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

Abstract

Guided by Relational Framing and Parental Investment Theories, this investigation examined experimentally induced flirtatious interactions. United States undergraduates (N=252) from the Mid-Atlantic region viewed a flirtatious interaction and rated a confederate on physical and social attraction, affiliation, dominance, and conversational effectiveness. Generally, it was hypothesized that different flirting motivations would lead to different evaluations of the flirters, and perceptions of flirters would vary based on gender. Results revealed that men were evaluated as more dominant and affiliative than women when flirting, but dominance in men was not perceived as attractive or conversationally effective. In addition, men's attraction to women increased significantly when women flirted for sexual motives, and women's attraction to men decreased significantly when men flirted for fun. Overall, the results provide mixed support for both theories.

Feminism and the Evolution of Sex Differences and Similarities

“…Thus, the lack of a sex difference challenges assumptions of universality in evolutionary psychology theories. Evidence of sex similarity also emerged in Frisby et al's (2010) study of the value placed on mating partners' affiliation. This study also found a sex difference such that women valued dominance more than men.…”

“…For example, Smith et al (2010) show the importance of intersectionality by demonstrating that lesbians value different psychological qualities in a mate than heterosexual men and women. Providing evidence of contextual influences, Frisby et al (2010) found that perceptions of flirtatiousness depended on the reasons that an actor was engaged in this behavior. For example, men flirting to attract a sexual partner were perceived as more dominant than men flirting to increase intimacy in a relationship.…”

“…Additionally noteworthy is Frisby et al's (2010) finding that both men and women found affiliative but not dominant potential partners more socially and physically attractive. Also relevant are Pederson et al's (2010) findings of no sex differences in (a) the proportion of time and money devoted to short-term mating relationships, (b) the tendency to prevent pregnancy in short-term (vs. longer-term) relationships, and (c) constraints on reproductive success, as represented by greater numbers of desired than expected sexual partners.…”

“…Unfortunately, these questions become difficult to answer when authors do not use the terms, difference and similarity, in comparable or understandable ways across articles. For example, many authors conclude that men and women were "more similar than different" in their research, without explaining the meaning of this descriptor by specifying the magnitudes of similarity or difference that warrant such a statement (see Frisby et al 2010;Pederson et al 2010;Smiler 2010). Unless researchers develop a shared interpretation of what "more similar than different" means, the phrase seems merely rhetorical and should be avoided.…”

“…Some of the explanations of sex differences and similarities tested in the Special Issue articles as alternatives to evolutionary psychology focus on social expectations, as reflected in relational framing theory (Frisby et al 2010) and social exchange theory . Self-concept related processes also received emphasis, especially gender identity theory (Perrin et al 2010;Tate 2010).…”