Getting that female glance: Patterns and consequences of male nonverbal behavior in courtship contexts

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.006Get rights and content

Abstract

Females apparently are the choosier sex in courtship contexts, but there still is limited information about female selection criteria in real courtship settings. Given that a female knows little about a heretofore unacquainted male, upon what dimensions can (and do) females base their initial courtship decisions? Here, we report findings from observational studies that investigated male nonverbal behavior in a bar context. Study 1 documented the body movements of males prior to making contact with a female. It was found that males who successfully made “contact” courtship initiation with females exhibited different body language in this precontact phase than did males who did not make contact with females, including significantly more glancing behaviors, space-maximization movements, intrasexual touching, and less closed-body movements. The findings from a second within-subject study comparing the behavior of men in a bar when women were present or not present supported the initial study's findings and showed that males' emphasis on these behaviors increases in a mate-relevant context. We suggest that certain aspects of male nonverbal behavior in courtship contexts can serve as self-presentation and mate-value signals.

Introduction

In courtship settings, one important source of mate-choice information is nonverbal communication, or “body language.” Research shows that body language plays an important role in forming first impressions, the communication of intentions (Hecht, Devito, Gueriero, & Spitbek, 1990), and a regulatory role in the progression of relationship contingencies (Givens, 1978). Nonverbal cues are given more credence than are verbal cues (Archer & Akert, 1977, Argyle et al., 1971), and females, in particular, are highly sensitive to nonverbal messages (Hall, 1978, Hall, 1984). Observational and interview studies indicate that solicitation in courtship interactions is mainly done (1) by the female and (2) through nonverbal messages. Kendon (1975) filmed a couple seated on a park bench to record the role of nonverbal cues in the progression of a kissing round. He found that it was the female's behavior, particularly her facial expressions, which moderated the behavior of the male. Grammer, Kruck, Juette, and Fink (2000) also showed that females influence courtship encounters through nonverbal signaling. Analysis of courtship interactions showed that women moved toward a consistent nonverbal repertoire at the end of a courtship encounter and that the quantity of male verbal self-presentation varied according to the female's nonverbal behavior.

Moore (1985) analyzed nonverbal signaling within several settings to construct a catalog of female nonverbal solicitation signals. When a woman elicited certain nonverbal signals (e.g., eye contact followed by immediate eye aversion), it was found that those signals directly or indirectly resulted in the approach and/or maintained attention of a man. In the attention (soliciting interest) and recognition (acknowledging interest) phase of courtship (see Givens, 1978), the initial moves of making nonverbal contact are performed more frequently by females than by males. Females attract attention by displaying subtle nonverbal solicitation signals. These signals are important because, as Crook (1972) found, males are hesitant to approach a female in the absence of substantial eye contact and nonverbal indications of interest (see also Cary, 1976). Thus, it is usually the male who makes the first verbal conversation-initiation move with an unacquainted female, but only if he has received the appropriate nonverbal signals from the female.

These findings make sense given that women, with their higher reproductive investment (Trivers, 1972), are likely to be the “selectors” and, thereby, the initiators in the courtship process. Such findings increase our understanding of female mate-selection mechanisms. However, further questions remain. Given limited information about a heretofore unacquainted male, upon what dimensions can (and do) females base their courtship decisions? Within a courtship setting, what can (and do) males do to increase their chances of being selected by a female? Despite the ongoing activity in human courtship research, a specific ethogram of male nonverbal behavior in field settings has yet to be constructed. The present research seeks to fill this void and to answer the aforementioned questions.

We hypothesize that many nonverbal behaviors displayed by men in courtship contexts work to facilitate their chances of receiving the necessary “its okay to approach” signals of the female. Because females are the choosers, it makes sense that males might increase their chances of receiving appropriate courtship signals by nonverbally signaling the characteristics that females have been under evolutionary pressure to value. We predict that at least six main areas of nonverbal communication will be implicated in the male mate-value signaling process.

Person perception researchers have found that touching patterns offer affordances about the relative social status of members in a group. From an observer's perspective, reciprocal touch is often perceived as solace, affection, and/or emotive empathy (Summerhayes & Sucher, 1978). Nonreciprocal touch, on the other hand, is often perceived as a dominance–submission pattern, or status differential (Burgoon, 1991, Summerhayes & Suchner, 1978). “Touchers” are perceived as having more status and more social power than do those being touched, or those not touching at all (Burgoon, 1991). Because high social power is a trait that females have been under evolutionary pressure to value in a mate, we predict that, in a nonreciprocal male-to-male touching interaction (e.g., one male touches another male's shoulder), the male doing the touching will be more successful with females than will the male who is being touched. In addition, males who reciprocate the touch of another male should be more successful with females than would males who only receive touch.

Within many social species, the most dominant member commands the largest space (Alcock, 1993). This tendency has been documented in humans, as well as other animals, including the command of personal as well as physical space (e.g., Henley, 1977). In addition, maximizing the body space through actions such as stretching or extending the arms/legs across adjacent chairs serves to make the male a larger/more conspicuous target. We predict that males who exhibit more space-maximization movements will be more successful with females than will males who exhibit less space-maximization movements.

Open-body positions include outward limb movements that avoid “crossing off” the main body torso (Mehrabian, 1972). Communicators with a closed or constricted body position (e.g., arms folded across the chest) are perceived as having less social power (Archer, 1980, Goffman, 1961, Schlenker, 1980). Communicators who display open-body positions are judged as more potent, active, and persuasive (Mehrabian, 1972) and more interpersonally oriented and attractive (McGinley, LeFevre, & McGinley, 1975). We predict that males who exhibit less closed-body behaviors will be more successful with females than will males who exhibit more closed-body behaviors.

A female's eye contact is an important regulator of a male's approach in courtship situations (Cary, 1976, Crook, 1972), and both males and females report eye contact to be the most frequently used courtship-initiation tactic (Weerth & Kalma, 1995). In addition, females report discomfort in being approached by a male in a bar setting when she “has not noticed/has not yet made eye contact” with that male (Renninger & Bradbury, in preparation). To achieve the necessary eye contact of surrounding females, a male needs to glance around. Consequently, we predict that males who exhibit more glancing behaviors will be more successful with females than will males who exhibit less glancing behaviors.

Gesticulation refers to the movement of the hands and forearms to accompany, emphasize, or symbolically represent spoken words (Dittman, 1972). Dittman (1972) found that social power was communicated through the use of frequent and expressive hand gestures. In addition, “palm-up” gestures are perceived by observers as an indication of communicator's openness and agreeableness (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1971). We predict that males who exhibit more gesturing and more palm-up gestures will be more successful with females than will males who exhibit less gesturing and less palm-up gestures.

The behavior of automanipulation is often called “autistic gestures,” or “self-directed behavior,” and includes such behaviors as rubbing the face, scratching, or playing with one's hair. Automanipulations often occur out of context and lack true functions (e.g., picking invisible lint off of one's pants). Automanipulatory behaviors are most often conceptualized as “displacement-like activities” (Givens, 1978), a form of behavior in which tension from ambivalent motivations (e.g., desire to approach and fear of approach) is replaced by active or passive participation in a secondary activity (Harrison, 1965). The prevalence of displacement activities within the courtship rituals of many species has been noted (e.g., Dilger, 1962, Harrison, 1965, McKinney, 1965). In many cases, automanipulations become exaggerated and display-oriented that they may communicate information about general motivational state. In humans, displacement activities may serve as covert attention signals, interpreted by a receiver as a message that their presence affects the performer (Givens, 1978).

We predict that the automanipulatory behaviors of males will increase as the mate relevance of the context increases. However, our expectations for contact outcomes are not clear. Castles, Whitens, and Aureli (1999) found that automanipulations can be used as a measure of interaction “uncertainty” within nonhuman primates. They found that automanipulations increased by more than 40% when the individual was in close proximity to a dominant conspecific, compared with when the individual was in close proximity to a subordinate conspecific. In humans, excessive automanipulations may be interpreted as a sign of high social anxiety or low social power and, therefore, may not be conducive to a female's evolutionary linked preferences. In the studies reported here, this measure will be exploratory.

Section snippets

Study 1: Ethological study of contact successful and unsuccessful men

Can male nonverbal behavior in courtship settings have mate-relevant meanings? In Study 1, we used naturalistic observation to document the nonverbal behavior of males in a bar, prior to them making verbal contact with unacquainted females. We were interested in the following questions: (1) Did males who made “successful” contact-initiation with females act differently in the precontact phase, compared with males who did not make contact? (2) Are there nonverbal correlates of a male's professed

Study 2: Within-subject comparison of men's behavior in a bar when women are present or not

To further investigate the patterns and consequences of male nonverbal behavior in courtship-relevant contexts, a repeated-measures design was used to determine the extent to which nonverbal behaviors differ in the presence of women from the behaviors when women were absent from the same bar. If the nonverbal behavior of males in courtship settings functions as a courtship self-presentation display, systematic patterns in signaling should be limited to mate-relevant contexts.

General discussion

Research on mate-value and mate-selection signaling has previously tended to focus on females. The current research suggests, however, that the nonverbal behavior of males, too, may be relevant in mate-selection contexts. Like females, males may use nonverbal signals to present aspects of themselves or signal self-relevant claims to females whom they have not yet met, including especially the areas of direct glancing, space-maximization movements, the touching of other males, automanipulations,

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Elizabeth Ponocy-Seliger, Meg Bradbury, and Bernhard Fink for their assistance with the current research.

References (52)

  • D. Archer et al.

    Words and everything else: verbal and nonverbal cues in social interpretation

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1977)
  • M. Argyle et al.

    The communication of friendly and hostile attitudes by verbal and nonverbal signals

    European Journal of Social Psychology

    (1971)
  • J.M. Bland et al.

    Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method

    British Medical Journal

    (1995)
  • P.W. Blythe et al.

    Human simulation of adaptive behavior: interactive studies of pursuit, evasion, courtship, fighting, and play

  • J.K. Burgoon

    Relational message interpretations of touch, conversation, distance, and posture

    Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

    (1991)
  • Cary, M. S. (1976). Do you want to talk? Negotiation for the initiation of conversation between the unacquainted. PhD...
  • J.H. Crook

    Sexual selection, dimorphism, and social organization in primates

  • M. Cunningham et al.

    What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male physical attractiveness

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • A.R. Damasio

    The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences

    (1996)
  • W.C. Dilger

    The behavior of love birds

    Scientific American

    (1962)
  • A.T. Dittmann

    Interpersonal messages of emotion

    (1972)
  • I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt

    Ethology: the biology of behavior

    (1971)
  • R.A. Fisher

    The genetic theory of natural selection, 2nd ed

    (1958)
  • I. Folstad et al.

    Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap

    American Naturalist

    (1992)
  • G. Gigerenzer et al.

    Simple heuristics that make us smart

    (1999)
  • D. Givens

    The nonverbal basis of attraction: flirtation, courtship and seduction

    Psychiatry

    (1978)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text