Men and women who seek to attract potential partners for either short-term hookups or long-term romantic relationships often initiate contact using some flirtation strategy, which may involve verbal (opening lines, humor) or nonverbal (dress, dance moves, smile, gift-giving) behavior.
Human flirtation, we may note, is unique within the animal kingdom, in which males seek to attract a potential mate’s attention by honestly representing their quality, allowing females to choose the best males by selecting those that produce the highest-intensity signals. Human flirting behavior, however, is characterized by subtlety, ambiguity, and covertness. Why would that be?
University of Pennsylvania psychologists Andrew Gersick and Robert Kurzban (2014) proposed that the explanation is rooted in the potential social costs of human flirting to all involved: judgment, hostility, rejection, humiliation, reputational damage, etc. In this view, flirters who are flexible and socially attuned, adjusting to social context and minimizing risk, are viewed by the receivers favorably, signaling that they possess broader behavioral flexibility and social intelligence, both of which are highly adaptive, and hence valued in potential human partners.
So, human flirtation is nuanced and tactical. The question arises as to the nature and effectiveness of different flirtation tactics: Do different approaches work for men vs. women, or in short- vs. long-term quests? One way to understand and evaluate flirting behavior is via the Sexual Strategies Theory (SST) perspective, which argues that different mate acquisition tactics will prove most efficient depending on sex and the mating context (short- or long-term). Thus, for example, cues to sexual availability should prove more effective when used by women in a short-term mating context. Conversely, acts of generosity that denote commitment and investment will prove more effective when used by men in a long-term mating context.
A series of four studies by U.S. researchers T. Joel Wade and Jennifer Slemp (2015) explored how men and women flirt and the effectiveness of different approaches. Study 1 (n = 40) and Study 2 (n = 60) looked at how men and women, respectively, indicate romantic interest to a partner. Study 3 (n = 110) sought to determine which female flirtatious acts are perceived as most effective by men. Study 4 (n = 222) sought to determine which male flirtatious acts are perceived as most effective by women. The results of Studies 1 and 2 showed that flirtations for long- and short-term relationships did not differ. The list of flirtatious acts for males was longer than that generated for females (26 vs. 14). Study 3 found 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. While results for Study 4 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.
In sum, the authors note that, as SST would predict, “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.”
More recently (2022), Norwegian researcher Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair and colleagues used Norwegian and U.S. convenience samples (N = 415 and 577, respectively) of heterosexual participants who answered survey questions about 40 different flirtation tactics, as well as their socio-sexuality, mate value, extraversion, religiosity, and demographics. Each participant responded to one of four flirtation scenarios, presented randomly:
(1) A woman flirting for short-term sex with a man
(2) A woman flirting for a long-term relationship with a man
(3) A man flirting for short-term sex with a woman
(4) A man flirting for a long-term relationship with a woman
Results showed that sexual availability cues (e.g., physical contact, display of body, and sexy dress) were rated more effective than friendly contact (such as hugs or kissing on the cheek) or humor when used by women in short-term mating contexts. Cues for generosity and commitment, as well as humor and taking part in intimate conversations, were judged most effective when used by men in long-term mating contexts. Laughing or giggling at someone’s jokes was an effective flirtation tactic for both sexes.
Six tactics overlapped on the top 10 lists for women and men in the short-term context. However, the most effective tactics for women were exclusively sexual or physical, while men were judged more effective if they also smiled, showed interest in conversations, gave compliments, and made the woman laugh. For long-term mating, the top 10 male and female tactics were almost identical (overlap: 9 of 10).
Overall, individual differences (such as extraversion, mate value, and religiosity) did not meaningfully predict flirting effectiveness. And while some cultural differences were found (for example, the U.S. sample rated bodily displays, initial contact, and generosity as more effective flirting techniques), they were overshadowed by the robust differences based on sex and mating context, hinting at the evolved biological dispositions underneath the widespread behavioral patterns.
