How to Flirt Best: The Perceived Effectiveness of Flirtation Techniques

Abstract

Four studies were implemented in order to ascertain how men and women flirt with potential partners and which flirtatious actions are considered most effective. Study 1 (n = 40) and Study 2 (n = 60) sought to discover the actions that men and women, respectively, engage in to indicate romantic interest to a partner. Study 3 (n = 110) sought to determine which flirtatious acts from women are perceived as most effective by men. Women's flirtations that suggest sexual access were expected to be rated as most effective. Study 4 (n = 222) sought to determine which flirtatious acts from men are perceived as most effective by women. Men's flirtations that suggest emotional commitment and exclusivity were expected to be rated as most effective by women. The results were consistent with the hypotheses and are discussed in terms of prior research.

Full text

Articles
How to Flirt Best: The Perceived Effectiveness of Flirtation Techniques
T. Joel Wade*a, Jennifer Slemp a
[a] Department of Psychology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA, USA.
Abstract
Four studies were implemented in order to ascertain how men and women flirt with potential partners and which flirtatious actions are considered
most effective. Study 1 (n = 40) and Study 2 (n = 60) sought to discover the actions that men and women, respectively, engage in to indicate
romantic interest to a partner. Study 3 (n = 110) sought to determine which flirtatious acts from women are perceived as most effective by
men. Women’s flirtations that suggest sexual access were expected to be rated as most effective. Study 4 (n = 222) sought to determine
which flirtatious acts from men are perceived as most effective by women. Men’s flirtations that suggest emotional commitment and exclusivity
were expected to be rated as most effective by women. The results were consistent with the hypotheses and are discussed in terms of prior
research.
Keywords: flirting, sexual access, commitment, exclusivity
Interpersona, 2015, Vol. 9(1), 32–43, doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178
Received: 2014-11-03. Accepted: 2015-03-18. Published (VoR): 2015-06-30.
*Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA, 17837, USA. E-mail: jwade@bucknell.edu
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
One of the tasks men and women looking to form a relationship face is attracting mates. One way to accomplish
this task is by flirting. Flirting involves indicating to potential mates that one is interested in dating/spending time
with them (see Downey & Vitulli, 1987;Henningsen, 2004;Moore, 2002;Whitty, 2003). To date, no research has
examined which flirtation tactics are perceived as most effective for men and women. The current researchiseeks
to ascertain which flirtatious acts are perceived as most effective for men and women, using an evolutionary per-
spective.
Flirting is considered a universal and essential aspect of human interaction (Eibl-Eibesfeldt & Hass, 1967;Luscombe,
2008). Individuals, both married and single, flirt. Additionally, flirtation can be used for either courtship initiation
or quasi-courtship purposes. Quasi-courtship refers to instances where flirtatious behaviors are used when one
or both parties are not interested in sexual contact (Henningsen, 2004;Scheflen, 1965). One example of this is
for jealousy induction. Wade and Weinstein (2011) report that individuals can induce jealousy in a current partner
by using techniques that involve flirtation with an individual other than their partner. Flirtation can also be used as
a way to gauge how attractive one is to others and as a way to possibly gain resources (Henningsen, 2004). Flir-
tation can occur in multiple forms. Individuals can flirt non-verbally (Crook, 1972;Givens, 1978;Moore, 1985;
Renninger, Wade, & Grammer 2004), or verbally (Grammer, Kruck, Juette, & Fink, 2000;Whitty, 2004).
Interpersona |An International Journal on Personal Relationships
interpersona.psychopen.eu | 1981-6472

Both men and women use verbal interaction as a way to communicate interest in someone. Women, however,
having more at stake biologically than men do (Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, & Gladue, 1994), also engage in such acts
as a way to elicit information from a man to see if he is potentially a good mate (Grammer et al., 2000). Thus, as
Moore (1985) reports, it is the women who initiate and control the situation.
Men and women alike use nonverbal signals, such as direct glancing, space-maximization movements, and
automanipulations, in relevant mate-selection contexts (Renninger et al., 2004). The nonverbal courtship signaling
involved in flirtation serves a useful purpose. Women use subtle indicators of male interest to help them pace the
course of any potential relationship while they assess a man’s willingness and ability to donate resources.
Therefore, the task for women is to express enough interest to elicit courtship behavior, but not to elicit a level of
interest that leads a man to skip courtship behavior, while men attempt to display their status, health, strength,
and intelligence in a desired, unintimidating way. From an evolutionary perspective flirting can be thought of as
a product of our evolved mate acquisition adaptations.
Evolutionary theory suggests that men and women have evolved adaptations to solve the problem of mate acquis-
ition. Buss and Schmitt (1993) report that men and women have different mate preferences due to their differences
in obligatory parental investment (Trivers, 1972). Men seek a parental investment from women that is primarily
physical. Specifically, reproductive fitness concerns for men center on future offspring production. Men were and
are faced with finding the best possible mates to bear their offspring (Buss, 1989,2006;Trivers, 1972). Thus,
Buss (1989,2006) reports that men choose mates based on fertility and reproductive potential cues, and sexual
access. Reproductive fitness concerns among women center around securing good genes and a strong parental
investment at the financial level (Buss, 1989;Trivers, 1972). Women were and are concerned with finding men
that are most willing and best able to genetically and financially invest in their offspring (Buss, 1989). Since men
can invest at two levels, genetic and financial (Trivers, 1972), women most often focus on cues indicative of a
strong future parental investment for long term mate selection (Buss, 1989,2006).
Since sexual access is crucial for male mate selection and securing a commitment is most important for women’s
mate selection, one might expect a woman’s actions that are suggestive of sexual accessibility to be the most
effective way to flirt with a man. Conversely, since women typically desire a long term commitment, a man’s actions
that are suggestive of a willingness to commit may be the most effective way for a man to flirt with a woman. Yet,
there is a void in the attraction literature. Recent research has not examined this. It is important to ascertain which
flirtatious actions are most effective as this knowledge will further enhance the knowledge base regarding flirtation,
and further strengthen the knowledge base regarding human attraction. Since evolutionary theory based research
can account for many aspects of mate attraction, yet has not examined the effectiveness of overt flirtation tactics,
it is important to determine if evolutionary theory can also account for the overt tactics that are most effective for
flirting with members of the opposite sex.
The present research sought to examine the aforementioned issue with 4 studies. Studies 1 and 2 ascertained
which flirtatious actions are performed by men and women, respectively. Studies 3 and 4 ascertained which flirtatious
acts are perceived as most effective for men and women, respectively.
Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 32–43
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178
Wade & Slemp 33

Study 1
Methods
Participants — Participants were 40 men ranging in age from 18 to 22, M= 19.66, SD = 1.42, from a private
University in the Northeastern US. They were recruited from an introductory psychology course and on campus.
Participants from the introductory psychology class were recruited via posting a sign-up sheet indicating dates
and time when these individuals could take part in the research. Their involvement was in partial fulfillment of re-
search participation requirements associated with the introductory psychology course. Participants recruited from
the campus were approached and asked if they would agree to participate in the research and did not receive
any compensation for their involvement.
Procedure — Participants received a questionnaire that included demographic questions regarding: age, sex,
race, and whether or not they were in a relationship. Following standard act nomination methods used in prior
research that set out to determine which actions men and women engage in when such actions are not previously
known (Buss, 1988a,1988b;Buss & Craik, 1983;Wade, Auer, & Roth, 2009), the next two pages of the question-
naire contained the following act nomination instructions for a short-term or a long-term mate and 5 numbered
blanks on each page for individuals to write in their responses:
Please list below actions that you have done, or would do, to flirt with a woman for a potential long term
relationship (a long-term mate) (or a potential short term relationship (a short-term mate)). A long-term
mate is someone you would date more than a few times and would definitely consider marrying. A short-
term mate is someone you might date just once, have a one night stand with, or date a few times but
would not consider marrying. We are interested in specific behaviors. So you should be able to answer
the following questions about each thing you list below: Have you ever done this action or would you do
this action? If so, how often have you performed it or would you perform it?
The order for the long-term and short-term act nomination questions was varied for participants (some participants
received the long-term act nomination request first while others received the short-term act nomination first).
Results
The nominated acts were examined by one of the authors and one other individual. Consensus nominated acts
were kept. Twenty-six flirtatious acts were identified for men, see Table 1.Table 1 shows acts that range from
commitment/exclusivity related behavior to direct sexual behavior. Additionally, the acts nominated for short-term
and long-term mates did not differ.
Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 32–43
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178
Effective Flirtation 34

Table 1
Flirtatious acts for men
14. He has sex with you1. He makes eye contact with you
15. He spends time with you2. He makes body contact with you
16. He asks for favors from you3. He asks you out
17. He asks for your help4. He converses with you
18. He calls you5. He smiles at you
19. He gives you gifts6. He dances with you
20. He holds hands with you7. He acts interested in you
21. He kisses you8. He compliments you
22. He goes to a movie with you9. He has dinner with you
23. He makes random comments to you10. He makes you laugh
24. He sends you valentines11. He buys you a drink
25. He tickles you12. He does favors for you
26. He gives you flowers13. He laughs at your jokes
Study 2
Method
Participants — Participants were 60 women ranging in age from 18 to 23, M= 19.45, SD = 1.48, from a private
University in the Northeastern United States. They were recruited from an introductory psychology course and
the campus. Participation from members of the introductory psychology class was in partial fulfillment of research
participation requirements associated with the course. Participants recruited from the campus did not receive any
compensation for their contribution. The sample was 92% Caucasian, .02% Black, .02% Hispanic, and .05%
Asian. Also, 48% of the participants were in a relationship and 52% were not in a relationship.
Procedure — As in Study 1, participants received a questionnaire that included demographic questions regarding:
age, sex, race, and whether or not they were in a relationship. Similarly, following standard act nomination methods
used in prior research that set out to determine which actions men and women engage in when such actions are
not previously known (Buss, 1988a,1988b;Buss & Craik, 1983;Wade et al., 2009), the next two pages of the
questionnaire contained the following act nomination instructions for a long-term or a short-term mate and 5
numbered blanks on each page for individuals to write in their responses:
Please list below actions that you have done, or would do, to flirt with a man for a potential long-term re-
lationship (a long-term mate) (or a potential short-term relationship (a short-term mate)). A long term mate
is someone you would date more than a few times and would definitely consider marrying. (A short-term
mate is someone you might date just once, have a one night stand with, or date a few times but would
not consider marrying.) We are interested in specific behaviors. So you should be able to answer the fol-
lowing questions about each thing you list below: Have you ever done this action or would you do this
action? If so, how often have you performed it or would you perform it?
Once again, the order for the long-term and short-term act nomination questions was varied for participants (some
participants received the long-term act nomination request first while others received the short-term act nomination
first).
Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 32–43
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178
Wade & Slemp 35

Results
As in Study 1, the nominated acts were examined by one of the authors and one other individual. Once again
consensus nominated acts were kept. Fourteen flirtatious acts were identified for women, see Table 2.Table 2
shows acts that range from showing interest, i.e., “She makes eye contact with you”, to behaviors that are more
physical, and suggestive of sex such as “She rubs against you”. As in Study 1, the acts nominated for short-term
and long-term mates did not differ.
Table 2
Flirtatious Acts for Women.
8. She touches you in general1. She smiles at you
9. She engages in deep conversation with you2. She makes eye contact with you
10. She dresses revealingly3. She laughs at your jokes
11. She rubs against you4. She shows interest in you during a conversation (she asks about
your interests) 12. She dances with you
5. She teases and jokes around with you 13. She kisses you on the cheek
6. She engages in light conversation/chats with you 14. She moves closer to you
7. She touches your arm
Study 3
Hypothesis
Women’s actions that suggest sexual accessibility should be rated as most effective.
Methods
Participants — Participants were 110 men ranging in age from 18 to 79, M= 25.00, SD = 11.67. They were re-
cruited online via the campus electronic bulletin board at a private University in the Northeastern United States
and via national listservs. Participants did not receive any compensation for their contribution. Seventy-seven
percent of the participants were Caucasian, 6.4% were African American, 6.4% were Hispanic, 3.6% were Asian
and 4.5% classified their race as ‘other’. Additionally, 91% of the males considered themselves to be heterosexual
while 9% reported their sexual orientation as homosexual or other. Also, 49.6% of the men reported being currently
in a relationship while 50.4% reported not being in a relationship currently. Lastly, 80% of the men reported that
they have sexual relationship experience while 20% reported not having sexual relationship experience.
Procedure — Participants received an online questionnaire with: demographic questions (age, race, sexual ori-
entation, sexual relationship experience, current relationship status), a short form of the Marlowe Crowne Social
Desirability scale (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972) to be able to rule out/control for socially biased responding, and the
14 flirtatious acts from Study 2. The following instructions preceded the flirtatious acts:
Below are listed acts that a woman might perform to flirt with a man (indicate to a man she is interested
in him). We are interested in how effective you think each act would be at achieving this goal. Please read
each action carefully and rate it in terms of how successful it would be in attracting you (indicating to you
that they are interested in you). Use the 7-point scale below each action to indicate the effectiveness of
Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 32–43
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178
Effective Flirtation 36

the action. A 7 means it is highly effective. A 4 means it is moderately effective and a 1 means it is inef-
fective. Please answer truthfully and do not discuss your responses with others answering the questionnaire.
Results
Cronbach’s alpha (1951) revealed that the flirtatious acts for women were reliable, α = .90. The items for the social
desirability scale were summed to create a social desirability sumscore, and a series of Mixed Model Repeated
Measures ANOVAs with the social desirability score included as a covariate were computed. The 2(relationship
experience) × 14(flirtations) Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANOVA revealed a significant effect for flirtations,
F(13, 88) = 3.05, p< .001, η2= .31, see Table 3. Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections based on the
number of comparisons computed indicated that the items: “She kisses you on the cheek,” “She rubs against
you,” “She moves closer to you,” “She touches you, in general,” and “She touches your arm” were rated as most
effective. The social desirability covariate was not significant. Additionally, none of the other Mixed Model Repeated
Measures ANOVAs that were computed were significant.
Table 3
Mean Perceived Effectiveness of Female Flirtatious Actions
SDMFlirtatious Act
(a) She kisses you on the cheek .281.914
(b) She rubs against you .421.544
(c) She moves closer to you .271.464
(d) She touches you, in general .301.344
(e) She touches your arm .281.294
She teases and jokes around with you .291.274
She dances with you .361.244
She engages in deep conversation with you .481.01a
4
She shows interest in you during a conversation (asks about your interests) .551.72a
3
She laughs at your jokes .561.40ac
3
She smiles at you .301.28abcde
3
She makes eye contact with you .541.25acde
3
She dresses revealingly .721.84abcde
2
She engages in light conversation/chats with you .481.74abcde
2
Note. Higher numbers mean the particular love act was perceived as more effective. Superscripts denote significant dif-
ferences (p< .05), e.g. mean for row a, “She kisses you on the cheek”, is significantly different from means for rows that
have an ‘a’ in their superscript, etc. Comparisons were Bonferroni corrected based on the number of comparisons made.
Study 4
Hypothesis
Flirtatious actions by men that suggest commitment and exclusivity were expected to be rated higher in perceived
effectiveness.
Methods
Participants — Participants were 222 women ranging in age from 18 to 77, M= 25.00, SD = 13.19. They were
recruited online via the campus electronic bulletin board at a private University in the Northeastern United States
Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 32–43
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178
Wade & Slemp 37

and via national listservs. Participants did not receive any compensation for their involvement. Eighty-one percent
of the women were Caucasian, 9.4% were Asian, 4.5% were Hispanic, 1.8% were African American and 2.7%
classified themselves as ‘other’. Additionally, 59.6% of the women were on birth control, while the 40.4% reported
not currently using birth control. Also, 94% of the women were heterosexual while 6% were homosexual. Regarding
sexual relationship experience 80% reported having sexual relationship experience while 20% reported no sexual
relationship experience. Lastly, 46.6% reported being currently in a relationship while 53.4% reported not currently
being in a relationship.
Procedure — Participants received an online questionnaire with: demographic questions (age, race, sexual ori-
entation, sexual relationship experience, current relationship status), a short form of the Marlowe Crowne SD
scale (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972) to be able to rule out/control for socially biased responding, and the 26 flirtatious
acts from Study 1. The following instructions preceded the flirtatious acts:
Below are listed acts that a man might perform to flirt with a woman (indicate to a woman he is interested
in her). We are interested in how effective you think each act would be at achieving this goal. Please read
each action carefully and rate it in terms of how successful it would be in attracting you (indicating to you
that they are interested in you). Use the 7-point scale below each action to indicate the effectiveness of
the action. A 7 means it is highly effective. A 4 means it is moderately effective and a 1 means it is inef-
fective. Please answer truthfully and do not discuss your responses with others answering the questionnaire.
Results
Cronbach’s alpha (1951) revealed that the flirtatious acts for men were reliable, α= .90. As in Study 3, the items
for the social desirability scale were summed to create a social desirability sumscore, and a series of Mixed
Model Repeated Measures ANOVAs with the social desirability sumscore included as a covariate were computed.
The 2(current relationship status) × 26(flirtations) Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANOVA yielded one significant
interaction, F(25, 176) = 1.72, p< .023, η2= .98. Women in relationships rated “He tickles you” as a more effective
act of flirtation (M= 3.83, SD = 1.74) than single women (M= 3.28, SD = 1.87).
Additionally, there was a significant effect for flirtations, F(25, 176) = 9.60, p< .0001, η2= .58, see Table 4. Pairwise
comparisons with Bonferroni corrections based on the number of comparisons computed revealed that the items:
“He holds hands with you”, “He spends time with you,” “He asks you out,” “He makes you laugh,” “He kisses you,”
“He acts interested in you,” and “He has dinner with you” were rated as most effective.
Once again, the social desirability covariate was not significant. Similarly, no other Mixed Model Repeated
Measures ANOVAs that were computed were significant.
Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 32–43
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178
Effective Flirtation 38

Table 4
Mean Perceived Effectiveness of Male Flirtatious Actions.
SDMFlirtatious Act
(a) He holds hands with you .221.015
(b) He spends time with you .091.914
(c) He asks you out .251.914
(d) He kisses you .281.894
(e) He makes you laugh .581.59a
4
(f) He acts interested in you .121.56ab
4
(g) He has dinner with you .221.51abc
4
He calls you .201.46abcd
4
He compliments you .171.24abcd
4
He gives you flowers .481.38abcd
4
He goes to a movie with you .271.06abcdefg
4
He smiles at you .381.04abcdefg
4
He sends valentines .661.01abcdefg
4
He converses with you .541.94abcdefg
3
He laugh at your jokes .381.88abcdefg
3
He gives you gifts .491.88abcdefg
3
He makes body contact with you .451.84abcdefg
3
He makes eye contact with you .511.82abcdefg
3
He does favors for you .451.68abcdefg
3
He tickles you .841.56abcdefg
3
He dances with you .481.48abcdefg
3
He makes random comments to you .771.44abcdefg
3
He asks for your help .451.37abcdefg
3
He has sex with you .981.26abcdefg
3
He buys you a drink .491.12abcdefg
3
He asks for favors from you .451.56abcdefg
2
Note. Higher numbers mean the particular love act was perceived as more effective. Superscripts denote significant dif-
ferences (p< .05), e.g. mean for row a, “He holds hands with you”, is significantly different from means for rows that
have an ‘a’ in their superscript, etc. Comparisons were Bonferroni corrected based on the number of comparisons com-
puted.
Discussion
The results were consistent with the hypotheses. Flirtations from women that suggest sexual access and flirtations
from men that suggest exclusivity, commitment, and caring were perceived as the most effective flirtatious acts.
These actions were rated as most effective because they relate to the characteristics that men and women prefer
for their partners. Buss (1989,2006) reports that men prefer women who are sexually accessible and women
prefer men who suggest that they are willing to commit.
Across all men, the actions that were perceived to be most effective were the following: “She kisses you on the
cheek,” “She rubs against you,” “She moves closer to you,” “She touches you, in general,” and “She touches your
arm”. A kiss on the cheek may be an effective act of flirtation because men may view it as prelude to more pas-
sionate kissing which men view as an action that increases the likelihood of sex (Hughes, Harrison, & Gallup,
Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 32–43
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178
Wade & Slemp 39

2007). This explanation is in line with error management theory (Haselton & Buss, 2000) which points out that
men, in order to not miss out on an opportunity to have sexual relations with a woman, tend to overestimate women’s
actions as indicators of sexual access being granted. Touching on the arm and touching in general may be effective
flirtation techniques because touching is interpreted by men as an indication of sexual interest (Guéguen, 2010).
Moving closer may be an effective flirtation act because intimate interactions occur at smaller distances (Baron
& Byrne, 1981;Hall 1963). Consequently, a man may interpret a woman’s moving closer to him as suggestive of
sexual access. Rubbing against a man may be an effective act of flirtation because it involves touching, and because
it may be similar to actions that take place during a sexual interlude.
Women perceived the following actions to be most effective: “He holds hands with you,” “He spends time with
you,” “He asks you out,” “He kisses you,” “He makes you laugh,” “He acts interested in you,” and “He has dinner
with you”. All of these items reflect a level of commitment/exclusivity, and interest on the part of the man. Additionally,
holding hands involves touching, and in a courtship compliance context women respond positively to a man
touching them (Guéguen, 2007). Guéguen (2007) reports that women view a man touching them in a courtship
context as a signal of dominance and dominance is related to status which is a characteristic that is important for
women’s mate choices (Buss, 1989,2006). Making a woman laugh may be a most effective act of flirtation for
men because humor ability reveals intelligence (Greengross & Miller, 2011;Howrigan & MacDonald, 2008) and
women prefer men who can produce humor (Bressler, Martin, & Balshine, 2006). Having dinner with a woman
may be an effective flirtation act because it conveys interest as well as a willingness on the part of the man to
share resources with a particular woman. Kissing a woman may be an effective flirtation act for men because it
allows a woman to assess the parental investment potential of the man. Hughes et al. (2007) report that via
chemosensory analysis of the saliva in a male’s kiss and via the wetness of a man’s kiss women are able to as-
certain a male’s genetic and parental investment potential.
Women in relationships may rate the flirtation “He tickles you” as a more effective flirtation act than single women
because women in relationships have more experience with tickling than single women do. However, this is
speculative. Thus, additional research is needed to substantiate this explanation.
Conclusion
Flirtations from women that suggest sexual access and flirtations from men that suggest exclusivity, commitment,
and caring were perceived as the most effective flirtatious acts. These findings suggest that individuals can attract
mates effectively via overt/verbal means and via overt actions. Furthermore, the findings show that overt flirtation
has an evolutionary basis just as nonverbal/covert or unconscious flirtation does. Additionally, these findings are
consistent with evolutionary theory based research showing that men and women’s selection of mates is rooted
in reproductive fitness and parental investment concerns. Thus, one can conclude that flirtation is a product of
our evolved mate acquisition adaptations. These findings add to the evolutionary theory based literature on mate
attraction and mate preferences. This does not mean that social learning may not play a role. But, social learning
only provides a proximate explanation rather than an ultimate explanation (Confer et al., 2010) for why such flirtatious
actions would be perceived as most important.
Limitations
The present research examined the perceived effectiveness of men and women’s flirtations rather than the actual
effectiveness. Therefore, additional research is warranted. Future research should examine, if possible, how ef-
Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 32–43
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178
Effective Flirtation 40

fective the actions actually are in attracting men and women. Additionally, the present research involved primarily
US participants. Therefore, additional research including participants from other countries is warranted.
Notes
i) A version of this paper was presented at the 5th Northeastern Evolutionary Psychology Society Conference, Binghamton,
NY.
Funding
The authors have no funding to report.
Competing Interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Acknowledgments
The authors have no support to report.
References
Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionary relevant
aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1081-1093.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1081
Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (1981). Social psychology: Understanding human interaction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon,
Inc.
Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., & Balshine, S. (2006). Production and appreciation of humor as sexually selected traits. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 27, 121-130. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.09.001
Buss, D. M. (1988a). Love acts: The evolutionary biology of love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of
love (pp. 100-118). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Buss, D. M. (1988b). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 9(5), 291-317. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(88)90010-6
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-14. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00023992
Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, 15(2), 239-260.
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90(2), 105-126.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.90.2.105
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological
Review, 100(2), 204-232.
Confer, J. C., Easton, J. A., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, D. M., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary
psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations. The American Psychologist, 65(2), 110-126.
doi:10.1037/a0018413
Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 32–43
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178
Wade & Slemp 41

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
doi:10.1007/BF02310555
Crook, J. H. (1972). Sexual selection, dimorphism, and social organization in primates. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection
and the descent of man 1871-1971 (pp. 231-281). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Downey, J. L., & Vitulli, W. F. (1987). Self-report measures of behavioral attributions related to interpersonal flirtation situations.
Psychological Reports, 61, 899-904. doi:10.2466/pr0.1987.61.3.899
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I., & Hass, H. (1967). Film studies in human ethology. Current Anthropology, 8(5), 477-479. doi:10.1086/200833
Givens, D. B. (1978). The nonverbal basis of attraction: Flirtation, courtship, and seduction. Psychiatry, 41, 346-359.
Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A., & Fink, B. (2000). Non-verbal behavior as courtship signals: The role of control and choice
in selecting partners. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 371-390. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00053-2
Greengross, G., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males.
Intelligence, 39, 188-192. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.006
Guéguen, N. (2007). Courtship compliance: The effect of touch on women’s behavior. Social Influence, 2(2), 81-97.
doi:10.1080/15534510701316177
Guéguen, N. (2010). The effect of a woman’s incidental tactile contact on men’s later behavior. Social Behavior and Personality,
38(2), 257-266. doi:10.2224/sbp.2010.38.2.257
Hall, E. T. (1963). A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65(5), 1003-1026.
doi:10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020
Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81-91. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.81
Henningsen, D. D. (2004). Flirting with meaning: An examination of miscommunication in flirting interactions. Sex Roles,
50(7-8), 481-489. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000023068.49352.4b
Howrigan, D. P., & MacDonald, K. B. (2008). Humor as a mental fitness indicator. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), 652-666.
Hughes, S. M., Harrison, M. A., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2007). Sex differences in romantic kissing among college students: An
evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(3), 612-631.
Luscombe, B. (2008, January). Why we flirt. Time, 171(4), 62-65.
Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: Context and consequences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6,
237-247. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(85)90016-0
Moore, M. M. (2002). Courtship communication and perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 97-105.
doi:10.2466/pms.2002.94.1.97
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, 416-431. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.006
Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 32–43
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178
Effective Flirtation 42

Scheflen, A. E. (1965). Quasi-courtship behavior in psychotherapy. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes,
28(3), 245-257.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191-193. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197204)28:2<191::AID-JCLP2270280220>3.0.CO;2-G
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of
man, 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
Wade, T. J., Auer, G., & Roth, T. M. (2009). What is love: Further investigation of love acts. Journal of Social, Evolutionary,
and Cultural Psychology, 3(4), 290-304. doi:10.1037/h0099315
Wade, T. J., & Weinstein, A. B. (2011). Jealousy induction: Which tactics are perceived as most effective? Journal of Social,
Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 5(4), 231-238. doi:10.1037/h0099260
Whitty, M. T. (2003). Cyber-flirting: Playing at love on the Internet. Theory & Psychology, 13(3), 339-357.
doi:10.1177/0959354303013003003
Whitty, M. T. (2004). Cyber-flirting: An examination of men's and women's flirting behaviour both offline and on the Internet.
Behaviour Change, 21, 115-126. doi:10.1375/bech.21.2.115.55423
PsychOpen is a publishing service by Leibniz Institute
for Psychology Information (ZPID), Trier, Germany.
www.zpid.de/en
Interpersona
2015, Vol. 9(1), 32–43
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v9i1.178
Wade & Slemp 43