Getting that female glance: Patterns and consequences of male nonverbal behavior in courtship contexts
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)
The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: sexual selection and human morphology
Ethology and Sociobiology
(1995)- et al.
Social anxiety, relationships and self-directed behavior among wild female olive baboons
Animal Behavior
(1999) - et al.
Non-verbal behavior as courtship signals: the role of control and choice in selecting partners
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2000) - et al.
Male facial attractiveness: evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2001) - et al.
Emotions and reason: the proximate effects and ultimate functions of emotions
Nonverbal courtship patterns in women
Ethology and Sociobiology
(1985)- et al.
Male facial attractiveness: perceived personality and shifting female preferences for male traits across the menstrual cycle
Advances in the Study of Behavior
(2001) Mate selection—A selection for a handicap
Journal of Theoretical Biology
(1975)Animal behavior
(1993)The effects of timing of self-disclosure on attraction and reciprocity
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1980)