Content uploaded by Alan K. Goodboy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alan K. Goodboy on Aug 03, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[Bloomsburg University]
On:
30 April 2010
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 917347716]
Publisher
Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communication Research Reports
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714579429
Flirting Competence: An Experimental Study on Appropriate and Effective
Opening Lines
Keith Weber a; Alan K. Goodboy b;Jacob L. Cayanus c
a Department of Communication Studies, West Virginia University, b Department of Communication
Studies, Bloomsburg University, c Department of Communication and Journalism, Oakland University,
Online publication date: 28 April 2010
To cite this Article Weber, Keith , Goodboy, Alan K. andCayanus, Jacob L.(2010) 'Flirting Competence: An Experimental
Study on Appropriate and Effective Opening Lines', Communication Research Reports, 27: 2, 184 — 191
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/08824091003738149
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824091003738149
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
BRIEF REPORT
Flirting Competence: An
Experimental Study on Appropriate
and Effective Opening Lines
Keith Weber, Alan K. Goodboy, & Jacob L. Cayanus
An experiment was conducted to examine the appropriateness and effectiveness of five
flirtatious opening lines enacted by a male participant to initiate conversation with a
female participant. Video messages were constructed to represent the following opening
lines: direct introductions, direct compliments, humor attempts, cute–flippant lines,
and third-party introductions. Participants were 642 college students who viewed one
of these five videos and reported on the appropriateness and effectiveness of an opening
line after controlling for perceptions of actor physical attractiveness. Results indicated
that participants rated the third-party introduction and direct introduction opening lines
as the most appropriate, whereas the third-party introduction was perceived as the most
effective. Direct compliments, humor attempts, and cute–flippant lines were rated as
equally inappropriate and ineffective.
Keywords: Competence; Flirtation; Flirting; Opening Lines; Pick-Up Lines
Romantic relationships may thrive or cease to develop based on initial communication
encounters between potential partners. Indeed, the act of flirting is an initial
communication encounter that revolves around sexual and relational expectations
Keith Weber (EdD, West Virginia University, 1998) is an associate professor in the Department of
Communication Studies at West Virginia University. Alan K. Goodboy (PhD, West Virginia University,
2007) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Bloomsburg University. Jacob
L. Cayanus (EdD, West Virginia University, 2005) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communi-
cation and Journalism at Oakland University. Correspondence: Keith Weber, Department of Communication
Studies, West Virginia University, 108 Armstrong Hall, P.O. Box 6293, Morgantown, WV 26506-6293. E-mail:
kaweber98@yahoo.com
Communication Research Reports
Vol. 27, No. 2, April–June 2010, pp. 184–191
ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) #2010 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/08824091003738149
Downloaded By: [Bloomsburg University] At: 15:51 30 April 2010
(Egland, Spitzberg, & Zormeier, 1996; Henningsen, 2004) and constitutes one way to
establish intimacy, sexual intentions, and relational definitions (Egland et al., 1996).
Flirting can be seen as a major part of social relations and as an indication of interest,
and can be the first step in a long-term relationship (Koeppel, Montage-Miller,
O’Hair, & Cody, 1993; Levine, King, & Popoola, 1994). The main reasons to study
flirtation and initial interactions, according to Koeppel et al. are to promote under-
standing and to ‘‘make communicators aware of how to avoid potentially serious
mistakes in social relations’’ (p. 31).
Some empirical attention has been given to the concept of flirtation (e.g., Abbey,
1987; Abbey & Melby, 1986; Abrahams, 1994; Egland et al., 1996; La France,
Henningsen, Oates, & Shaw, 2009; Rodgers & Veronsky, 1999), as well as the nonver-
bal behaviors associated with sexual intentions of the source, such as eye contact and
smiling (e.g., Abbey & Melby, 1986; Koeppel et al., 1993; Kowalski, 1993; McCormick &
Jones, 1989; Walsh & Hewitt, 1985). Although research has primarily focused on
nonverbal behaviors, Kleinke, Meeker, and Staneski (1986) stated, ‘‘ultimately,
however, when we want to make a new acquaintance we have to think of something
to say’’ (p. 586).
According to Levine et al. (1994), opening lines (commonly referred to as pick-up
lines) refer to what an individual says when attempting to initiate romantic com-
munication. Kleinke et al. (1986) proposed three categories of opening lines: direct
(i.e., straightforward communication attempts), innocuous (i.e., implicit and vague
communication attempts), and cute–flippant (i.e., preplanned cliche
´s). Research sug-
gests that women perceive innocuous lines as the best strategies, followed by direct,
and then cute–flippant lines (Cunningham, 1989; Kleinke et al., 1986). Levine et al.
also discovered that cute–flippant lines were rated as the least positive. There is, how-
ever, another category of opening lines that studies have failed to investigate. Parks
and Eggert (1989) discussed the role of third parties and social networks as a form
of relationship initiation and noted that individuals may use friends or family to
introduce them to a person they find interesting or attractive. Similarly, Clark,
Shaver, and Abrahams (1999) found that two of the most instrumental relationship
initiation strategies were direct and third-party strategies. More recently, in a focus
group study (Weber, Cayanus, & Goodboy, 2005), participants revealed five common
opening lines. Three of these opening lines—direct introduction, third-party intro-
ductions, and cute–flippant lines—are consistent with the research by Kleinke et al.
and Clark et al. However, the remaining two types of lines were coded as direct
compliments (i.e., flattering a prospect) and humor attempts (i.e., using innocuous
but amusing comments). As a result of the previous research on these types of lines,
the following hypothesis was proposed:
H1: The use of cute–flippant lines will be perceived as less (a) appropriate and (b)
effective than the use of direct introductions and third-party introductions.
Although there is research indicating how effective these first three types of attempts
might be, the remaining two types of lines found in the focus groups were coded as
direct compliments (i.e., flattering a prospect) and humor attempts (i.e., using
Communication Research Reports 185
Downloaded By: [Bloomsburg University] At: 15:51 30 April 2010
innocuous but amusing comments). How these attempts might be perceived is
unclear at this point and as such, the following research question was forwarded:
RQ1: How will the use of humor appeals and direct compliments be perceived on (a)
appropriateness and (b) effectiveness as compared to cute–flippant lines, direct
introductions, and third-party introductions?
Similarly, whereas Cunningham (1989), Kleinke et al. (1986), and Levine et al. (1994)
suggested that direct lines are perceived more positively than cute–flippant lines,
Levine et al. found that men rate all opening lines more positively than women.
However, because Levine et al. did not test the effectiveness of third-party, humor,
and direct compliment opening lines, it is uncertain if men and women will differ
in their ratings of these types of appeals. As a result, the following research question
is forwarded regarding gender differences:
RQ2: Will gender differences exist in participants ratings of the opening lines?
Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 642 college students from a large, mid-Atlantic
university. The mean age was 20.1 (SD ¼1.32), with a range of 18 to 36. There were
312 men and 308 women (22 did not report gender). Participation in this study was
completely voluntary, but extra credit was offered; students who chose not to partici-
pate in this study were given an alternative manner in which to receive extra credit.
Procedures
Five different videos were created to portray an initial interaction between a male and
female character. These videos were filmed with professional recording equipment in
a bar that was rented for the day with a paid bartender and actors. The script for the
videos begins with two male friends meeting in a bar and chatting, when one of the male
characters spots an attractive women sitting across the room. The male actor decides to
approach the woman. All five scripts were two minutes in length and were exactly the
same until the moment when the male character first approaches the female character.
At the point of approach, the male character initiates a conversation with the female
character using one of the five opening lines targeted for study (see Table 1 for examples).
After viewing one of the five experimental videos, participants completed a brief
questionnaire and were told to respond to the items based on their perceptions of
the interaction between the two actors.
Instrumentation
The Canary and Spitzberg (1987) Conversational Appropriateness Scale was used to
assess participants’ ratings of the appropriateness of the male actor in his interaction
186 K. Weber et al.
Downloaded By: [Bloomsburg University] At: 15:51 30 April 2010
with the female actor (e.g., ‘‘Everything he said was appropriate’’). This scale is
comprised of 20 items that are measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
(strongly agree)to7(strongly disagree)(M¼3.73, SD ¼1.18; a¼.93). Responses
on the scale were recoded so that higher scores indicated that the participants
perceived the male actor to be more appropriate.
Five items from the 20-item Canary and Spitzberg (1989) Conversational
Effectiveness Scale were used to measure participants’ perceptions of how effective
the man was in initiating the interaction with the female actor (e.g., ‘‘His communi-
cation was effective’’). Only five items were chosen because many of the items on the
scale did not seem appropriate in this context. We felt that this was an acceptable
decision because Rubin, Palmgreen, and Sypher (1994) advised users of the scale to
create acceptable subscales in their review of the measure. The questionnaire asks
participants to respond to the items on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
agree)to7(strongly disagree)(M¼3.46, SD ¼1.41; a¼.87). Consistent with previous
research, a statistically significant correlation was observed between the conver-
sational appropriateness and effectiveness measures in this dataset (r¼.65, p<.001).
Control Variables
In an attempt to control for extraneous variables, the actors were instructed to keep
their nonverbal cues constant in each of the experimental manipulations (e.g., stand
the same distance from each other, eye contact, facial expression, etc.). Nonverbal
immediacy scores on both the male and the female actors were collected for each of
the experimental groups to use as a control variable (e.g., ‘‘He smiled’’ and ‘‘He main-
tained eye contact’’). Eight representative items from the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale
(Richmond, McCroskey, & Johnson, 2003) were used to measure nonverbal behaviors
that increase perceived physical or psychological closeness (e.g., eye contact, smiling,
etc.), which are frequently construed as flirting behaviors (Walsh & Hewitt, 1985).
Table 1 Opening Lines, Descriptions, and Representative Examples
Opening line Description Example
Direct introduction Initiating a conversation with a
simple introduction.
‘‘Hi, my name is Josh. What is your
name?’’
Direct compliment Giving a compliment based on
physical attraction.
‘‘I had to tell you how fine you are.’’
Humor attempt Attempting to enact humor to make
the other person laugh
‘‘Do you think I look like Johnny
Depp?’’
Cute–flippant line Trite cliche
´s that are intended to
appear cute.
‘‘You must be tired because you’ve
been running through my mind
all day.’’
Third-party
introduction
Using a common acquaintance to
perform the initial introduction.
‘‘Hi Kayla, this is my friend Josh.’’
Communication Research Reports 187
Downloaded By: [Bloomsburg University] At: 15:51 30 April 2010
This scale asks participants to respond to the items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree). Results of an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) indicated that no significant difference existed in the ratings of the male
character’s use of nonverbal immediacy (M¼3.87, SD ¼0.66; a¼.72) between the
different videos, F(4, 623) ¼1.08, p¼.37. Similarly, results of an ANOVA indicated
no significant difference in the ratings of the female character’s nonverbal immediacy
(M¼3.44, SD ¼0.67; a¼.70) between the different videos, F(4, 621) ¼0.92, p¼.45.
Similar to nonverbal immediacy, it is possible that the difference in the perceived
attractiveness levels of the actors could serve as a confounding variable. Participants
were asked to ‘‘rate the attractiveness of’’ each actor on a scale from 1 (extremely
unattractive)to10(extremely attractive). Results of a paired ttest indicated that par-
ticipants rated the female actor (M¼6.55, SD ¼1.64) as being significantly more
attractive—t(627) ¼22.71, p<.01—than the male actor (M¼4.72, SD ¼1.78). As
a result, the difference in the actor’s attractiveness rating was used as a covariate in
all subsequent analyses. In addition, it is important to note that, across conditions,
no significant differences were found in either the men’s attractiveness levels, F(4,
625) ¼2.32, p¼.06, or the women’s attractiveness levels, F(4, 626) ¼0.14, p¼.97.
This finding removes the possibility that participants in any one treatment group
found the actors more or less attractive for some reason that we had not controlled for.
Results
To test H1,RQ1, and to control for experiment-wide error rate (Hatcher, 1994;
Khattree & Naik, 2000; O’Rourke, Hatcher, & Stepanski, 2005), a multivariate analysis
of covariance was first computed utilizing the five different experimental opening line
conditions as the independent variables, with scores on the two outcome variables
serving as the dependent variables. In addition, the difference in the male and female
attractiveness ratings was entered as a covariate. The results of this analysis yielded a
significant model, Wilks’s K(8, 1,240) ¼0.54, p<.001. The individual analyses of
covariance (ANCOVAs) were then examined to test H1 and RQ1. Results of the first
ANCOVA revealed a significant model, F(4, 621) ¼125.13, p<.001 (partial g
2
¼.45).
A closer examination of Tukey’s multiple comparison test indicated that third-party
introduction (M¼5.70, SD ¼0.96) and direct introduction (M¼4.94, SD ¼0.89)
were rated as significantly more appropriate than direct compliments (M¼3.35,
SD ¼0.91), humor attempts (M¼3.29, SD ¼0.77), or cute–flippant lines (M¼
3.14, SD ¼0.87). Results of the second ANCOVA was also significant, F(4, 621) ¼
41.00, p<.001 (partial g
2
¼.21); and Tukey’s multiple comparison test indicated that
third-party introduction (M¼4.70, SD ¼1.42) was perceived as significantly more
effective than all other opening lines. In addition, the direct introduction opening line
(M¼4.44, SD ¼1.50) was rated as more effective than the direct compliments (M¼
3.26, SD ¼1.25), humor attempts (M¼3.02, SD ¼1.31), and cute–flippant lines
(M¼2.98, SD ¼1.28; see Table 2).
RQ2 was concerned with gender differences in the appropriateness and
effectiveness ratings. Results of individual ttests indicated that men rated the male
188 K. Weber et al.
Downloaded By: [Bloomsburg University] At: 15:51 30 April 2010
actor as being significantly more appropriate—t(618) ¼2.56, p<.01—and
effective—t(618) ¼2.65, p<.01 (M¼3.85, SD ¼1.17 and M¼3.60, SD ¼1.41,
respectively)—than did women (M¼3.62, SD ¼1.21 and M¼3.31, SD ¼1.39,
respectively). However, these differences accounted for less than 2%of the variance
in participants’ ratings.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the appropriateness and effectiveness of
five different opening lines men use to initiate flirtatious communication with
women. The results indicated that participants rated both third-party introductions
and direct introductions as the most appropriate, but third-party introductions were
perceived as the most effective. Third-party introductions involve a sponsorship
effect if the individual performing the introduction is perceived positively by the
woman being approached. That is, if the third party performing the introduction
is seen as trustworthy by the female participant, it is likely that the participant would
attribute similar characteristics to the man being introduced. This idea is also consist-
ent with what persuasion researchers often refer to as a ‘‘sponsorship effect’’ (Gass &
Seiter, 1999).
One of the more surprising findings was the negative responses participants
exhibited with respect to the humor attempt condition. It is possible that participants
did not perceive the humor attempt message as funny. If this was the case, then it is
understandable how the humorous attempt opening line could be confused with an
attempt to use a cliche
´or a cute–flippant line. This finding highlights the risk an
individual takes when attempting to use humor to make a positive impression
(Wanzer & Frymier, 1999). Similarly, the direct compliment opening line may also
Table 2 Results of Analyses of Covariance Between Opening Lines and Conversational
Appropriateness and Effectiveness
Dependant variable Opening line MSDn
Appropriateness
a
Third-party introduction 5.70
a
0.96 127
Direct introduction 4.94
a
0.89 230
Direct compliment 3.35
b
0.91 79
Humor attempt 3.29
b
0.77 98
Cute–flippant 3.14
b
0.87 93
Effectiveness
b
Third-party introduction 4.70
a
1.42 127
Direct introduction 4.44
b
1.50 230
Direct compliment 3.26
c
1.25 79
Humor attempt 3.02
c
1.31 98
Cute–flippant 2.98
c
1.28 93
Note. Means with different subscripts are significantly different from each other.
a
F(4, 621) ¼125.13, p<.001 (partial g
2
¼44.6%).
b
F(4, 621) ¼41.00, p<.001 (partial g
2
¼21.1%).
Communication Research Reports 189
Downloaded By: [Bloomsburg University] At: 15:51 30 April 2010
have been confused as a cute–flippant line. This would explain the negative response
elicited by this opening line. In retrospect, manipulation checks should have been
included with the questionnaire to be certain that the messages used were perceived
by the audience as representative of the meta-strategies for which they were intended.
Obviously, this is a significant limitation to this study.
Another limitation to this investigation was that only one video—and, therefore,
one opening line—was used to represent each strategy. Before researchers can make
generalizations as to which class of opening lines is most effective, it is necessary to
examine multiple messages representing each major strategy type. This might also
help to clarify if the humor attempt failed because humor is simply an ineffective
strategy or because the line used in the scenario was not funny. Future research
should test this possibility. Despite such limitations, however, results of this study
suggest that single men would be well-advised to consider using sponsorship from
third parties to initiate flirtatious conversation with women. If third-party sponsor-
ship is unavailable, men should consider using direct introduction opening lines and
should avoid using direct compliments, humor attempts and cute–flippant lines.
References
Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally
occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly,11, 173–194.
Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effect of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of
sexual intent. Sex Roles,15, 283–298.
Abrahams, M. F. (1994). Perceiving flirtatious communication: An exploration of the perceptual
dimensions underlying judgments of flirtatiousness. Journal of Sex Research,31, 283–292.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, D. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict
strategies. Human Communication Research,14, 93–118.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, D. H. (1989). A model of perceived competence of conflict strategies.
Human Communication Research,15, 630–649.
Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship
initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25, 709–722.
Cunningham, M. R. (1989). Reactions to heterosexual opening gambits: Female selectivity and male
responsiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,15, 27–41.
Egland, K. L., Spitzberg, B. H., & Zormeier, M. M. (1996). Flirtation and conversational competence
in cross-sex platonic and romantic relationships. Communication Reports,9, 105–117.
Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (1999). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step by step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural
equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Henningsen, D. D. (2004). Flirting with meaning: An examination of miscommunication in flirting
interactions. Sex Roles,50, 481–489.
Khattree, R., & Naik, N. N. (2000). Multivariate data reduction and discrimination with SAS soft-
ware. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Kleinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., & Staneski, R. A. (1986). Preference for opening lines: Comparing
ratings by men and women. Sex Roles,15, 585–600.
Koeppel, L. B., Montage-Miller, Y., O’Hair, D., & Cody, M. J. (1993). Friendly? Flirting? Wrong? In
P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Interpersonal communication: Communication in evolving relationships
(pp. 13–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
190 K. Weber et al.
Downloaded By: [Bloomsburg University] At: 15:51 30 April 2010
Kowalski, R. M. (1993). Inferring sexual interest from behavioral cues: Effects of gender and
sexually relevant roles. Sex Roles,29, 13–36.
La France, B. H., Henningsen, D. D., Oates, A., & Shaw, C. M. (2009). Social–sexual interactions?
Meta-analyses of sex differences in perceptions of flirtatiousness, seductiveness, and promis-
cuousness. Communication Monographs,76, 263–295.
Levine, T. R., King, G., III, & Popoola, J. K. (1994). Ethnic and gender differences in opening lines.
Communication Research Reports,11, 143–151.
McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1989). Gender differences in nonverbal flirtation. Journal of Sex
Education and Therapy,15, 271–282.
O’Rourke, N., Hatcher, L., & Stepanski, E. J. (2005). A step by step approach to using the SAS system
for univariate and multivariate statistics. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Parks, M. R., & Eggert, L. L. (1989). The role of social context in the dynamics of personal relation-
ships. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (pp. 1–34).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the Nonverbal
Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measures of self- and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy.
Communication Quarterly,51, 502–515.
Rodgers, J. E., & Veronsky, F. (1999). Flirting fascination. Psychology Today,32, 36–46.
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. W. (1994). Communication research measures: A source-
book. New York: Guilford.
Walsh, D. G., & Hewitt, J. (1985). Giving men the come-on: Effects of eye contact and smiling in a
bar environment. Perceptual and Motor Skills,61, 873–874.
Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions of instructor
humor and student’s reports of learning. Communication Education,48, 48–62.
Weber, K. D., Cayanus, J. L., & Goodboy, A. K. (2005, November). Flirtation effectiveness and
appropriateness: An experimental study of opening lines. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the National Communication Association, Boston.
Communication Research Reports 191
Downloaded By: [Bloomsburg University] At: 15:51 30 April 2010
