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
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

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

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

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

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

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

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
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
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

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 <
.001, p2 = .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

The mean scores of each flirting style significantly differed for bisexual
individuals, F(2.75, 192.64) = 138.84, p < .001, p2 = .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
individuals, F(3.09, 287.07) = 234.73, p < .001, p2 = .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
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

scores, F(1, 295) = .66, p = .42, p2 = .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
the traditional style F(2, 295) = 17.56, p < .001, p2 = .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,
295) = 4.06, p = .018, p2 = .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

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

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 <
.001, p2 = .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,
p = .35, p2 = .007. There was not a significant gender by sexual orientation
interaction effect on the physical flirting style, F(2, 295) = .46, p = .63, p2 = .003.

Playful. Gender did not show a significant effect on playful style scores,
F(1, 295) = .14, p = .71, p2 < .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,
295) = 3.28, p = .039, p2 = .022. A Bonferroni post hoc test indicated that
 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
effect on the playful flirting style, F(2, 295) = .56, p = .57, p2 = .004.

Sincere. There was a significant main effect for gender on sincere style
scores, F(1, 295) = 5.02, p = .026, p2 = .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,
295) = .49, p = .62, p2 = .003. There was no significant gender by sexual
orientation interaction effect on the sincere flirting style, F(2, 295) = .39, p = .68,
p2 = .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) =
.17, p = .68, p2 = .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

homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual scores on the polite style F(2, 295) = .59,
p = .003, p2 = .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
effect on the polite flirting style, F(2, 295) = 4.13, p = .017, p2 = .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

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
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
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

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

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

In a committed relationship

Married or domestic partnership

Widowed

Divorced

Separated
APPENDIX E: FLIRTING ACTS
 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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