Monica Moore Review 2010 PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/42807918
Human Nonverbal Courtship Behavior—A Brief Historical Review
Article in The Journal of Sex Research · March 2010

DOI: 10.1080/00224490903402520 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS READS
35 1,757
1 author:
Monica M Moore
Webster University
8 PUBLICATIONS 332 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
No title--see below View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Monica M Moore on 06 August 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
Human Nonverbal Courtship Behavior--A Brief Historical

Review
Journal: The Journal of Sex Research
Manuscript ID: 09-039
Manuscript Type: ARSR Review
Attraction/Courtship Behavior, Communication/Language/Nonverbal

Keywords:
Communication
Page 1 of 42 PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research
Human Courtship 1
1
2
3
4
5 Abstract
6
7
I review research findings documenting the nature of
8
9
10
nonverbal courtship behavior and compiled through both
11
12 observation and self-report methods. I discuss the major
13
14 theoretical perspectives guiding research in this area and
15
16 briefly consider methodological issues for research
17
18 conducted in the field and in the laboratory. Studies of
19
20 verbal courtship, including that conducted via computer,
21
22 via text messaging or through personal advertisement,
23
24 are not included in this review. I end by elucidating
25
26 some key features of human nonverbal courtship behavior
27
28 that become apparent after one scrutinizes these data.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 Human Nonverbal Courtship Research—
57
58 A Brief Historical Review
59
60
PDF proof only--The Journal of Sex Research Page 2 of 42
Human Courtship 2
1
2
3
4
5
Although biologists and ethologists have detailed the
6
7 courtship rituals for many species, the courting behavior of
8
9 humans has not received extensive study. However, there is
10
11 clearly a group of facial expressions and gestures that are
12
13 commonly labeled “flirting behaviors” by scientists and
14
15 nonscientists alike. As courtship signals these nonverbal
16
17 behaviors serve to attract and maintain the attentions of a
18
19 potential partner. Also researchers have found that
20
21 rebuffing a partner is largely conducted through nonverbal
22
23 channels. In early studies, many experts (Birdwhistell,
24
25 1970; Davis, 1971; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1971; Mehrabian, 1972)
26
27 characterized courtship and rejection in humans, despite the
28
29 possession of verbal fluency, as predominately nonverbal
30
31 rather than verbal. Similarly, in more recent research
32
33 (Deshotels & Forsyth, 2006; Grammer, Renninger & Fischer,
34
35 2004) the nature of human courtship as being largely
36
37
nonverbal has been confirmed. With almost 50 years of
38
39
40
systematic investigation and continued fascination with the
41
42
role flirting plays in the scope of human sexuality, it
43
44 seems a good time to review the evolution of our
45
46 understanding of nonverbal courtship signaling in humans.
47
48 Paul Ekman (1972) showed that humans, regardless of
49
50 cultural background, easily decode basic facial expressions
51
52 such as those for surprise, disgust, anger, fear, sadness,
53
54 and happiness. The research on human courtship indicates
55
56 that components of these facial expressions play a large
57
58
59
60
Human Courtship 3
1
2
3 role in the facial expressions that are seen by many people
4
5 as flirtatious. It is, therefore, not surprising that humans
6
7
from a variety of cultures use nonverbal signals, much like
8
9
10
other animals, to ensure that attraction results in the
11
12 continuation of the species. Indeed, there are such strong
13
14 parallels between the flirting behaviors of humans and the
15
16 mating interactions of nonhumans that one expert
17
18 (Birdwhistell, 1970) used the term “courtship dance” to
19
20 describe the behaviors of both American teenagers and wild
21
22 turkeys.
23
24 Given the similarity between humans and birds or other
25
26 mammals in signaling attraction via facial expressions or
27
28 posture patterns, it is not surprising that researchers from
29
30 both the natural and social sciences--anthropology, biology,
31
32 ethology, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and zoology
33
34 have provided much of the information about nonverbal
35
36 courtship behavior. The theoretical orientations and
37
38 methodological approaches of individuals working on the
39
40 topic of nonverbal courtship behavior in humans also vary
41
42
widely.
43
44
45
In this article I discuss the most common theoretical
46
47
orientations employed by researchers from several
48
49 disciplines to explain the nonverbal mechanisms of human
50
51 courtship. I follow this with a brief description of the
52
53 methods most frequently employed to investigate courtship
54
55 communication in the nonverbal channel. Finally, I provide a
56
57 chronological review of the literature dealing with the
58
59
60
Human Courtship 4
1
2
3 nonverbal aspects of human courtship behavior. I have
4
5 elected to review the investigation of human courtship
6
7
behavior chronologically because I believe that an
8
9
10
historical approach will best display both the progress that
11
12 has been made investigating this topic as well as territory
13
14 yet to be explored. As is common in science, researchers
15
16 often initiated later studies to address issues that arose
17
18 during earlier projects or to probe deeper into particular
19
20 phenomena. I discuss two approaches to documenting these
21
22 nonverbal signals: observations made either in the
23
24 laboratory or in the field, and self-reports made through
25
26 interviews, essays, or questionnaires. There also exist
27
28 studies of “pick-up” lines and other verbal components of
29
30 courtship behavior, including courtship conducted on-line,
31
32 through text messaging, or through personal advertisements;
33
34 I will not address that research. I end by returning to some
35
36 key features of human courtship that become apparent after
37
38 one scrutinizes these data.
39
40 Research Factors
41
42
Theory
43
44
45
As for any research area, it is important to note that
46
47
theory both guides the development of logical hypotheses and
48
49 grounds the findings, providing explanations for phenomena
50
51 under investigation. Indeed, one sexologist (Weis, 1998,
52
53 2002) argued persuasively that theoretical explanations are
54
55 the heart of science. Much of the research on human
56
57 courtship behavior has been conducted using one of three
58
59
60
Human Courtship 5
1
2
3 theoretical orientations: an evolutionary framework, a
4
5 social learning approach, or social script theory.
6
7
Darwin (1859) discovered the mechanism, natural
8
9
10
selection, which underlies evolutionary change within
11
12 species. Natural selection also results in the origin of new
13
14 species as well as the extinction of existing species.
15
16 Darwin discovered other mechanisms that operate within
17
18 species and are primarily responsible for sex differences.
19
20 These mechanisms he labeled sexual selection factors. They
21
22 are comprised of intrasexual competition, or those behaviors
23
24 involved in the struggle with members of the same sex over
25
26 mates and intersexual choice, or the behaviors involved in
27
28 the discriminative selection of mating partners. In many
29
30 species this scenario results in competition among males for
31
32 sexual partners and female choice of those partners. Darwin
33
34 did not explain why this was so. It was left to later
35
36 theorists (Symons, 1979; Trivers, 1972) to add the concept
37
38 of parental investment potential. The sex that provides more
39
40 of the investment in the production of the next generation
41
42
becomes a resource as well for the opposite sex (Dawkins,
43
44
45
1989: Trivers, 1972). Members of the higher investing sex
46
47
can thus be choosy when it comes to mates because they are
48
49 in greater demand. Beginning with the donation of a large
50
51 egg, females tend to invest more in parenting than males and
52
53 female choice has been found to operate in a variety of
54
55 species, including mammals. As with other mammals, women
56
57 invest heavily in parenting and are choosy when it comes to
58
59
60
Human Courtship 6
1
2
3 mating and marriage partners (Buss, 1994). Men show a
4
5 pattern, often found in other mammalian species, of
6
7
competing for high quality partners with whom they may
8
9
10
invest in the well-being of the resulting children, but of
11
12 also sometimes availing themselves of other sexual liaisons
13
14 that may produce additional offspring. Because the major
15
16 purpose of courtship signaling is to attract and/or maintain
17
18 the attention of a partner, it is not surprising that a
19
20 number of studies on nonverbal courtship behavior (Grammer,
21
22 1990; Lockard & Adams, 1980; Moore, 1985) have been couched
23
24 within the framework of evolutionary theory. Indeed, Perper
25
26 (1989) has advocated an expanded biological explanation that
27
28 is also applicable to specific ethnographic settings.
29
30 Nevertheless, evolutionary accounts of courtship
31
32 behavior should be sensitive to the fact that any evolved
33
34 mechanism interacts with environmental factors. The
35
36 influence of the environment has been proposed through
37
38 several variations of learning theory. There is considerable
39
40 evidence that various patterns of behavior, including sexual
41
42
behavior, are learned through classical and operant
43
44
45
conditioning and through imitation and modeling. This
46
47
perspective has been shown to relate to the development of
48
49 sexuality among children, adolescent sexual and
50
51 contraceptive behavior, health-related sexual behavior,
52
53 coercive sexual behavior (Hogben & Byrne, 1998) as well as
54
55 courtship signaling in adolescent girls (Moore, 1995).
56
57 Furthermore, learning theorists (Argyle, 1999; Muelenhard,
58
59
60
Human Courtship 7
1
2
3 Koralewski, Andrews, & Burdick, 1986) have argued that those
4
5 individuals who find themselves deficient in dating skills
6
7
may benefit from learning about the role flirting plays in
8
9
10
attracting potential dating partners.
11
12 The third major theoretical orientation used to explain
13
14 courtship signaling, social (sexual) script theory, was
15
16 introduced by Gagnon and Simon (1973) and has been widely
17
18 employed since. Simon and Gagnon (1987) developed scripting
19
20 as a conceptual tool to examine sexual conduct and were less
21
22 interested in building an explanatory mechanism. Basically,
23
24 theorists maintain that humans use a set of guidelines or
25
26 beliefs (i.e., a script) in directing behavior and
27
28 conceptualizing experience, similar to the way that an actor
29
30 uses a script in a play. The script becomes the actor’s or
31
32 the person’s view of reality and orders the experiences of
33
34 everyday life. In this regard, Perper and Weis (1987) found,
35
36 when they asked American and Canadian women of various
37
38 levels of religiosity to write a description of how they
39
40 would solicit the sexual attention of a man, that the script
41
42
was less detailed for the steps just prior to intercourse
43
44
45
than for the earlier phases of courtship initiation.
46
47
Of course, many researchers employ more than one theory
48
49 during the hypothesis development phase of their
50
51 investigations as well as when explaining their findings
52
53 (Moore, 1995; Perper & Weis, 1987). Finally, there are a
54
55 number of studies that could be considered atheoretical.
56
57
58
59
60
Human Courtship 8
1
2
3 Often this research (Schelfen, 1965) was purely descriptive,
4
5 early work.
6
7
Methodology
8
9
10
The methodological approaches used by various
11
12 researchers interested in human nonverbal courtship behavior
13
14 most often dovetailed with the theoretical orientation
15
16 utilized by those investigator(s). Individuals employing
17
18 evolutionary theory in their work tended toward
19
20 observational research, either in the field or in the
21
22 laboratory, whereas those researchers who framed their
23
24 understanding of courtship behavior in terms of learning or
25
26 scripting more often used self-report methods. Regardless of
27
28 methodology, investigators wrestled with basic research
29
30 concerns surrounding conducting research in an ethical
31
32 fashion, ensuring validity, reliability, and
33
34 generalizability, and using proper statistical techniques
35
36 for data analysis (Wiederman & Whitley, 2002).
37
38 Electing to study human courtship behavior in actual
39
40 courtship situations meant that the investigators whose
41
42
research is reviewed here had to confront many
43
44
45
methodological issues that have long plagued field
46
47
biologists watching other species (Moore, 2002a). Decisions
48
49 were made about where and how to compile observations. Much
50
51 of the field research on human courtship has been conducted
52
53 in dance clubs or singles’ bars because those are common
54
55 meeting places for adults looking for potential dating
56
57 partners. Other common venues employed have included parks
58
59
60
Human Courtship 9
1
2
3 and other outdoor recreational settings as well as shopping
4
5 malls. Because most ethologists conducted observations
6
7
covertly in public settings, it has not been necessary to
8
9
10
obtain the consent of those being observed, but protocol
11
12 proscribed collecting data in such a way to protect the
13
14 identity and anonymity of those involved in the study. The
15
16 men and women watched by the ethnographers reviewed later
17
18 were generally unaware that they were taking part in an
19
20 investigation of human courtship behavior. Flirting was
21
22 recorded as it naturally occurred, without investigators
23
24 having to worry that people were altering their behavior
25
26 because they knew that researchers were watching them. To
27
28 aid in this process, observations frequently have been
29
30 recorded using concealed micro cassette audio recorders.
31
32 Some ethnographers used paper and pencil to record data, and
33
34 in the laboratory and sometimes in the field as well,
35
36 videotapes were used when there was the opportunity to get
37
38 permission from the participants.
39
40 In many of the projects reported here the individuals
41
42
being watched were selected randomly so that the observers
43
44
45
were not influenced by factors such as personal appearance
46
47
or amount of flirting exhibited. Because of the rapid nature
48
49 of nonverbal communication, much of the research in this
50
51 area has been compiled using what is called focal individual
52
53 sampling (Altmann, 1974), data compiled from one person
54
55 watched by a single observer in a given time frame. In some
56
57 studies the investigator kept track of all instances of
58
59
60
Human Courtship 10
1
2
3 displayed nonverbal behavior, whereas in other cases samples
4
5 of observations were taken periodically. To a certain
6
7
extent, the decision regarding how often to record data has
8
9
10
depended on whether the investigator was working at the
11
12 molar (stages) or molecular (specific behaviors) level.
13
14 The difficulties surrounding data collection in the
15
16 field led some researchers to conduct observations under
17
18 more controlled conditions—-in the laboratory. Although
19
20 capturing the behavior under study was less of a challenge,
21
22 research design decisions still had to be made regarding
23
24 unit of analysis and sampling techniques.
25
26 Self-report methods were not absolved from concerns
27
28 about sampling. The formats most commonly employed in
29
30 studying human courtship have been questionnaires,
31
32 interviews, and descriptive essays. Also sometimes used in
33
34 sexuality research, although so far not employed in
35
36 courtship research, are personal diaries and focus groups.
37
38 Again it was important, whether the process involved the use
39
40 of interviews or questionnaires that the investigator
41
42
obtained a reasonably sized random sample of appropriate
43
44
45
individuals to question. Of particular concern in self-
46
47
report studies of nonverbal courtship behavior has been
48
49 question design, that is that the responses obtained were
50
51 both valid and reliable.
52
53 Three major theoretical approaches, evolutionary
54
55 theory, social learning theory, and social script theory,
56
57 together with a variety of research methods including self-
58
59
60
Human Courtship 11
1
2
3 reports and observations made both in the field and in the
4
5 laboratory have helped us piece together the puzzle that is
6
7
human courtship. This process has been and continues to be
8
9
10
an important endeavor given that relationships play such a
11
12 central role in the lives of humans, bringing tremendous joy
13
14 and great pain. Nevertheless, it is ironic that we are
15
16 coming much later to the study of courtship in humans than
17
18 to that in other species. And, although courtship behavior
19
20 has long been portrayed in literature and in plays, it was
21
22 not until recently that scientists documented the behaviors
23
24 that geniuses such as Shakespeare revealed so keenly in the
25
26 actions of lovers.
27
28
29
30 Human Nonverbal Courtship Research
31
32 Observational Studies
33
34 A psychiatrist, Albert Scheflen (1965), provided some
35
36 of the earliest descriptions of human nonverbal courtship
37
38 behaviors in connection with client-therapist interactions
39
40 during psychotherapy sessions. Scheflen noted that
41
42
therapists and clients alike exhibited courtship behaviors
43
44
45
and qualifiers of the courtship message. Scheflen outlined
46
47
four categories of courtship behavior: courtship readiness
48
49 cues such as higher muscle tone and decreased belly sag,
50
51 preening behaviors such as stroking of the hair or adjusting
52
53 the clothing, positional cues such as leaning toward the
54
55 target, and actions of appeal or invitation, for example
56
57 palming and casting flirtatious glances. It appeared to
58
59
60
Human Courtship 12
1
2
3 Scheflen that these indicators of sexual intent were
4
5 qualified or negated by opposing behaviors such as yawning
6
7
or orienting the body away from the target and that this
8
9
10
was, in part, due to the fact that courtship behaviors were
11
12 being exhibited in an inappropriate context--psychotherapy
13
14 sessions. No examples of quasi-courtship behavior were found
15
16 in a later study of therapy sessions at a clinic, but
17
18 instances of quasi-courtship behavior did appear in a
19
20 majority of sessions in an aftercare unit (Veague, 1974).
21
22 Following Scheflen’s revelation of their existence,
23
24 therapists were using quasi-courtship behaviors as a therapy
25
26 technique in the 1970’s. Veague discussed both positive
27
28 outcomes as well as misuses of that strategy.
29
30 Seminal reports gathered from fieldwork included the
31
32 work of two zoologists (Birdwhistell, 1970; Morris, 1971).
33
34 In this regard, Ray Birdwhistell drew comparisons between
35
36 the courting behavior of humans and other species. In fact,
37
38 he saw the behavior of American adolescents as much like the
39
40 courtship dance of the wild turkey or peacock. Birdwhistell
41
42
suggested 24 steps in a particular sequence from initial
43
44
45
male/female contact to a fully intimate, sexual
46
47
relationship. It appeared to him that it was most often the
48
49 girl who was responsible for the first move. In contrast,
50
51 Morris proposed 12 steps that couples in Western culture go
52
53 through from initial contact through intimacy. He indicated
54
55 that the steps have an order that usually is followed in
56
57 female/male relationships. The steps Morris outlined are as
58
59
60
Human Courtship 13
1
2
3 follows: (1) eye to body, (2) eye to eye, (3) voice to
4
5 voice, (4) hand to hand, (5) arm to shoulder, (6) arm to
6
7
waist, (7) mouth to mouth, (8) hand to head, (9) hand to
8
9
10
body, (10) mouth to breast, (11) hand to genitals, and (12)
11
12 genitals to genitals or mouth to genitals. One who skips
13
14 steps or fails to respond to a step may be seen as fast or
15
16 slow. He agreed with Birdwhistell that it was the woman who
17
18 most often regulated the movement from step to step.
19
20 Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1971) used two approaches to describe
21
22 flirting behavior in people from diverse cultural
23
24 backgrounds (Balinese, Papuans, French, and Wakiu Indians).
25
26 Employing a camera fitted with right angle lenses to film
27
28 people without their knowledge, he found that an eyebrow
29
30 flash combined with a smile was a common courtship behavior.
31
32 Secondly, through comments made to women, Eibl-Eibesfeldt
33
34 was able to elicit the “coy glance,” an expression combining
35
36 a half smile and lowered eyes. Looking at a variety of
37
38 cultures he found flirting to be prevalent and very much the
39
40 same the world over. People attracted to one another also
41
42
made small touching movements, moved closer together than
43
44
45
normal, nodded in agreement, used their hands to emphasize
46
47
points, moistened their lips often, and held the other’s
48
49 gaze.
50
51 A few nonverbal courtship behaviors such as smiling,
52
53 making eye contact, and touching were reported (Kendon &
54
55 Ferber, 1973) as part of the rituals that surrounded
56
57 greetings at social events, for instance, at parties.
58
59
60
Human Courtship 14
1
2
3 Although the primary intent was to document greeting
4
5 rituals, the above behaviors were seen in both men and
6
7
women. Kendon (1975) then covertly filmed a couple seated on
8
9
10
a park bench in order to record the role of facial
11
12 expressions during a kissing round. It was the woman’s
13
14 behavior, particularly her facial expressions that
15
16 functioned as a determinate in modulating the behavior of
17
18 the man. Similarly, Cary (1976) showed that it was the
19
20 woman’s behavior that was important in initiating
21
22 conversation between strangers. Both in laboratory settings
23
24 and in singles’ bars or dance clubs, conversation was
25
26 initiated only after the woman glanced at the man more than
27
28 once. Cary argued that experienced men looked for the woman
29
30 who signaled her interest in them and that her glances and
31
32 smiles, in essence, granted them permission to start a
33
34 conversation.
35
36 Working in the field, Givens (1978) described four
37
38 cases of courtship behavior observed by him to document, in
39
40 unacquainted adults, five phases of courtship: attention in
41
42
which one person notices the attractive features of another
43
44
45
and exhibits self-touching, coy gaze patterns and demure
46
47
facial expressions; recognition in which the recipient
48
49 responds to invitational behaviors on the part of the sender
50
51 with availability signals such as orienting the body toward
52
53 the first person while returning both gaze and smiles;
54
55 interaction in which there may be a variety of behaviors
56
57 including verbal interaction and accompanying nonverbal
58
59
60
Human Courtship 15
1
2
3 behaviors such as sustained eye contact, loud laughter, and
4
5 emphatic head nodding; sexual-arousal in which the partners
6
7
exchange affectionate gestures such as touching, stroking,
8
9
10
caressing, and kissing; and resolution in which there is
11
12 continuation of the relationship in copulation and/or
13
14 disengagement. In another field study (Lockard & Adams,
15
16 1980) a large number of established couples of various ages,
17
18 rather than unacquainted adults, were observed and their
19
20 courtship behaviors were cataloged on the basis of age and
21
22 gender. These couples were covertly observed in recreational
23
24 settings such as shopping malls and zoological parks. The
25
26 nonverbal behaviors described included signals such as
27
28 kissing, hand linking, embracing, self-grooming, gazing,
29
30 smiling, laughing, food sharing, touching, and playing.
31
32 McCormick, Perper, and Jones (1983) also used the
33
34 observation of public courtship as their method for
35
36 isolating and describing nonverbal signaling. Although they
37
38 worked with adult strangers meeting for the first time in
39
40 social situations (singles’ bars) that were popular places
41
42
for interacting with members of the opposite sex, they
43
44
45
listed behaviors similar to those observed by Givens (1978)
46
47
and Lockard and Adams (1980).
48
49 A number of researchers (Moore, 1985; Perper, 1985;
50
51 Walsh & Hewitt, 1985) observed unsuspecting men and women in
52
53 dance clubs during the 1980’s. In a study (Walsh & Hewitt,
54
55 1985) of eye contact and smiling using confederates, men
56
57 were found to be much more likely to approach a woman if she
58
59
60
Human Courtship 16
1
2
3 first made repeated eye contact followed by smiling. It
4
5 appeared that men first needed encouragement before they
6
7
would approach a woman. Perper’s naturalistic observations
8
9
10
documented the phases of early courtship behavior: (1) the
11
12 approach of one stranger to another, (2) turn, first with
13
14 the head, followed by the shoulders and torso, and finally
15
16 the whole body, (3) touch, at first quickly withdrawn, then
17
18 perhaps lingering longer and with increasing frequency, and
19
20 (4) the steady development of body synchronization, in which
21
22 the gestures, movements, or postures of one partner are
23
24 echoed by the other. I (Moore, 1985) focused on the
25
26 nonverbal courtship behaviors of women as initiators of the
27
28 courtship process. Through the covert observation of over
29
30 200 women during more than 100 hours, I compiled a catalog
31
32 of 52 female courtship behaviors. In the catalog I included
33
34 such behaviors as glancing, primping, smiling, nodding,
35
36 kissing, leaning forward, and soliciting help. In a later
37
38 study (Moore and Butler, 1989) we found that female
39
40 courtship behavior was so striking that a trained observer
41
42
could use its frequency to predict, with a high degree of
43
44
45
accuracy, the outcome of interactions between men and women.
46
47
In addition, the frequency of signaling appeared to be the
48
49 more important factor in eliciting approaches from men,
50
51 overriding such attributes as physical attractiveness.
52
53 Therefore, although a high signaling, beautiful woman would
54
55 be the most likely to be approached by the man she had been
56
57 signaling, a high signaling average attractiveness woman was
58
59
60
Human Courtship 17
1
2
3 much more likely to be approached than her low signaling,
4
5 beautiful counterpart.
6
7
In another field study (McCormick & Jones, 1989),
8
9
10
designed to replicate the findings of Perper (1985) and to
11
12 extend the observation of nonverbal flirtation in bar
13
14 settings to a rural population, 70 couples were observed.
15
16 Gender differences in nonverbal courtship behavior were
17
18 found, with women using behaviors including intimate gazing,
19
20 smiling, touching, and self-grooming, whereas men used
21
22 intimate touching. Similarly, in an observational study of
23
24 500 couples in a variety of public settings, Willis and
25
26 Briggs (1992) discovered that men were more likely to
27
28 initiate touch during courtship and women after marriage had
29
30 taken place.
31
32 Other investigators working in both Europe and the
33
34 United States (Grammer, 1990; Simpson, Gangestad, & Biek,
35
36 1993) relied more on observations made in controlled
37
38 settings such as the laboratory. Grammer brought
39
40 unacquainted adults to his laboratory in Vienna and filmed
41
42
their interactions to describe the nonverbal behaviors used
43
44
45
by interested and disinterested men and women. Although in
46
47
this study Grammer focused most on the role of laughter, he
48
49 also mentioned other signs of interest in women, such as
50
51 head tossing and hair flipping and in men, head tilting and
52
53 leaning forward. Simpson, Gangestad, and Biek filmed
54
55 participants in their laboratory answering a series of
56
57 questions posed by an attractive opposite-sex “interviewer.”
58
59
60
Human Courtship 18
1
2
3 In looking at 11 nonverbal behaviors, they reported that
4
5 interested men smiled, laughed, and displayed flirtatious
6
7
glances, whereas interested women leaned forward and canted
8
9
10
the head.
11
12 Returning to field studies, I (Moore, 1995) used a
13
14 similar approach to that I employed earlier with women to
15
16 the observation of teenage girls. I discovered that girls
17
18 used some of the same displays documented in women to
19
20 attract the attention of boys. In contrast to the courtship
21
22 behavior of women, however, girls exhibited these behaviors
23
24 less frequently and their courtship signaling was more
25
26 dominated by play behavior, such as physical roughhousing
27
28 like punching the target or teasing him by taking something
29
30 and running away with it. Furthermore, despite the fact that
31
32 girls’ signals were more exaggerated in form, they were less
33
34 successful in attracting the attention of male peers. Girls
35
36 were also found to mimic the courtship displays of the
37
38 dominant girl among their group, behavior uncommon in
39
40 adults.
41
42
I (Moore, 1998) also compiled a catalog of nonverbal
43
44
45
rejection signals used by women either to indicate
46
47
disinterest in a potential partner or to pace the timing of
48
49 courtship behavior. Interestingly, although there were far
50
51 fewer rejection behaviors (17) when compared to courtship
52
53 signals (over 50), many of the rejection behaviors could be
54
55 conceptualized as the opposite of courting behavior. For
56
57 example, rather than lean forward with an open posture, the
58
59
60
Human Courtship 19
1
2
3 woman not interested in a man oriented her body away from
4
5 the man and crossed her arms over her chest. Other rejection
6
7
signals included facial expressions such as sneering or
8
9
10
frowning, and negative grooming behaviors such as picking at
11
12 teeth or nails.
13
14 There were a number of studies that although not
15
16 strictly observational in nature, addressed the perception
17
18 of behaviors documented in the field. In this regard, there
19
20 are some preliminary data (Moore, 1997) that indicated that
21
22 men experiencing problems in dating might be less adept
23
24 decoders of these nonverbal behaviors than those men who are
25
26 successful daters. Men who volunteered for a
27
28 multidimensional dating skills workshop were able to find
29
30 far fewer nonverbal courtship signals than control
31
32 participants when shown a video containing flirtatious as
33
34 well as neutral behaviors. Nonverbal sensitivity and skills
35
36 training seemed to improve dating outcomes. In order to
37
38 compare men experiencing problems in dating to those more
39
40 socially skilled, I (Moore, 2002b) looked at the perception
41
42
of nonverbal courtship and rejection behaviors by men and
43
44
45
women who were in college and regularly dating or in a
46
47
relationship. The evidence indicated that both courtship and
48
49 rejection signals may be rated differently in terms of
50
51 potency, depending on the sex of the viewer. Compared to
52
53 other studies of nonverbal decoding capability I did not
54
55 find that men were deficient in delineating courtship and
56
57 rejection signals exhibited by women. I did find
58
59
60
Human Courtship 20
1
2
3 disagreement by gender regarding the strength of the
4
5 nonverbal message in that men rated courtship signals as
6
7
sending a stronger communication than did women, while
8
9
10
seeing rejection behaviors in a weaker light than did women.
11
12 Similarly, Ostler (2003) found, when he surveyed 420
13
14 undergraduate students, that men interpreted most female
15
16 dating behaviors, including flirting, as more reflective of
17
18 sexual consent than did women. These results echo those
19
20 compiled in a variety of studies using a myriad of
21
22 methodologies (Abbey, 1982; Abbey & Melby, 1986; Goodchilds
23
24 & Zellman, 1984; Saal, Johnson, & Weber, 1989; Shotland &
25
26 Craig, 1988) to assess the perception of ambiguous
27
28 situations by men and women. Shotland and Craig argued that
29
30 it is not fruitful to label one gender correct and the other
31
32 wrong in their perceptions, but rather that men and women
33
34 have different thresholds for decoding the interest or lack
35
36 there of in a potential partner.
37
38 Grammer, with Kruck and Magnusson (1998), more
39
40 thoroughly investigated the role of nonverbal
41
42
synchronization and showed that a woman uses synchronization
43
44
45
of nonverbal behavior to test compatibility with a
46
47
particular man in whom she is interested. Grammer also used
48
49 a motion energy detection technique to analyze the nonverbal
50
51 courtship behavior of people from different cultures
52
53 (Grammer, Honda, Juette, & Schmitt, 1999). Finally, the rate
54
55 of courtship signaling on the part of women correlated
56
57 strongly with professed interest in men they met for the
58
59
60
Human Courtship 21
1
2
3 second time at Grammer’s laboratory (Grammer, Kruck, &
4
5 Juette, 2000).
6
7
In other ethological studies, observers found that
8
9
10
males send courtship signals in the form of gazes or glances
11
12 in initial interactions (Renninger, Wade, & Grammer, 2004;
13
14 Tragesser et al., 2002), but a complete catalog, based on a
15
16 large number of observations of the nonverbal courtship
17
18 behaviors employed by men, has yet to be compiled.
19
20 In a recent study (Offord, Hardy, Lamers, & Bergin,
21
22 2006) conducted in England, a small number of 60 to 80-year-
23
24 old patients in a psychotherapeutic group for people with a
25
26 dementia syndrome were observed. It appeared that flirting
27
28 served to help group members make connections with each
29
30 other. Other strategies employed to connect were teasing,
31
32 sharing jokes, relaying personal experiences, and requesting
33
34 advice.
35
36 Finally, Gueguen (2007) planted women, with either
37
38 normal or enhanced bust size, in nightclubs and found that
39
40 men were more likely to engage in courtship solicitation or
41
42
approaches when bust sizes were larger.
43
44
45
Self-report Studies
46
47
A number of researchers have decided to ask people
48
49 directly about courtship signaling, rather than conduct
50
51 laboratory or field observations. In this regard, Jesser
52
53 (1978) completed a survey of over 150 college students
54
55 enrolled in a course on sex roles, asking them about sexual
56
57 initiations, responses, and attitudes. Quite interesting is
58
59
60
Human Courtship 22
1
2
3 the part of the study that was aimed at determining which
4
5 sexual signaling behaviors were used by men and women and by
6
7
their partners. The most commonly used strategies for
8
9
10
signaling sexual interest were nonverbal; over 70% of both
11
12 men and women in this sample reported that they persuaded a
13
14 partner to have sex by using the strategies of touching
15
16 (snuggling, kissing, etc.) and allowing hands to wander.
17
18 Other nonverbal behaviors reported included eye contact,
19
20 touching, and teasing or game playing such as light
21
22 roughhousing. In another verbal report study (McCormick,
23
24 1979) over 100 male and female unmarried college students
25
26 were asked to write essays explaining how they might try to
27
28 influence a partner to have sexual intercourse, and what
29
30 they would do to avoid having sex with an aroused partner.
31
32 Both men and women reported using indirect strategies to
33
34 have sex and direct strategies to avoid sex. Indirect
35
36 strategies included body language and subtle hinting through
37
38 manipulations of one’s appearance or the setting, also
39
40 considered aspects of nonverbal communication.
41
42
In another early questionnaire study (Rowland, Crisler,
43
44
45
& Cox, 1982), college students at a private university
46
47
located in the Midwest were asked about the effects of
48
49 flirting between faculty and students. Some of the nonverbal
50
51 behaviors described by students as constituting flirting
52
53 included both brief and sustained eye contact, as well as
54
55 brief and sustained physical contact. Approximately, one
56
57 third of the students reported flirting with instructors or
58
59
60
Human Courtship 23
1
2
3 instructors flirting with them. Both women and men believed
4
5 that female students were the most probable initiators of
6
7
flirting and most respondents believed that flirting could
8
9
10
raise the grade of a female student. Even though flirting
11
12 was suspected to change the grades of some students, very
13
14 few respondents saw flirting as a serious problem on campus.
15
16 A few years later, both verbal and nonverbal cues used by
17
18 women to show interest in dating were examined (Muehlenhard,
19
20 Koralewski, Andrews, & Burdick, 1986). The nonverbal
21
22 behaviors reported in this sample were many of the same
23
24 behaviors listed above. Furthermore, the authors
25
26 recommended that therapists working with women who are
27
28 uncertain about how to convey interest to a man could use
29
30 these behaviors and through coaching, modeling, role-
31
32 playing, and feedback help women become more skilled than
33
34 they were prior to therapy.
35
36 In a novel approach, using self-report essays, Perper
37
38 and Weis (1987) discovered that both American and Canadian
39
40 women, regardless of socio-sexual and religious
41
42
conservatism, were adept at describing the behaviors they
43
44
45
might use to pique a man’s interest. That is, women were
46
47
very knowledgeable about and well aware of the power of
48
49 nonverbal courtship behaviors. Women described how to go
50
51 about attracting the attention of men using these behaviors.
52
53 More devout women, however, expressed a greater
54
55 unwillingness to use behaviors that are generally regarded
56
57 as more sexually overt, such as revealing part of the body
58
59
60
Human Courtship 24
1
2
3 or engaging in intimate touching. Thus, some women said they
4
5 would progress further along the continuum to behaviors that
6
7
result in sexual intercourse, while others stopped far
8
9
10
earlier in the sequence. What was true of both devout and
11
12 nonreligious women was that both were less clear at
13
14 elucidating those steps just prior to sexual intercourse.
15
16 Perper and Weis argued that this could very well be because
17
18 men are expected to orchestrate the later stages of sexual
19
20 intimacy.
21
22 In the same year (1987), Downey and Vitulli also looked
23
24 at the role of religious affiliation on the perception and
25
26 use of flirtatious behavior. They surveyed 93 college
27
28 students who varied by age, gender, marital status, class
29
30 level, GPA, and race/ethnicity as well as religion. They
31
32 asked these students a variety of questions about
33
34 flirtatious behaviors such as smiling and gazing at another.
35
36 Some of the queries involved their own participation and
37
38 reciprocation of such behaviors, whereas other questions had
39
40 to do with whether or not they would be flattered if they
41
42
were the target or jealous if they observed their partner
43
44
45
engaging in such behaviors. Although no differences by
46
47
religious affiliation were found, men were more likely to
48
49 say they would return flirtatious behaviors and to think
50
51 they would be successful in using them to seduce a married
52
53 woman. Younger respondents, as well as those who were early
54
55 in their college career and had lower GPAs, were more likely
56
57 to be flattered by being the target of flirting and be
58
59
60
Human Courtship 25
1
2
3 jealous if they saw their partner flirting. Single
4
5 respondents admitted to using flirting when they were
6
7
seriously interested in the potential partner.
8
9
10
In addition to expressing sexual interest, flirting
11
12 behaviors may be used to strengthen or intensify a dating
13
14 relationship between individuals. Tolhuizen (1989)
15
16 investigated just which behaviors were used to increase
17
18 intimacy in an established relationship and reportedly found
19
20 that both men and women commonly employed courtship signals.
21
22 Structured interviews were used (Fichten, Taglakis,
23
24 Judd, Wright, & Amsel, 1992) to ask men and women how they
25
26 express interest or disinterest in a potential dating
27
28 partner. No significant gender differences were reported in
29
30 the use of interest cues. Both men and women were able to
31
32 describe a wide variety of cues for expressing interest,
33
34 including verbal, visual, and paralinguistic signals. The
35
36 participants described interest cues more specifically than
37
38 disinterest cues. Most of the cues related to expressing
39
40 romantic interest were nonverbal and were similar to the
41
42
behaviors reported in earlier studies.
43
44
45
Based on answers to questionnaires (Abrahams, 1994) it
46
47
appeared that men and women used nonverbal behaviors,
48
49 including many of those described previously such as
50
51 repeated eye contact, the coy smile, forward lean, or touch,
52
53 as well as sexual assertiveness, overtness, invitation,
54
55 playfulness, and unconventionality to judge the
56
57 flirtatiousness of a communication from someone of the
58
59
60
Human Courtship 26
1
2
3 opposite sex. Men were slightly more likely to see
4
5 invitations communicating stronger intent than were women.
6
7
The same year (1994), also via the questionnaire approach,
8
9
10
Greer and Buss discovered that women were well informed
11
12 about the use of nonverbal courtship signals in attracting a
13
14 partner. Some of the most frequently performed acts listed
15
16 by women to attract a potential partner were laughing,
17
18 smiling, leaning forward and acting interested in what the
19
20 man had to say, and touching and hand-holding.
21
22 In a research project conducted in The Netherlands de
23
24 Weerth and Kalma (1995) found, through responses to
25
26 questionnaires completed by Dutch students, that both men
27
28 and women believed that women more appropriately initiated
29
30 courtship. Nearly 70% of women thought that they would feel
31
32 comfortable revealing their interest in a man. Both male and
33
34 female respondents reported eye contact as the most
35
36 frequently used initiation vehicle. Men did report using
37
38 somewhat more verbal tactics in initiation, whereas women
39
40 said they engaged primarily in nonverbal means of indicating
41
42
attraction.
43
44
45
Messman, Canary, and Hause (2000) found, when they
46
47
questioned undergraduate students, that one strategy
48
49 commonly used to maintain the stability of an opposite-sex
50
51 friendship was to refrain from flirting with the friend.
52
53 Students reported abstaining from behaviors such as touching
54
55 and gazing into the eyes of the friend. “Not flirting” was
56
57 not the only maintenance strategy used by students. They
58
59
60
Human Courtship 27
1
2
3 also reported supportive behaviors such as giving and
4
5 seeking advice as well as sharing fun activities.
6
7
In one of the few studies (Rose & Zand, 2002) to
8
9
10
explore the courtship scripts employed by lesbians,
11
12 questionnaires were used once again. Both verbal and
13
14 nonverbal behaviors, including many described previously,
15
16 were the primary means of communicating sexual attraction as
17
18 reported by the participants.
19
20 Using both a survey and interviews, Ballard, Green and
21
22 Granger (2003) found that mock aggressive behaviors such as
23
24 tickling, chasing, pretend slapping, and throwing objects,
25
26 all seen by researchers in observational studies of
27
28 courtship, increased in frequency from childhood through the
29
30 early adult years. According to the respondents, who
31
32 averaged 20 years in age, such behaviors were common among
33
34 both friends and romantic partners. Romantic situations were
35
36 most likely to result in the following nonverbal behaviors:
37
38 tickling, butt slaps, pinning, biting, spanking, and
39
40 pretending to tear clothing. Respondents viewed these
41
42
behaviors in a positive light and saw them having positive
43
44
45
outcomes for the relationship such as increasing fun and
46
47
emotional attachment.
48
49 In another study combining research methods O’Farrell,
50
51 Rosenthal, and O’Neal (2003) used both videotaped
52
53 presentations of flirtatious vs. friendly stimulus
54
55 individuals and questionnaires to assess perceptions and
56
57 reactions to both verbal and nonverbal flirting by people
58
59
60
Human Courtship 28
1
2
3 who were single or partnered. In the video study single
4
5 individuals and men regarded nonmates as more attractive and
6
7
flirtatious. On the other hand, in the questionnaire study
8
9
10
nonpartnered respondents and women reported being more
11
12 likely to flirt in response to another individual flirting
13
14 with them, as did both men and women who reported low
15
16 satisfaction in their relationship.
17
18 Henningsen (2004) used interviews to assess the
19
20 motivations most commonly ascribed by men and women to those
21
22 using flirtatious nonverbal behaviors. Men tended to view
23
24 flirting as more sexual than did women who saw flirting as
25
26 being associated with fun and relational motives.
27
28 Grammer, Renninger and Fischer (2004) looked at the
29
30 relationship between a woman’s clothing choice, sexual
31
32 motivation, hormone levels and relationship status in 351
33
34 women in Austrian discotheques. They did so by digitally
35
36 analyzing clothing to look at amount of skin displayed, as
37
38 well as tightness and sheerness of the attire. Hormone
39
40 levels were tested via saliva sampling. Participants
41
42
reported motivation for attending the dance club on a
43
44
45
questionnaire. Single women, when compared to partnered
46
47
women, were more likely to report going to the discos to
48
49 pursue sexual opportunities or to flirt, whereas the most
50
51 frequent motivation reported by all women was that of
52
53 meeting new people. Nevertheless, most women at discos wore
54
55 what would be considered, both by the investigators and
56
57 others, to be sexy dress--displaying some skin, and being
58
59
60
Human Courtship 29
1
2
3 both sheer and tight. This was true, regardless of hormone
4
5 levels or relationship status, and led the authors to
6
7
postulate that clothing choice may be a fruitful avenue for
8
9
10
the exploration of potential signaling in actual courtship
11
12 contexts.
13
14 Finally, the role of flirting by exotic dancers was
15
16 assessed using interviews conducted with over 100 dancers in
17
18 several cities across the U.S. (Deshotels & Forsyth, 2006).
19
20 Dancers reported using behaviors, including smiling and
21
22 extended eye contact, to flirt with customers and increase
23
24 their tips. Increased income was not the only motivation for
25
26 flirting. Dancers also said that they enjoyed the power over
27
28 customers that flirting gave them and felt that they were
29
30 more in control of their sexuality through the exhibition or
31
32 withholding of these behaviors during exotic dancing when
33
34 compared to other occupations.
35
36 Summary and Conclusion
37
38 There are a number of points I want to make after this
39
40 brief historical review. According to a number of
41
42
investigators (i.e. Cary, Kendon, McCormick and Jones,
43
44
45
Moore, Perper, Perper and Weis, and de Weerth and Kalma) the
46
47
woman often makes the first move. Because her move is
48
49 subtle--perhaps standing close to her target or looking at
50
51 him--it is understandable that men have come to be seen as
52
53 initiators in the courtship process. Nevertheless, Timothy
54
55 Perper estimated that in about two thirds of the cases, the
56
57 woman made the first move. But in fact, neither gender
58
59
60
Human Courtship 30
1
2
3 dominates a successful flirtation. Each person takes turns
4
5 at influencing the partner and at signaling that the other’s
6
7
influence attempts are welcome. Women, however, do seem to
8
9
10
be responsible for the earlier stages of courtship and men
11
12 appear to orchestrate the steps just prior to sexual
13
14 intercourse. In the intervening stages, each member of the
15
16 pair takes turns at escalating a successful courtship. At
17
18 any point along the way courtship may become derailed
19
20 because either partner may choose to opt out.
21
22 Thus, courtship, as a process, can be conceptualized as
23
24 a number (anywhere from 4 to 24 have been proposed) of key
25
26 stages or phases--a macro approach used by scientists such
27
28 as Birdwhistell, Givens, Morris, Perper, and Scheflen.
29
30 Within those stages are specific behaviors (a micro
31
32 approach) that have been documented by a many researchers
33
34 using vastly different methodologies--field observations,
35
36 laboratory studies, questionnaires, interviews, and essays.
37
38 At this point there is a great deal of agreement about these
39
40 specific behaviors and some agreement about the order in
41
42
which they occur--the stages. In addition, none of this is a
43
44
45
secret to the general population. Many people can readily
46
47
describe at least some aspects of nonverbal courtship
48
49 behavior. There is, however, some variability in decoding
50
51 ability. And, there may be a difference in threshold for
52
53 perceiving flirtatiousness rather than friendliness, with
54
55 men having a lower threshold than women.
56
57
58
59
60
Human Courtship 31
1
2
3 Obviously there is still much to be done. There is far
4
5 less known about the courtship behavior of men than of
6
7
women. Only recently, have there been a few studies on the
8
9
10
courtship signaling of lesbians, but a comparable
11
12 investigation into that of gay men has yet to be published.
13
14 Much of the past research has involved the investigation of
15
16 attraction in White, college-aged individuals, and the lack
17
18 of diversity in terms of age is less troubling, given that
19
20 young adulthood is the peak developmental phase for finding
21
22 a mate, than that with regard to race or ethnicity.
23
24 Furthermore, cross-cultural comparisons are difficult to
25
26 make since studies from a variety of countries are few and
27
28 far between. Nevertheless, there are a number of projects
29
30 underway. Some of these projects are extensions of earlier
31
32 work in the area, whereas others explore new territory. And,
33
34 in keeping with the historical overview I presented above,
35
36 scientists from a number of different disciplines are
37
38 conducting these investigations using a variety of
39
40 theoretical orientations to guide research protocols they
41
42
have developed employing different methodologies.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Human Courtship 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 References
35
36 Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for
37
38 friendly behavior: do males misperceive females’
39
40 friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social
41
42
Psychology, 42, 830-838.
43
44
45
Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effect of nonverbal
46
47
cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual
48
49 intent. Sex Roles, 15, 283-298.
50
51 Abrahams, M. F. (1994). Perceiving flirtatious
52
53 communication: An exploration of the perceptual
54
55 dimensions underlying judgments of flirtatiousness. The
56
57 Journal of Sex Research, 31, 283-292.
58
59
60
Human Courtship 33
1
2
3 Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior:
4
5 Sampling methods. Behavior, 49, 227-267.
6
7
Argyle, M. (1999). The development of social coping
8
9
10
skills. In E. Frydenerg (Ed.), Learning to cope:
11
12 Developing as a person in complex societies (pp. 81-
13
14 106). London: Oxford University Press.
15
16 Ballard, M., Green, S., & Granger, C. (2003).
17
18 Affiliation, flirting, and fun: Mock aggressive
19
20 behavior in college students. The Psychological
21
22 Record, 53, 33-49.
23
24 Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context.
25
26 Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
27
28 Buss, D. (1994). The evolution of human desire: Strategies
29
30 of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
31
32 Cary, M. S. (1976). Talk? Do you want to talk? Negotiation
33
34 for the initiation of conversation between the
35
36 unacquainted. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
37
38 University of Pennsylvania.
39
40 Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of the species by means
41
42
of natural selection, or preservation of favored races
43
44
45
in the struggle for life. London: Murray.
46
47
Davis, F. (1971). Inside intuition. New York: McGraw-
48
49 Hill.
50
51 Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene (2nd ed.). New York:
52
53 Oxford University Press.
54
55 Deshotels, T., & Forsyth, C. (2006). Strategic flirting
56
57
58
59
60
Human Courtship 34
1
2
3 and the emotional tab of exotic dancing. Deviant
4
5 Behavior, 27, 223-241.
6
7
Downey, J., & Vitulli, W. (1987). Self-report measures of
8
9
10
behavioral attributions related to interpersonal
11
12 flirtation situations. Psychological Reports, 61,
13
14 899-904.
15
16 Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1971). Love and hate. New York:
17
18 Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
19
20 Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in
21
22 facial expressions of emotions. In J. Cole (Ed.),
23
24 Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 207-283).
25
26 Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
27
28 Fichten, C.S., Taglakis, V., Judd, D., Wright, J., & Amsel,
29
30 (1992). Verbal and nonverbal communication cues
31
32 in daily conversation and dating. Journal of Social
33
34 Psychology, 132, 751-769.
35
36 Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The
37
38 social sources of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.
39
40 Givens, D. (1978). The nonverbal basis of attraction:
41
42
Flirtation, courtship, and seduction. Psychiatry, 41,
43
44
45
346-359.
46
47
Goodchilds, J.D., & Zellman, G. L. (1984). Sexual
48
49 signaling and sexual aggression in adolescent
50
51 relationships. In N. M. Malamuth & E. Donnerstein
52
53 (Eds.), Pornography and sexual aggression (pp. 233-
54
55 243). New York: Academic Press.
56
57 Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and
58
59
60
Human Courtship 35
1
2
3 nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters.
4
5 Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 209-236.
6
7
Grammer, K., Honda, H., Juette, A., & Schmitt, A. (1999).
8
9
10
Fuzziness of nonverbal courtship communication
11
12 unblurred by motion energy detection. Journal of
13
14 Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 487-508.
15
16 Grammer, K., Kruck, K., & Juette, A. (2000). Non-verbal
17
18 behavior as courtship signals: The role of control and
19
20 choice in selecting partners. Evolution & Human
21
22 Behavior, 2, 371-390.
23
24 Grammer, K., Kruck, K. B., & Magnusson, M. S. (1998). The
25
26 courtship dance: Patterns of nonverbal synchronization
27
28 in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal
29
30 Behavior, 22, 3-29.
31
32 Grammer, K., Renninger, L., & Fischer, B. (2004). Disco
33
34 clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationship
35
36 status: Is she dressed to impress? The Journal of Sex
37
38 Research, 41, 66-74.
39
40 Greer. A. E., & Buss, D. M. (1994). Tactics for promoting
41
42
sexual encounters. The Journal of Sex Research, 31,
43
44
45
185-201.
46
47
Gueguen, N. (2007). Women’s bust size and men’s courtship
48
49 solicitation. Body Image, 4(4), 386-390.
50
51 Henningsen, D. (2004). Flirting with meaning: An
52
53 examination of miscommunication in flirting
54
55 interactions. Sex Roles, 50, 481-489.
56
57 Hogben, M., & Byrne, D. (1998). Using social learning
58
59
60
Human Courtship 36
1
2
3 theory to explain individual differences in human
4
5 sexuality. The Journal Of Sex Research, 35, 58-72.
6
7
Jesser, C. J. (1978). Male responses to direct verbal
8
9
10
sexual initiatives of females. The Journal of Sex
11
12 Research, 14, 118-128.
13
14 Kendon, A. (1975). Some functions of the face in a
15
16 kissing round. Semiotica, 15, 299-334.
17
18 Kendon, A., & Ferber, A. (1973). A description of some
19
20 human greetings. In R. P. Michael & J. H. Crook (Eds.),
21
22 Comparative ecology and behavior of primates (pp. 558-
23
24 592). London: Academic Press.
25
26 Lockard, J. S., & Adams, R. M. (1980). Courtship
27
28 behaviors in public: Different age/sex roles. Ethology
29
30 and Sociobiology, 1, 245-253.
31
32 McCormick, N. B. (1979). Come-ons and put-offs:
33
34 Unmarried students’ strategies for having and avoiding
35
36 sexual intercourse. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4,
37
38 194-211.
39
40 McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1989). Gender
41
42
differences in nonverbal flirtation. Journal of Sex
43
44
45
Education & Therapy, 15, 271-282.
46
47
McCormick, N. B., Perper, T., & Jones, A. J. (1983,
48
49 April). Bar hopping as science: Results and
50
51 methodological issues related to naturalistic
52
53 observational research in bars. Paper presented at the
54
55 Eastern Region Conference of the Society for the
56
57 Scientific Study of Sex, Philadelphia.
58
59
60
Human Courtship 37
1
2
3 Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago:
4
5 Aldine.
6
7
Messman, S., Canary, D. & Hause, K. (2000). Motives to
8
9
10
remain platonic, equity, and the use of maintenance
11
12 strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of
13
14 Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 67-94.
15
16 Moore, M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in
17
18 women: Context and consequences. Ethology and
19
20 Sociobiology, 6, 237-247.
21
22 Moore, M. (1995). Courtship signaling and adolescents:
23
24 ‘Girls just wanna have fun’? The Journal of Sex
25
26 Research, 32, 319-328.
27
28 Moore, M. (1997, November). Nonverbal courtship
29
30 signaling: Flunking flirting 101. Paper presented at
31
32 the Joint Annual Meeting of the Society for the
33
34 Scientific Study of Sexuality and the American
35
36 Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and
37
38 Therapists, Arlington, Virginia.
39
40 Moore, M. (1998). Nonverbal courtship patterns in
41
42
women: rejection signaling--an empirical investigation.
43
44
45
Semiotica, 3, 205-215.
46
47
Moore, M. (2002a). Behavioral observation. In M.
48
49 Wiederman & B. Whitley, Jr., (Eds.), Handbook for
50
51 conducting research on human sexuality (pp. 113-137).
52
53 Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
54
55 Moore, M. (2002b). Courtship communication and
56
57 perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 97-105.
58
59
60
Human Courtship 38
1
2
3 Moore, M., & Butler, D. (1989). Predictive aspects
4
5 of nonverbal courtship behavior in women. Semiotica, 3,
6
7
205-215.
8
9
10
Morris, D. (1971). Intimate behavior. New York: Random
11
12 House.
13
14 Muehlenhard, C., Koralewski, M., Andrews, S., &
15
16 Burdick, C. (1986). Verbal and nonverbal cues that
17
18 convey interest in dating: Two studies. Behavior
19
20 Therapy, 17, 404-419.
21
22 O’Farrell, K. J., Rosenthal, E. N., & O’Neal, E. C. (2003).
23
24 Relationship satisfaction and responsiveness to
25
26 nonmates’ flirtation: Testing an evolutionary
27
28 explanation. Journal of Social and Personal
29
30 Relationships, 20, 663-674.
31
32 Offord, R., Hardy, G., Lamers, C., & Bergin, L. (2006).
33
34 Teaching, teasing, flirting and fighting. Dementia,
35
36 5, 167-195.
37
38 Ostler, T. A. (2003). Verbal and nonverbal dating behavior
39
40 and sexual consent: Implication for miscommunication
41
42
between men and women. Dissertation Abstracts
43
44
45
International, 64(07B), 3584.
46
47
Perper, T. (1985). Sex signals: The biology of love.
48
49 Philadelphia: ISI Press.
50
51 Perper, T. (1989). Theories and observations on sexual
52
53 selection and female choice in human beings. Medical
54
55 Anthropology, 11, 409-454.
56
57 Perper, T., & Weis, D. (1987). Proceptive and rejective
58
59
60
Human Courtship 39
1
2
3 strategies of U.S. and Canadian college women. The
4
5 Journal of Sex Research, 23, 455-480.
6
7
Renninger, L., Wade, J. & Grammer, K. (2004). Getting
8
9
10
that female glance: Patterns and consequences of male
11
12 nonverbal behavior in courtship contexts. Evolution and
13
14 Human Behavior, 25, 416-431.
15
16 Rose, S., & Zand, D. (2002). Lesbian dating and courtship
17
18 from young adulthood to midlife. Journal of Lesbian
19
20 Studies, 6, 85-109.
21
22 Rowland, D., Crisler, L., & Cox, D. (1982). Flirting
23
24 between college students and faculty. The Journal of
25
26 Sex Research, 18, 346-359.
27
28 Saal, R. E., Johnson, C. B., & Weber, N. (1989). Friendly
29
30 or sexy? It may depend on whom you ask. Psychology of
31
32 Women Quarterly, 13, 263-276.
33
34 Scheflen, A. E. (1965). Quasi-courtship behavior in
35
36 psychotherapy. Psychiatry, 28, 245-257.
37
38 Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women
39
40 differentiate between friendly and sexually interested
41
42
behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66-73.
43
44
45
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1987). A sexual scripts
46
47
approach. In J. H. Geer & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.),
48
49 Theories of human sexuality (pp. 363-383). New York:
50
51 Plenum.
52
53 Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Biek, M. (1993).
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Human Courtship 40
1
2
3 Personality and nonverbal social behavior: An
4
5 ethological perspective of relationship initiation.
6
7
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 434-461.
8
9
10
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality.
11
12 Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13
14 Tolhuizen, J. H. (1989). Communication strategies for
15
16 intensifying dating relationships: Identification, use,
17
18 and structure. Journal of Social and Personal
19
20 Relationships, 6, 413-434.
21
22 Tragesser, S., Cvetkovich, G., Lemm, K., Symons, L.,
23
24 Dinnel, D., & Mixon, L. (2002, June). Eye gazes as
25
26 courtship signals in mixed-sex dyadic interactions.
27
28 Poster session presented at the annual meeting of Human
29
30 Behavior and Evolution Society, New Brunswick, NJ.
31
32 Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual
33
34 selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and
35
36 the descent of man, 1871-1971 (pp 139-179). Chicago:
37
38 Aldine.
39
40 Veague, P. (1974). Quasi-courting in the clinical
41
42
interview. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 44,
43
44
45
101-109.
46
47
Walsh, D. G., & Hewitt, J. (1985). Giving men the come-
48
49 on: Effect of eye contact and smiling in a bar
50
51 environment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 873-874.
52
53 Weerth, C. de, & Kalma, A. (1995). Gender differences in
54
55 awareness of courtship initiation tactics. Sex Roles,
56
57 32, 717-73.
58
59
60
Human Courtship 41
1
2
3 Weis, D. (1998). Special issue: The use of theory in
4
5 research and scholarship on sexuality. The Journal of
6
7
Sex Research, 35, 1-124.
8
9
10
Weis, D. (2002). The need to integrate sexual theory and
11
12 research. In M. Wiederman & B. Whitley, Jr. (Eds.),
13
14 Handbook for conducting research on human sexuality
15
16 (pp. 7-24). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
17
18 Publishers.
19
20 Wiederman, M., & Whitley, Jr., B. (Eds.). (2002).
21
22 Handbook for conducting research on human sexuality.
23
24 Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
25
26 Willis, F., & Briggs, L. (1992). Relationship and touch in
27
28 public settings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16,
29
30 55-63.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Human Courtship 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
View publication stats

Monica Moore Review 2010 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Monica Moore Review 2010 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Human Nonverbal Courtship Behavior—A Brief Historical Review

Article in The Journal of Sex Research · March 2010

No title--see below View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Human Nonverbal Courtship Behavior--A Brief Historical

Journal: The Journal of Sex Research

Manuscript ID: 09-039

Manuscript Type: ARSR Review

Attraction/Courtship Behavior, Communication/Language/Nonverbal

View publication stats

S-ar putea să vă placă și