Social-sexual interactions? meta-analyses of sex differences in perceptions of flirtatiousness, seductiveness, and promiscuousness

Communication Monographs

Volumn 76, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 263-285

  La France, Betty H ^a   Henningsen, David D ^a   Oates, Aubrey ^a   Shaw, Christina M ^a  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Abbey Sex Differences; Error Management Theory; Meta analysis; Social Sexual Interactions

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349287910     PISSN: 03637751     EISSN: 14795787     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03637750903074701     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. *Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females' friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830-838.
2. Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 173-194.
3. *Abbey, A., Cozzarelli, C., McLaughlin, K., & Harnish, R. J. (1987). The effects of clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 108-126.
4. *Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent. Sex Roles, 15, 283-298.
5. Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129-133.
6. Allen, M., & Valde, K. S. (2006). Researching a gendered world: The intersection of methodological and ethical concerns. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (2nd ed., pp. 99-113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Andersen, P. A. (1989, May). A cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. Paper presented at the International Network on Personal Relationships Conference, Iowa City, IA.
8. Andersen, P. A. (1998). The cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. In M. T. Palmer & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Mutual influence in interpersonal communication: Theory and research in cognition, affect, and behaviors (pp. 39-72) (Progress in communication sciences: Vol. 14). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
9. Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 229-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Canary, D. J., Cody, M. J., & Manusov, V. L. (2000. Interpersonal communication: A goals-based approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.
11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106-124.
13. Edmondson, C. B., & Conger, J. C. (1995). The impact of mode of presentation on gender differences in social perception. Sex Roles, 32, 169-183.
14. Emmers-Sommer, T. M., & Allen, M. (1999). Variables related to sexual coercion: A path model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 659-678.
15. Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008). Perceptual mechanisms that characterize gender differences in decoding women's sexual intent. Psychological Science, 19, 348-354.
16. Gayle, B. M., Preiss, R. W., & Allen, M. (2002). A meta-analytic interpretation of intimate and nonintimate interpersonal conflict. In M. Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. A. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2001). Close encounters: Communicating in relationships. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
18. Hall, J. A. (1998). How big are nonverbal sex differences? The case of smiling and sensitivity to nonverbal cues. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 155-177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. *Harnish, R. J., Abbey, A., & DeBono, K. G. (1990). Toward an understanding of "The Sex Game": The effects of gender and self-monitoring on perceptions of sexuality and likeability in initial interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1333-1344.
20. Haselton, M. G. (2003). The sexual overperception bias: Evidence of a systematic bias in men from a survey of naturally occurring events. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 34-47.
21. Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81-91.
22. Henningsen, D. D. (2004). Flirting with meaning: An examination of miscommunication in flirting interactions. Sex Roles, 50, 481-489.
23. Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., & Valde, K. S. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions of women's sexual interest during cross-sex interactions: An application and extension of cognitive valence theory. Sex Roles, 54, 821-829.
24. Hunter, J. E. (1996). VGBARE: A program to do a bare bones meta-analysis of correlations. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Department of Psychology.
25. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26. *Johnson, C. B., Stockdale, M. S., & Saal, F. E. (1991). Persistence of men's misperceptions of friendly cues across a variety of interpersonal encounters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 463-475.
27. Koeppel, L. B., Montagne-Miller, Y., O'Hair, D., & Cody, M. J. (1993). Friendly? Flirting? Wrong? In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 13-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Koukounas, E., & Letch, N. M. (2001). Psychological correlates of perception of sexual intent in women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 443-456.
29. Kowalski, R. M. (1993). Inferring sexual interest from behavioral cues: Effects of gender and sexually relevant attitudes. Sex Roles, 29, 13-36.
30. Mongeau, P. A., Carey, C. M., & Williams, M. L. M. (1998). First date initiation and enactment: An expectancy violation approach. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 413-426). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Mongeau, P. A., Serewicz, M. C. M., & Therrien, L. F. (2004). Goals for cross-sex first dates: Identification, measurement, and the influence of contextual factors. Communication Monographs, 71, 121-147.
32. *Quackenbush, R. L. (1987). Sex roles and social perception. Human Relations, 40, 659-670.
33. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1979). A note on percent variance explained as a measure of the importance of effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 395-396.
34. *Saal, F. E., Johnson, C. B., & Weber, N. (1989). Friendly or sexy? It may depend on whom you ask. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 263-276.
35. Schover, L. R. (1981). Male and female therapists' responses to male and female client sexual material: An analogue study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10, 477-492.
36. Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66-73.
37. *Sigal, J., Gibbs, M., Adams, B., & Derfler, R. (1988). The effect of romantic and nonromantic films on perception of female friendly and seductive behavior. Sex Roles, 19, 545-554.
38. Solomon, D. H., & Williams, M. L. M. (1997). Perceptions of social-sexual communication at work: The effects of message, situation, and observer characteristics on judgments of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 196-216.
39. Timmerman, L. M. (2002). Comparing the production of power in language on the basis of sex. In M. Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. A. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 73-88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Tomich, P. L., & Schuster, P. M. (1996). Gender differences in the perception of sexuality: Methodological considerations. Sex Roles, 34, 865-874.