, J. S., & Adams, R. M. (1980). Courtship behaviors in public: Different age/sex roles. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1(3), 245-253.
Maxwell, G. M., Cook, M. W., & Burr, R. (1985). The encoding and decoding of liking from behavioral cues in both auditory and visual channels. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9(4), 239-263.
McBain, K. A., Hewitt, L., Maher, T., Sercombe, M., Sypher, S., & Tirendi, G. (2013). Is this seat taken? The importance of context during the initiation of romantic communication. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(21), 79–89.
McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1989). Gender differences in nonverbal flirtation. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 15(4), 271-282.
Mongeau, P. A., Serewicz, M. C. M., & Therrien, L. F. (2004). Goals for cross‐sex first dates: identification, measurement, and the influence of contextual factors. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 121-147.
Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: Context and consequences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(4), 237-247. 50 50 Moore, M. M. (2002). Courtship communication and perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 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.
Moore, M. M., & Butler, D. L. (1989). Predictive aspects of nonverbal courtship behavior in women. Semiotica, 76(3-4), 205-216.
Morris, D. (1971). Intimate behavior. New York, NY: Random House.
Mosier, B. C. (2014). Effects of gender bias and gender inversion stereotypes on assessment of personality traits and diagnosis of personality disorders (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (3662471).
Ochs, R., & Deihl, M. (1992). Moving beyond binary thinking. In W.J. Blumenfeld (Ed.), Homophobia: How we all pay the price (pp. 67-75). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 29-51.
Ostler, T. A. (2003). Verbal and nonverbal dating behavior and sexual consent: Implication for miscommunication between men and women. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(07), 3584B.
Perper, T. (1985). Sex signals: The biology of love. Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press.
Potapova, E. (2012). Usage, reading and interpreting of nonverbal signs of erotic interest among Norwegian lesbians. (Master’s thesis). University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.
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.
Riggio, R. E., & Feldman, R. S. (Eds.). (2005). Applications of nonverbal communication. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Riggle, E. D., Olson, A., Whitman, J. S., Rotosky, S. S., & Strong, S. (2008, February 8). The positive aspects of being a lesbian or gay man. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(2), 210-217. 51 51 Rose, S. M., & Zand, D. (2002). Lesbian dating and courtship from young adulthood to midlife. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(1), 85-109.
Scheflen, A. E. (1965). Quasi-courtship behavior in psychotherapy. Psychiatry, 28, 245-257.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(02), 247-275.
Senko, C., & Fyffe, V. (2010). An evolutionary perspective on effective vs. ineffective pick-up lines. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(6), 648-667.
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(5), 434-461.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 586- 626.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. Cambridge, MA: Biological Laboratories, Harvard University.
Tsopanakis, T. (2015). Tally counters (2.1) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from http://itunes.apple.com
VanderMolen, C. (2013). Flirting style and sexual orientation. DePaul Discoveries, 2(1), 276-282.
Watkins, J. L., & Hall, J. A. (2014). The association between nonverbal sensitivity and flirting detection accuracy. Communication Research Reports, 31(4), 348-356.
Weber, K., Goodboy, A. K., & Cayanus, J. L. (2010). Flirting competence: An experimental study on appropriate and effective opening lines. Communication Research Reports, 27(2), 184-191. de Weerth, C., & Kalma, A. (1995). Gender differences in awareness of courtship initiation tactics. Sex Roles, 32(11-12), 717-734. 52 52 Willis Jr, F. N., & Briggs, L. F. (1992). Relationship and touch in public settings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16(1), 55-63.
Xing, C. & Hall, J. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance testing with ordinal data: An application in revising the flirting styles inventory, Communication Methods and Measures, 9(3), 123-151. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2015.1061651
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SEXUAL ORIENTATION SCALE 55 55
Please rate your current feelings of your own sexual orientation on the following scale
Exclusively 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Exclusively Heterosexual Homosexual (with no homosexual tendencies) (with no heterosexual tendencies)
APPENDIX B: FLIRTING STYLES INVENTORY - REVISED 57 57 Traditional
3. Men should pursue women, not the other way around
8. Men should make the first move
13. Despite how our society is changing, it is still up to a man to take control in initiating relationships
23. It doesn’t matter who makes the first move, as long as it happens *
20. I wish that we could go back to a time where formal dating was the norm
Physical
2. I am good at showing my sexual interest
12. I am good at using body language to flirt
17. I have no problem letting others know I am interested in them
18. I am uncomfortable flirting in a sexual way with people I am interested in *
Playful
4. Flirting is just for fun; people don’t need to be so serious
7. When I communicate attraction, I am playful—serious
14. The primary reason I flirt is because it makes me feel good about myself
19. I flirt with people I have absolutely no interest in
Sincere
1. Making a real connection with others can be exciting
6. I really enjoy learning about another person’s interest 58 58 9. When I meet new potential dating partners, I think that trying to have a deep conversation is a real turnoff *
11. I really look for an emotional connection with someone I’m interested in
16. I love a well-placed compliment from someone I am interested in
Polite
5. When I communicate attraction, I am carefully planned—completely unplanned
10. People should be cautious when letting someone know they are interested
15. It is important not to say something overly sexual when showing interest
21. There are rules about how men and women should conduct themselves
22. In today’s society, people have to be careful about flirting
APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT FORM 60 60
You are invited to participate in a study conducted by Meaghan McCready at California State University, Fresno. I hope to learn more about flirting styles of different individuals. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because of your willingness to participate.
If you decide to participate, you will be asked to fill out a survey that assesses demographic information, personality traits, and flirting style. The survey should take no longer than 20 minutes to complete. There are no major risks involved for the participant in completing this survey. Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.
Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice your future relations with California State University, Fresno. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation at any time without penalty.
If you have any questions, please ask. If you have any additional questions later, Meaghan McCready ([email protected]) will be happy to answer them. Questions regarding the rights of research subjects may be directed to Constance Jones, Chair, CSUF Committee on the Protection of Human Subjects, (559) 278-4468.
If desired, you may request a copy of this form to keep.
YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO PARTICIPATE.SELECTING I CONSENT INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE, HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE.
___ I consent
APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE 62 62
1. What gender do you identify most with?
Man
Woman
Other _____
2. Age: ______
3. Ethnicity:
White
Hispanic/Latino
Black/African American
Native American/American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
4. Marital Status:
Single, never married
Married or domestic partnership
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
APPENDIX E: FLIRTING ACTS 64 64
1. I wore tight fitting clothes. 2. I giggled. 3. I fondled my pelvic area. 4. I winked at him. 5. I acted overly friendly. 6. I took off my shirt on a hot day. 7. I smiled at him with a twinkle in my eye. 8. I danced seductively. 9. I winked and smiled at him. 10. I asked him to dance. 11. I laughed at his dumb jokes. 12. I acted naive. 13. I laughed. 14. I dressed provocatively. 15. I smiled coyly while talking to him. 16. I maintained eye contact with him. 17. I gave his "the eye." 18. I made direct eye contact with him and smiled. 19. I used body language to try to attract him. 20. I leaned forward towards him. 21. I blushed. 22. I talked about sex. 23. I acted playful. 24. I whispered. 25. I bought him a drink. 65 65
26. I dressed in a revealing way. 27. I made suggestive comments on getting together with him. 28. I complimented him. 29. I singled his out and made conversation just to him. 30. I spoke with an inviting voice. 31. I looked at him frequently. 32. I made suggestive jokes. 33. I sat next to him in class. 34. I showed his that I sincerely cared about him. 35. I sat on his lap. 36. I asked him out. 37. I made small talk with him. 38. I touched him and giggled. 39. I flipped my hair and looked to see if anyone had noticed. 40. I gave him suggestive compliments. 41. I asked for his telephone number. 42. I danced suggestively making eye contact with him. 43. I puckered my lips. 44. I hit him playfully. 45. I was very talkative and social towards him. 46. I used facial expressions to attract him. 47. I sent him flowers. 48. I acted friendly. 49. I smiled at him. 50. I made sexually suggestive comments. 51. I touched his shoulder. 66 66
52. I made serious eye contact with him. 53. I talked about subjects we both had in common. 54. I put myself in situations in which I came in contact with men. 55. I touched him compassionately. 56. I made eye contact with him at close range. 57. I directed my attention to him. 58. I made goo-goo eyes at him. 59. I followed him around in a store hoping to run into him. 60. I rubbed body parts up against him. 61. I appeared very interested in everything he said no matter how boring it was. 62. I was overly complimentary. 63. I pulled up my skirt to let a little more leg show. 64. I faced him squarely. 65. I looked at him up and down from head to toe. 66. I gave him a long, meaningful stare. 67. I laughed and tossed my hair while talking. 68. I looked luringly at him. 69. I nudged him. 70. I rubbed my breasts against him. 71. I touched him while making remarks connoting sex. 72. I brushed up against him while talking. 73. I hugged him. 74. I touched him fondly throughout their conversation. 75. I teased him. 76. I showed off my physique. 77. I joked with him. 67 67
78. I gave prolonged smiles. 79. I blew him a kiss. 80. I stood directly in front of him while being very close to him. 81. I gestured in ways which exposed my body only to him. 82. I batted my eyes. 83. I grabbed or pinched his rear end. 84. I made sexual passes in a soft, joking manner. 85. I moved into his buffer zone. 86. I offered to buy or give him something which would compliment his appealing aspects. 87. I put my arms around men while talking with them. 88. I called him friendly nicknames. 89. I smiled at him in a seductive way. 90. I initiated contact with him. 91. I wore skimpy clothes. 92. I made cookies for him. 93. I wrote notes to him. 94. I waited after class to talk to him. 95. I complimented him on his personal appearance. 96. I smiled while listening to him. 97. I made eye contact with him. 98. I smiled at him and made frequent eye contact. 99. I dressed appealingly. 100. I tried to get him to talk about herself. 101. I made subtle references to dating. 102. I whistled at him. 68 68
103. I went out of my way to bump into him. 104. I was exceptionally attentive. 105. I was nice. 106. I sat or stood in close proximity to him. 107. While driving, I met a group of men and pulled off the road to talk to them. 108. I moved progressively closer to him. 109. I paid attention to changes in him. 110. I laughed at what he said. 111. I spoke frankly and touched him provocatively. 112. I zeroed in on him and gave him my undivided attention. 113. I suggested that the we go someplace where they could be alone. 114. I acted very outward with my feelings. 115. I touched him with a tender smile during a casual conversation. 116. I acted happy to see him. 117. I winked and smiled at him. 118. I gave him a friendly kiss hello to start the conversation. 119. I wore a pleasant-smelling aftershave. 120. I spoke in a cutesy manner. 121. I dressed in a way intended to attract him. 122. I looked at him, smiled, and looked away. 123. I danced, making contact with grinding pelvic motions while smiling flirtatiously. 124. I licked my lips. 125. I always agreed with what he said. 126. I tilted my head, smiled, and looked at him out of the corner of my eye. 127. I paid a lot of attention to him. 69 69
128. I suggested we go out to lunch. 129. I rubbed something hard and long (such as a banana) in front of him. 130. I sat or stood close to him and touched him while talking. 131. I touched his knee. 132. I touched his face. 133. I touched his hand. 134. I touched his arm. 135. I send him a perfumed, erotic note. 136. I touched his back. 137. I rubbed his shoulders. 138. I rubbed his neck. 139. I gave him a backrub. 140. I touched his hair. 141. I touched his leg. 142. I held his hand. 143. I put my arm around him. 144. I put my arm around his shoulder. 145. I tickled him. 146. I touched him in a joking manner. 147. I tried to get eye contact with him. 148. I touched him innocently. 149. I touched him. 150. I smiled, complimented him and looked for a response. 151. I touched him while talking. 152. I touched him and giggled. 153. I touched him while talking and smiling. 70 70
154. I hung on to him. 155. I made frequent eye contact with him. 156. I moved or walked in a sexy manner. 157. I walked with a wiggle past a captive audience. 158. I dressed in a manner which exposed my chest. 159. I swung my hips suggestively while catching him eye. 160. I acted in need of help and then complimented his strength. 161. I always came around to talk to him. 162. I whispered in his ear. 163. I made eye contact with him, then looked away
APPENDIX F: FLIRTING ACT CATEGORIES AND EXAMPLE BEHAVIORS 72 72
1. Simple Touch
He rubbed his shoulders He rubbed his neck He put his arm around him He held his hand He touched his hand He touched his arm He touched his face He touched his knee
2. Eye Contact
He maintained eye contact with him He made direct eye contact with him and smiled He made eye contact with him at close range He made frequent eye contact with him He made serious eye contact with him
3. Provocative Displays
He danced, making contact with grinding He rubbed body parts up against him He moved into his buffer zone He fondled his pelvic area
73 73
4. Attention Seeking
He paid a lot of attention to him He laughed at what he said He acted happy to see him He was exceptionally attentive He zeroed in on him and gave him his undivided attention
5. Signaling
He winked and smiled at him He winked at him He gave him "the eye” He made goo-goo eyes at him He whispered closely
6. Playful Behavior He laughed and touched his hair while talking He batted his eyes He giggled He tilted his head, smiled, and looked at him out of the corner of his eye He blushed
7. Acting Coy He made eye contact with him, then looked away He looked at him, smiled, and looked away. Fresno State
Non-Exclusive Distribution License (to archive your thesis/dissertation electronically via the library’s eCollections database)
By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to Fresno State Digital Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next paragraph), and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video.
You agree that Fresno State may, without changing the content, translate the submission to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation.
You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright.
If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would not be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant Fresno State the rights required by this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text or content of the submission.
If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency or organization other than Fresno State, you represent that you have fulfilled any right of review or other obligations required by such contract or agreement.
Fresno State will clearly identify your name as the author or owner of the submission and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission. By typing your name and date in the fields below, you indicate your agreement to the terms of this distribution license.
Embargo options (fill box with an X).
Make my thesis or dissertation available to eCollections immediately upon x submission.
Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 2 years from date of graduation.
Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 5 years from date of graduation.
Meaghan McCready
Type full name as it appears on submission
May 5, 2016
Date