Flirting may be more important in determining success in love than realised.

Flirting includes verbal and nonverbal behaviours.

Nonverbal behaviours may be more important in flirting than verbal behaviours.

Flirting can become "competitive," and this is different from noncompetitive flirting.

Valentine's Day is a timely reminder of some common misapprehensions about love that psychological research seeks to resolve.

For example, despite all the focus in mainstream and social media on desirable looks, the behaviour of flirting might be more vital than realised. After all, it effectively signals that someone is specifically interested in pursuing intimacy with a particular person.

Yet flirting doesn’t occur in a vacuum; there are often others in close proximity who are also expressing interest, hence the possible crucial importance of what is claimed to be the first in-depth scientific study of "competitive flirting".

Could success in the world of romance boil down to winning at "competitive flirting"?

This research concludes that effective female flirting to attract a male mate differs from the strategy used when deterring a competitor. Attracting a male requires conveying erotic availability, while deterring a female competitor focuses more on suggesting a tie with the target male.

The authors of this study, titled "I saw him first: Competitive nonverbal flirting among women, the tactics used and their perceived effectiveness," point out that beyond flirting being deployed to entice others amorously, those in relationships still often flirt with others, the tactic here being to encourage jealousy, to reveal how much a partner really cares.

Flirting also induces added passion within a committed relationship.

And it is not just a signal for sex. For example, a narcissist may tease with no intention of sleeping with the target, but merely to validate their sense of attractiveness.

So flirting has multiple uses. Beyond fun and increasing self-esteem, it can also be a vital manipulation, improving access to significant material goods and services, so it would appear a vibrant life skill.

This study used principles developed from evolutionary psychology, which is a controversial branch of behavioural science, accused of being "heterosexist" and not universally accepted as definitively explaining the fundamental drivers of human motivation.

In focusing on heterosexual relationships, the researchers argued that because of evolutionary genetics, women search for cues in men that are indicative of a strong future parental investment for long-term partner selection.

This is in marked contrast to what men are looking for in women, which, the theory holds, is that everything is about passing on genes to future generations.

Yet, as men obviously vary on the characteristics that women are looking for, and as these qualities may be perceived to be relatively rare, women are more naturally in competition with each other, so the argument goes, to gain desirable mates, more than men are in flirtatious competition with each other for attractive women.

Men's genetically designed preference for mates who are sexually accessible, according to evolutionary psychology, may lead to a prediction that women's flirting should emphasize these qualities to solicit male interest.

Yet, according to this theory, appearing sexually receptive becomes counterproductive to women's motivations for establishing a longer-term relationship. Being flirty in a too sexually suggestive way runs the danger of attracting the "wrong" kind of male, one who is just interested in a one-night stand.

Evolutionary psychology warns, therefore, that deploying flirting which emphasises sexual availability basically means you are likely to just attract "bad boys," who now become motivated to mislead in their intentions about longer-term commitment.

To add to the complexity of the game of love for women, the authors of this study argue, flirting by women is often more subtle than flirtation by men, because women have to wrestle with the predicament of signalling to men that they are attracted, but must also remain capable of terminating the interaction and reversing out of the situation if the target proves to be less pleasant or likeable, despite initial impressions.

While flirtation by women may be more subtle than liaising by men, the authors of this study contend that, logically, given the above, many females may be signalling to the same potential male in a shared location. Under these competitive circumstances, might women become "indirectly aggressive" with each other in order to gain the "prize" of the rarer high-value male?

It is by this reasoning that these researchers contend that flirtation among women may be more competitive than it is between men, so-called "intrasexual competition."

The study explored what were described as "nonverbal" actions that women use to flirt competitively against each other, for the purposes of accessing a "high-value" mate. The researchers also investigated the perceived effectiveness of these different aggressive flirting strategies.

Nonverbal behaviour was the focus, as it's deployed more often during active flirting, compared with "pick-up lines," plus, apparently, it’s seen as more "credible."

The authors draw on evolutionary psychology, which has controversially asserted that evolution and biological differences have produced profound gender contrasts. This theory concludes that women's flirtatious activities will tend to be more suggestive of sexual accessibility, while men’s strategies will focus on suggesting a willingness to commit.

Evolutionary psychology has been criticised for neglecting the role of culture and free will and overemphasising biological determinism when speculating on human motivation.

The study found that actions signalling a "tie" to the target man are most effective when there is competitive flirting between women, but these "tie-signs" differ from the kind of flirting most effective in attracting a male in a noncompetitive feminine environment. The results include that both men and women agree on which actions are most effective.

Tie-signs include nonverbal public displays, signs, or objects (e.g., wedding rings, holding hands) that indicate that a connection exists between two people. Tie-signs signal to possible rivals that a mate has been selected already (i.e., he is “taken”).

Of course, this might be misleading; it might lead an opponent to think that a mate is already in a relationship when he is not. This is referred to as "competitor manipulation."

These tie-signs also manipulate the potential mate so that he attends to her, and not another woman ("mate manipulation").

This research found that tie-signs included (in descending order of perceived effectiveness at competitive flirting): touches his arm, shoulder, chest, or leg; initiates eye contact; hugs; giggles/laughs at his jokes; physically joins their space and excludes the competition; smiles; positions herself or dances in his view; squeezes past and bumps or brushes against him; waves; shows distaste for the competitor without speaking; looks at or flirts with other men to spur jealousy, or initiates eye contact with them.

Women with less mating and sexual experience tended to rate the touching of the man’s arm, shoulder, and chest as more effective in suggesting that the man has been "taken" than those women with more relationship experience.

Could it be that a key reason some women seem less successful at attaining the man they want is precisely that they are too easily put off by signs that appear to indicate someone is taken, when in fact, there remains much more of a game still to be played?

Wade, T. J., Fisher, M. L., & Clark, E. (2021). I saw him first: Competitive nonverbal flirting among women, the tactics used and their perceived effectiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 179, 110898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110898

Baumeister, R. F., Reynolds, T., Winegard, B., & Vohs, K. D. (2017). Competing for love: Applying sexual economics theory to mating contests. Journal of Economic Psychology, 63, 230-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.07.009

Fisher, M. L. (2013). Women's intrasexual competition for mates. In M. L. Fisher, J. R. Garcia, & R. Sokol Chang (Eds.), Evolution's empress: Darwinian perspectives on the nature of women (pp. 19–42). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892747.003.0001

Wade, T. J. (2015). How to flirt best: The perceived effectiveness of flirtation techniques. Interpersona, 9(1), 32. https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/fac_journ/1305/

White, J., Lorenz, H., Perilloux, C., & Lee, A. (2018). Creative Casanovas: mating strategy predicts using—but not preferring—atypical flirting tactics. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4(4), 443-455. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-018-0155-7

Fisher, M. L., & Krems, J. A. (2023). An evolutionary review of female intrasexual competition. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human mating (pp. 378–403). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197536438.013.27

Wade, T. J., Renninger, L., Salerno, K., & Moran, J. (2016). Strike a pose: The perceived flirtatiousness of men's nonverbal behavior. Paper presented at the 10th Northeastern Evolutionary Psychology Society Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

© Psychology Today