Hubbry Logo
FlirtingFlirtingMain
Open search
Flirting
Community hub
Flirting
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Flirting
Flirting
Flirting
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A poster by Henri Gerbault depicting flirting between a man and a woman

Flirting or coquetry is a social and sexual behavior involving body language, or spoken or written communication between humans. It is used to suggest interest in a deeper relationship with another person and for amusement. Flirting can change in intention as well as intensity, whether it is harmless fun, or employed with the design of seeking a romantic or sexual relationship.[1]

A person might flirt with another by speaking or behaving in such a way that suggests their desire to increase intimacy in their current relationship with that person. The approach may include communicating a sense of playfulness, irony, or by using double entendres.

A study in body language: Haynes King's Jealousy and Flirtation
Laurel (played by Marilyn Monroe) flirting with Dr. Fulton (played by Cary Grant) in the film Monkey Business (1952)

Etymology

[edit]
Look up flirting in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

The origin of the word "flirt" is unknown. The first use of the word dates to 1580—with the intransitive "flit" and the noun form—ca 1590—with the transitive "flick".[2]

Flirt has been attributed to the French conter fleurette, meaning to woo. Fleurette, meaning small flower, was used in the 16th century in some sonnets[3] and texts, and has since fallen out of use.[4][5][6] This expression is still used in French, often mockingly, although the English loanword, "to flirt", is in the common vernacular. Flirting in the English language has the same meaning as to "conter fleurette".[7]

Historical context

[edit]

During World War II, anthropologist Margaret Mead was working in Britain for the British Ministry of Information and later for the U.S. Office of War Information,[8][9] delivering speeches and writing articles to help American soldiers better understand British civilians,[10] and vice versa.[11] Mead found a pattern of misunderstandings in the flirtations between American soldiers and British women regarding who was supposed to take which initiative. She wrote of the Americans, "The boy learns to make advances and rely upon the girl to repulse them whenever they are inappropriate to the state of feeling between the pair", as contrasted to the British, where "the girl is reared to depend upon a slight barrier of chilliness... which the boys learn to respect, and for the rest to rely upon the men to approach or advance, as warranted by the situation." When flirting with each other, British women could interpret an American soldier's gregariousness as something more intimate or serious than he had intended.[8]

Communications theorist Paul Watzlawick researched courtship behaviors between English women and North American servicemen in late- to post-WWII, finding common misunderstandings of intent. The simple act of kissing during the 'wrong stage' of the courtship often led both parties to believe the other was being too forward, too soon.[12]

Purpose

[edit]
A woman flirts with a soldier by tickling him with a feather.

According to social anthropologist Kate Fox, there are two main types of flirting: flirting for fun, and flirting with further intent.[13] In a 2014 review, sociologist David Henningsen identified six main motivations for flirting: sex, relational development, exploration, fun, self-esteem, and as a means to an end.[14] Henningsen found that many flirting interactions involve more than one of these motives.

Henningsen and Fox showed that flirting can sometimes be used just for fun.[14] People may engage in flirting to consolidate or maintain a romantic relationship with their partner.[14]

Human mating strategy

[edit]
See also: Human mating strategies

Many studies have confirmed that sex is a motivation for flirting.[15] A study by Messman and colleagues demonstrated that the more one was physically attracted to a person, the higher the chances one would flirt with them.[15]

Many people flirt as a courtship initiation method.[16] The person flirting will send out signals of sexual availability to another, and expects to see the interest returned in order to continue flirting. Flirting can involve non-verbal signs, such as an exchange of glances, hand-touching, and hair-touching; or verbal signs, such as chatting, giving flattering comments, and exchanging telephone numbers in order to initiate further contact.

Covert and overt signaling

[edit]

Human flirting can be either covert or overt in contrast to the typically overt courtship display of animals.[17] If the main purpose of flirting is to signal interest to another person, then one might expect that the signaling would be done clearly and explicitly. An explanation for the ambiguous nature of human flirting lies in the costs associated with courtship.[16] According to Gersick and colleagues, signaling interest can be socially costly, such as risking existing friendship or affect social reputation.[17] The costs associated with interest signaling may be magnified in humans compared to the animal world, as the existence of language means information can circulate much further. For instance, information overheard by an eavesdropper can be spread to large social networks, thereby magnifying the social costs.[17]

Flirting can assess whether other person might be interested in reciprocating while maintaining plausible deniability to reduce social costs.[17] Online flirting can reduce perceived risks.[18]

Misinterpretation

[edit]

Flirting is often performed subtly, and evidence shows that people are often mistaken in how they interpret flirting behaviors.[15] A 2015 study found that covert flirting is not detected in the majority of cases.[19]

Without consent or implied consent by the receiving party, some flirting behavior, such as double entendres, can be viewed as sexual harassment.[20][21]

Cultural variations

[edit]
The Flirtation by Eugene de Blaas. A study of body language: a man flirting

Flirting behavior varies between cultures due to different modes of social etiquette, such as how closely people should stand, how long to hold eye contact, how much touching is appropriate and so forth.[22] Nonetheless, some behaviors may be universal. Ethologist Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt discovered that women from different continents (Africa and North America) behave similarly in some ways when flirting, such as nonchalantly breaking their gaze and smiling after first staring for a prolonged period of time.[21] In "contact cultures," such as those in the Mediterranean or Latin America, closer proximity is common, compared with cultures such as those in Britain or Northern Europe. The variation in social norms may lead to different interpretations of what is considered to be flirting.[23]

Japanese courtesans had another form of flirting, emphasizing non-verbal relationships by hiding the lips and showing the eyes, as depicted in much Shunga art, the most popular print media at the time, until the late 19th century. In Japan, flirting in the street or public places is known as nanpa.

The fan was extensively used as a means of communication and therefore a way of flirting from the 16th century onwards in some European societies, especially England and Spain. A whole sign language was developed with the use of the fan, and etiquette books and magazines were published. Charles Francis Badini created the Original Fanology or Ladies' Conversation Fan, which was published by William Cock in London in 1797. The use of the fan was not limited to women, as men also carried fans and learned how to convey messages with them. For instance, placing the fan near the heart meant "I love you", while opening a fan wide meant "Wait for me".[24]

In Spain, ladies used fans to communicate with suitors or prospective suitors without attracting the notice of their families or chaperons. This use was highly popular during the 19th and early 20th centuries.[25]

Gendered roles

[edit]
Main article: Dating § Gendered norms and preferences

Flirting can have gender roles. Henningsen and colleagues' study observed in 2004 that flirting with sexual intent was found to be more prominent amongst men while flirting for relationship development purposes was more often employed by women.[14] The parental investment theory predicts in case of a risk of pregnancy with gender differences in parental investment, that females would be more selective than males and courtship would be more commonly initiated by males.[26] In case of no risk of pregnancy this gendered effect is predicted to be reduced.[27]

Gender egalitarian roles

[edit]
Main article: Dating § Gender egalitarian norms
An Algerian woman flirts with a resting man while playing the kwitra

Flirting can follow gender egalitarian norms.[28] Women initiating flirting was found increased with their sense of personal control.[29] Among the approaches women can use to signal interest in men the most effective were directly asking for a first date or a telephone call according to a 2009 study.[30]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Flirting

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Flirting constitutes a class of signaling involving verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey romantic or sexual interest to a potential partner while minimizing the risks of rejection through and . These behaviors typically occur between opposite-sex individuals exhibiting mutual attraction and serve to initiate contact, gauge reciprocity, or escalate toward opportunities. identifies five primary flirting styles—physical, sincere, playful, traditional, and polite—differing in their emphasis on bodily contact, emotional openness, fun, roles, or courtesy, with individuals often favoring one based on and goals. Rooted in , flirting functions as an adaptation to solve mate acquisition challenges, where signals highlight the sender's desirability and intentions at low cost; observations confirm its species-typical nature, though specific tactics vary by societal norms. Sex differences emerge prominently, with women perceived as more effective using sexual availability cues like proximity or touch in short-term contexts due to evolved mate preferences prioritizing cues, while men benefit from signals of commitment or resources in long-term scenarios; these asymmetries reflect causal realities of , where females bear higher reproductive costs and thus exhibit greater selectivity. Studies reveal low perceptual accuracy in flirtation, with recipients detecting intent only about 28% of the time, underscoring frequent miscommunications that can lead to unreciprocated advances or overlooked opportunities. Despite modern social shifts, core dynamics persist, as evidenced by persistent gender gaps in initiating casual encounters, challenging narratives of cultural convergence without biological underpinnings.

Origins and Terminology

Etymology

The verb flirt first appeared in English around 1532, denoting a physical action of turning, tilting, or curving something upward, often implying a quick or sudden motion. This sense likely derives from onomatopoeic roots mimicking abrupt sounds or movements, akin to words like flick, flip, or flit, with parallels in Low German flirt for a light flick or blow. By the 1540s to 1580s, the term evolved to describe sneering, flicking, or erratic motion, extending metaphorically to as a for a "pert, flighty person" who engages in superficial or insincere interactions. In this period, flirt began acquiring connotations of playful , where the "flicking" imagery suggested light, teasing advances without serious intent, as in trifling with affections. The form for an act of such playful engagement dates to 1717. The related noun flirtation, meaning amorous trifling or initial romantic overtures, emerged in 1718 directly from the verb, emphasizing giddy or noncommittal romantic play. While some historical accounts propose influence from fleureter ("to touch lightly" or "talk sweet nonsense"), a of fleur (flower), or the phrase conter fleurette (to with ), these are considered secondary at best, with the English term's core development rooted in native Germanic rather than direct French borrowing. By the , flirt and its derivatives had standardized in English to primarily denote coquettish or romantic signaling, influencing reciprocal into French as a term for flirtation or casual paramour.

Core Definitions and Distinctions

Flirting constitutes a form of social interaction characterized by verbal, nonverbal, or paralinguistic signals intended to convey romantic or sexual interest, often in a playful, indirect, or ambiguous manner that permits . These behaviors function as low-risk probes for mutual attraction, typically escalating only upon reciprocation, and are rooted in evolutionary pressures to assess mate viability without committing resources prematurely. Empirical studies identify common signals including sustained (lasting 2-3 seconds longer than neutral ), subtle of posture, light touching of the or , and compliments focused on appearance or desirability rather than general traits. A primary distinction lies between flirting and mere friendliness, where the latter entails balanced, reciprocal conversation without indicators of sexual or romantic intent, such as equal sharing without heightened personal or physical escalation. Friendly interactions maintain social equilibrium and platonic boundaries, often involving or task-oriented exchanges, whereas flirting introduces asymmetry through targeted , head tilts signaling submission or interest, and proximity reduction (e.g., leaning in to under 18 inches), which empirical observation links to attraction rather than camaraderie. Misinterpretation arises from cultural norms or individual perceptual biases, but core behavioral markers—intent to gauge potential—differentiate the two, with flirting's serving to test receptivity without overt rejection . Flirting further contrasts with seduction or courtship in its preliminary, non-committal nature; seduction pursues explicit consummation through direct propositions, while flirting remains exploratory and reversible, often confined to initial encounters. Unlike harassment, which involves persistent unwanted advances disregarding cues of disinterest, flirting presupposes contextual reciprocity and halts upon non-engagement, aligning with adaptive mate selection where costs of false positives (wasted effort) outweigh rejection in low-stakes signaling. Though not strictly innate, flirting draws on evolved predispositions like facial expressions (e.g., Duchenne smiles with crow's feet activation) that signal approachability, distinguishable from neutral politeness by their intensity and directionality toward a specific target.

Evolutionary and Biological Foundations

Adaptive Purposes in Mating

Flirting functions as an adaptive mechanism in human by enabling covert signaling of sexual interest, which conveys the signaler's intentions and while incurring minimal costs compared to overt advances. This strategy mitigates risks such as direct rejection, intrasexual , or social sanctions in group-living ancestral environments, where explicit propositions could provoke from rivals or kin vigilance over paternity certainty. By employing ambiguous cues—like prolonged , playful , or subtle touch—individuals gauge receptivity without committing resources prematurely, optimizing energy allocation toward viable reproductive opportunities. The evolutionary rationale for this covertness lies in humans' extended pair-bonding and , which demand nuanced navigation of third-party observers; flirtation's allows , preserving alliances if interest proves unreciprocated. Such behaviors also signal underlying traits like and behavioral flexibility, which correlate with foraging success and alliance formation in societies, thereby enhancing perceived mate quality. document consistent nonverbal flirtatious displays, such as head tilts and smiles, across diverse populations, indicating selection pressures favoring these low-risk initiators of . Ultimately, successful flirtation escalates to higher-investment stages, facilitating either short-term copulations or long-term bonds aligned with sex-specific reproductive optima—greater selectivity in females due to obligatory versus males' broader insemination potential. This pre-screening reduces mismatched pairings and associated fitness costs, as evidenced by perceptual studies where flirtatious signals predict subsequent relational or sexual outcomes more reliably than neutral interactions. In sum, flirting's adaptive value stems from its role in efficient mate assessment amid constraints that penalize indiscriminate advances.

Innate Mechanisms and Sex Differences

Flirting emerges from innate biological mechanisms shaped by natural and to signal mate quality and interest with minimal risk of costly rejection. Core signals include prolonged , smiling, head tilting, and light touching, which function as honest indicators of receptivity and genetic fitness, paralleling courtship displays in nonhuman and evident in infants' proto-flirtatious behaviors like gaze alternation. These nonverbal cues activate reward pathways involving release, facilitating pair-bonding precursors akin to those in romantic attachment. observations confirm their universality, with ethnographic data from diverse societies showing consistent use of and proximity to convey affiliation without explicit commitment. Sex differences in these mechanisms stem from evolved asymmetries in reproductive investment, where females' higher obligatory costs—gamete production, gestation, and lactation—favor choosiness and coy signaling, while males' lower minimal investment promotes bolder pursuit and . This dynamic, formalized in Trivers' 1972 parental investment theory, predicts and empirical data support divergent tactics: men more frequently initiate direct approaches and playful banter to display status and vigor, whereas women emphasize subtle receptivity cues like giggling or body orientation to solicit without premature vulnerability. In three studies aggregating over 200 participants, men rated female flirtations implying sexual access (e.g., rubbing against or dancing provocatively) as most effective (means >6 on 7-point scales), while women prioritized male signals of exclusivity and effort (e.g., asking out or gifting, means 5.83–6.18). Perceived tactic effectiveness further delineates roles: in short-term contexts, women's sexual availability displays (e.g., sexy attire or touch) outperform men's (means 5.42 vs. 4.92 across U.S. and Norwegian samples, N>900), aligning with selectivity for cues; in long-term scenarios, men's and commitment signals excel (means 4.84–6.04 vs. women's 4.19–5.81). Humor production enhances efficacy more than female (means 5.94 vs. 5.64), signaling cognitive prowess tied to provisioning, though both sexes value responsive laughter universally (means 5.48–5.83). These patterns hold despite cultural variations, underscoring causal primacy of over , as twin studies and hormonal manipulations (e.g., testosterone elevating assertiveness) replicate differences independent of rearing. Challenges to these findings from egalitarian paradigms often rely on self-reports biased toward social desirability, yet observational and physiological data (e.g., pupil dilation in response to opposite-sex signals) affirm robustness.

Behavioral and Psychological Dynamics

Types of Signals

Nonverbal signals constitute the majority of flirting cues, often serving as initial indicators of interest before verbal engagement, as documented in observational studies of behaviors. In one naturalistic study conducted in public settings, Monica Moore cataloged 52 distinct nonverbal displays used by women to signal romantic interest to men, including repeated glancing, smiling, primping or self-grooming (such as adjusting hair or clothing), nodding, leaning forward, and exposing the palm or neck. These behaviors were emitted more frequently by women who successfully elicited approach from men compared to those who did not, with success rates correlating positively to the number and intensity of signals displayed. Women often prefer these subtle nonverbal signals over overt direct approaches due to reasons including fear of rejection or vulnerability, adherence to traditional gender roles expecting men to initiate, concern about appearing desperate or too forward, social anxiety or shyness, and strategic testing of male interest or maintaining mystery. Signs of interest tempered by caution or playfulness frequently manifest as indirect behaviors that test reciprocity while affording deniability, such as playful teasing, banter, or light-hearted roasting—including comments on men's appearance—which can express attraction indirectly by creating humor, building rapport, reducing vulnerability (by avoiding direct compliments), and testing compatibility or confidence; online, anonymity and social media culture amplify such banter as a low-risk way to engage, though harsh or non-playful criticism often stems from insecurity, dislike, or other negative motives rather than attraction. Playful escalation in casual settings like the gym involves light teasing (e.g., silly nicknames, playful challenges, mimicking), flirtily returning compliments (e.g., "Right back at ya!" or "If you think I'm hot now, wait until you get to know me"), and building rapport with smiles, casual comments, and gradual introductions; starting subtle and gauging interest is advisable. Prolonged eye contact followed by a shy aversion of gaze, blushing, nervousness or fidgeting, tense or inconsistent posture, devising excuses for conversation or proximity (e.g., in workplaces, finding pretexts for interaction or choosing seats unusually close to reduce personal space), amplified laughter at jokes or frequent smiling, light or ostensibly accidental touches on the arm or shoulder, personal questions posed within light discourse, open body language entailing facing the target, leaning in, mirroring gestures, or orienting feet or body toward the target, and intermittent hot-and-cold patterns to emotionally self-protect. These cues, attributable to shyness, formative experiences, or compatibility vetting, permit attraction expression with attenuated rejection jeopardy; more extreme proximity, such as sharing a chair, may indicate strong interest but is less common and potentially inappropriate in professional settings. However, shy individuals often make common mistakes that undermine effective signaling, including avoiding direct eye contact or quickly looking away when caught staring, over-relying on small talk without escalating to more personal or flirtatious topics, freezing up or failing to approach due to fear of rejection, being too indirect or subtle which makes interest unclear, gathering information from friends instead of interacting directly, and avoiding physical touch or clear signals of attraction. These errors can lead to miscommunication or missed opportunities by prioritizing caution over clarity. Other prominent nonverbal signals include prolonged with dilated pupils, skin flushing on the face, neck, or chest, accelerated breathing, biting or licking the lips, playing with hair or touching the neck or décolleté, often combined with a "coy " (brief darting away followed by return), body orientation toward the target (e.g., turning shoulders and feet to face them), open postures (uncrossed arms, relaxed stance), frequent smiles, light tactile contact like brief arm touches or playful nudges, and subtle proximity reduction, such as inching closer without invading personal space. Intensified versions of these cues, such as strong physical proximity, deliberate touching, following the target, prolonged staring, frequent smiling, offering compliments, and displaying other crush-like behaviors, are particularly indicative of women's attraction and sexual interest. Psychological research supports that these strong nonverbal signals often facilitate progression toward intimacy, thereby increasing the likelihood of sexual activity contingent on mutual reciprocity and explicit consent; however, no definitive probabilities exist, as results vary with communication efficacy, boundary observance, contextual elements, and individual idiosyncrasies. These may indicate sexual arousal or heightened interest, though subtle physiological cues such as erect nipples or lubrication are not always visible. Such signs vary individually and may reflect general attraction rather than definitive sexual intent; explicit verbal consent is necessary for confirmation. Light tactile contact also functions as an escalation signal, particularly effective in conveying sexual availability when contextually appropriate. Paralinguistic elements, such as giggling or laughing at the target's remarks—particularly a woman's laughter in response to a man's attempts at humor—serve as key indicators of romantic interest and positive engagement. Empirical studies demonstrate that the frequency of such laughter correlates with increased dating interest, functioning as a low-risk signal of attraction and rapport. Shared laughter between partners further strengthens perceived connection. However, context matters, as laughter may also stem from nervousness, politeness, or tension relief rather than genuine romantic intent. Empirical coding of interactions reveals that such nonverbal immediacy behaviors—leaning in, synchronized movements, and —correlate with perceived attraction, though their subtlety often leads to under-detection, with recipients accurately interpreting flirtatious intent only about 28% of the time in controlled experiments. Verbal signals typically follow or accompany nonverbal ones, focusing on building through indirect expressions of interest rather than overt propositions. Common verbal cues include asking personal questions to encourage , such as playfully rephrasing inquiries about recent activities to convey romantic undertones—replacing a neutral "What have you been up to?" with options like "Hey honey, are you having the most amazing day?" or "What have you missed most about me today?"—which build emotional connection ambiguously while sparking curiosity and reciprocity; offering compliments on appearance or achievements, or playful banter, and revealing to foster reciprocity. In younger adolescents, such as middle school students aged 11-14, playful flirting often consists of innocent, awkward, and non-sexual behaviors, including gentle teasing, playful jabs or sarcasm, giving compliments, prolonged eye contact, sharing jokes, light physical contact (e.g., nudges or holding hands), extra texting, or social media interactions like liking posts. These actions typically stem from exploring crushes and seeking validation, but can sometimes appear clumsy or misguided, such as through pranks or chasing. Such behaviors should be mutual, respectful, and based on consent, with parents encouraged to discuss boundaries to prevent them from crossing into disrespect or harassment. In Jeffrey Hall's analysis of 36 verbal behaviors across flirting styles, sincere communicators employed focused questions and attentive listening, while playful types used humor and light , both increasing with reported attraction levels during dyadic conversations. These tactics are rated more effective in long-term mating contexts when emphasizing commitment (e.g., expressing interest in shared activities), whereas cues signaling immediate availability, like suggestive remarks, perform better short-term but risk misinterpretation or rejection.
  • Key Nonverbal Signals:
    • and smiling: Fundamental entry cues, initiating 70-80% of observed courtships.
    • Self-touch or : Indicates and availability, observed more in high-interest scenarios.
    • Proximity and touch: Escalatory, with light contact boosting perceived intent by 20-30% in rating studies.
  • Key Verbal Signals:
    • Compliments and questions: Build connection, especially when personalized.
    • Humor and : Enhance playfulness, more potent from initiators with higher extraversion.
Overall, effective flirting integrates these signals hierarchically—starting with low-risk nonverbal probes and progressing to verbal —aligned with evolutionary adaptations for minimizing rejection costs while assessing mutual . Sources like observational field studies provide robust evidence, though lab-based ratings may inflate perceived universality due to cultural sampling biases in Western samples.

Perception and Cognitive Biases

Individuals perceive flirtatious signals through a lens of cognitive biases that systematically distort interpretations of ambiguous , such as smiles, , or proximity. A prominent bias is the sexual overperception bias, wherein men are more likely to interpret neutral or friendly behaviors as indicators of sexual interest, while women tend to underperceive such interest from men. This asymmetry arises from evolved psychological mechanisms designed to minimize costly errors in mate pursuit, as outlined in (EMT), which posits that ancestral men faced higher reproductive costs from failing to detect willing partners than from pursuing uninterested ones, favoring a bias toward overestimation. Empirical support comes from meta-analyses of 13 samples showing consistent sex differences in perceptions of sexual intent, with men rating ambiguous female behaviors as more flirtatious. Flirting detection accuracy is generally low, with non-flirtatious interactions perceived more reliably than flirtatious ones, as demonstrated in experimental studies involving opposite-sex dyads. In one such study with 52 pairs (n=104), participants interacted for 10 minutes, and post-interaction ratings revealed that flirtation went undetected about 40% of the time, partly due to perceptual thresholds biased by sex scripts—men erring toward assuming interest to align with traditional initiator roles. EMT extends to flirting base rates, predicting that men's overperception enhances sensitivity to genuine signals in low-prevalence environments, where missing a rare opportunity outweighs false alarms. Women, conversely, exhibit cautionary underperception, potentially rooted in higher costs of unwanted advances, leading to undervaluation of direct signals like touch or compliments. Additional biases compound these effects, including the , where amplifies perceived flirtatiousness regardless of intent, and , which reinforces preconceptions by selectively interpreting ambiguous gestures (e.g., prolonged ) as confirmatory evidence of mutual interest. These distortions persist across contexts, with men rating women's "sexy" attire or proximity as more provocative, even in neutral scenarios. While some research critiques EMT for overlooking cultural overrides, cross-study consistency supports its causal role over purely social learning, as biases manifest in controlled, minimal-interaction settings. Overall, these perceptual mechanisms prioritize adaptive error avoidance over precision, influencing success but fostering frequent miscommunications. Some men respond positively to flirtatious signals without genuine romantic interest, driven by factors such as enjoyment of the attention and validation it provides, which boosts ego and releases pleasurable brain chemicals like dopamine; viewing the interaction as fun, habitual, or non-committal; acting out of social courtesy to avoid discomfort or awkwardness; seeking temporary excitement without obligation; or responding from habit or misinterpretation of signals. These responses can further obscure mutual intentions in flirtatious exchanges.

Social and Cultural Contexts

Historical Evolution

In ancient Rome, flirting was codified in Ovid's Ars Amatoria (c. 1 BCE–1 CE), which instructed men on subtle seduction techniques, such as whispering compliments, lightly touching a companion's hand during symposia, and using jewelry or wine to signal interest without overt impropriety. These methods emphasized discretion amid social hierarchies where public displays risked censure, reflecting pragmatic adaptations to patriarchal norms rather than romantic idealism. Medieval Europe's courtly love tradition, emerging in the among troubadours and spreading via literature like ' romances, transformed flirting into a stylized ritual of knightly devotion to often-married noblewomen. Knights conveyed affection through poetic odes, chivalric quests, and secret tokens, idealizing unconsummated passion as a path to personal refinement, though historical evidence suggests it masked power imbalances and occasional adulterous liaisons rather than egalitarian romance. This framework persisted into the , blending with humanistic manuals that advised witty banter and gallant gestures. The (1837–1901) imposed rigid propriety, channeling flirtation into covert signaling systems to navigate chaperoned interactions and gender segregation. Women employed the "language of the fan," where rapid fanning denoted while slow fanning with the left hand signaled "Come and talk to me"; flowers carried specific meanings, such as ivy for ; and parasols or gloves conveyed disinterest or invitation via positioning. These practices, documented in etiquette guides and surviving artifacts like escort cards with playful innuendos, allowed amid moral scrutiny, prioritizing indirect communication over direct advances. Twentieth-century shifts dismantled supervised , with the "dating revolution" in the U.S. enabling unsupervised outings via automobiles and urban leisure, fostering bolder verbal and physical flirtation like "petting" in speakeasies or cinemas. Post-World War II norms emphasized "" with overt compliments and dances, while the 1960s further liberalized signals, reducing reliance on codes in favor of egalitarian, consent-focused interactions influenced by and . By century's end, flirting integrated psychological cues like prolonged , diverging from historical object-mediated subtlety due to eroded taboos and technological mediation.

Cross-Cultural Variations

Flirting behaviors demonstrate a mix of universal nonverbal elements and culturally contingent expressions, with variations arising from societal norms on interpersonal distance, gender interactions, and social tightness. Ethologist Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt identified consistent patterns, such as the "coy smile" involving brief , , and averted or head toss, observed in diverse groups including Balinese, Papuan, French, and Wakiu populations, suggesting an innate basis rooted in evolutionary adaptations for mate assessment. These signals facilitate initial attraction without verbal commitment, transcending linguistic barriers but interpreted through local lenses. Empirical comparisons reveal differences in tactic effectiveness; in U.S. samples, bodily displays (e.g., posture adjustments exposing erogenous zones) and generosity cues (e.g., offering assistance) were rated higher for short-term contexts than in Norwegian samples, where such overt signals received lower scores (U.S. bodily display mean: higher by approximately 0.5-1 point on Likert scales). , from a culture emphasizing and restraint, prioritized subtler commitment signals like intimate conversation for long-term scenarios, aligning with Sexual Strategies Theory's prediction of context-dependent preferences moderated by cultural restraint. Cultural tightness-looseness further delineates acceptability; Gelfand et al.'s analysis of 33 nations linked "tight" societies (e.g., , , with histories of ecological threats and high density) to stricter norms prohibiting ambiguous acts like flirting or , as deviations risk social sanctions. In contrast, "loose" cultures (e.g., , ) tolerate greater behavioral latitude, rating office flirtation as more normative due to weaker enforcement of propriety. This dimension, measured via scenario ratings, underscores how historical pressures shape flirting's situational constraints, with tight cultures averaging lower acceptability scores (e.g., 1-2 on 7-point scales for elevator kissing). In cultures like India, where societal norms often emphasize emotional restraint and discourage overt romantic expressions—particularly among traditional or shy individuals—men may convey interest through indirect nonverbal and behavioral cues. These include stealing glances or prolonged eye contact followed by quick aversion, increased efforts to spend time together or respond promptly to communications, attentiveness to minor personal changes with observational compliments, displays of protectiveness or concern for well-being, playful teasing or efforts to elicit laughter, recall of personal details, self-grooming in the presence of the individual, and softening of voice tone. Such subtlety aligns with broader cross-cultural patterns where environmental and normative constraints shape the expression of universal mating signals. In the United Kingdom, flirting tends to be more subtle and indirect, relying heavily on eye contact, humor, teasing banter, intellectual sparring, and private laughs rather than overt physical displays or bold gestures. Body language signs of attraction, including prolonged eye contact, smiling, leaning in, open posture, light touching (e.g., arm or shoulder), hair twirling, and mirroring movements, remain largely universal across cultures, applying similarly among British women. No unique body language differences specific to age-gap attractions have been reliably identified for British women, with general cues prevailing under cultural reserve in personal space and emotional expression. In Vietnam, women may signal interest in sexual intimacy through seeking physical closeness and touching, wearing provocative or sexy clothing, employing seductive or suggestive language, displaying increased proactivity or affection such as hugging and more frequent compliments, exhibiting heavy breathing or impatience, letting hair down with seductive looks, and openly or subtly mentioning sexual needs. These indicators are influenced by hormones, emotions, and relationship dynamics, varying individually and not unique to Vietnam. Local health sources emphasize prioritizing clear communication and mutual consent over interpreting such signs. Religious and collectivist influences amplify restraint; preliminary surveys of U.S. (individualistic) and Salvadoran (collectivist, Catholic-majority) undergraduates showed significant divergences in preferred styles, with correlating to reduced endorsement of physical or playful tactics in collectivist settings to preserve group harmony and moral boundaries. Such patterns challenge assumptions of uniform , as values filter universal impulses, evidenced by t-test differences (p < 0.05) in Flirting Styles responses. Overall, while core mechanisms persist, cultural scaffolding dictates expression, with empirical data prioritizing adaptive caution in high-stakes social environments.

Gender-Specific Patterns

Empirical Evidence of Differences

Observational studies in naturalistic settings reveal that women frequently use nonverbal signals to indicate receptivity and solicit approaches during initial heterosexual interactions, whereas men more often initiate direct verbal contact. In a seminal study by psychologist Monica Moore, 200 young women in a singles bar were observed over 30 minutes each, identifying 52 distinct nonverbal behaviors primarily exhibited by females, including room-encompassing glances, solitary gaze and smile, head toss, hair flip, and various forms of self-touching or grooming; women displaying higher frequencies of these signals (mean of 4.9 per interaction for those approached) were significantly more likely to be approached by men (52 out of 107 signaled women vs. none of 93 non-signaling women). These patterns reflect women's strategic use of low-cost signals to filter potential suitors, reducing rejection risks, while men assume higher initiation costs. Women often avoid overt displays of interest in men they find attractive due to fear of rejection or vulnerability, adherence to traditional gender roles expecting men to initiate, concerns about appearing desperate or too forward, social anxiety or shyness, strategic testing of the man's interest, or maintaining a sense of mystery; many prefer subtle signals, aligning with evolutionary and psychological strategies that minimize risks in mate assessment. Further evidence from controlled observations of 70 heterosexual couples confirms sex differences in nonverbal flirting dynamics: women displayed more directed at partners, positive expressions (e.g., smiles, licks), brief touches, and grooming gestures, while men employed more intimate touching; these differences persisted across interaction stages, with women deescalating early flirtation more than men. In contrast, self-reported and perceptual data indicate men favor tactics signaling provision or status, such as compliments on appearance or offers of favors, which women rate as more effective for long-term (e.g., : F(1,925)=4.09, p=.044; commitment signals: F(1,925)=9.76, p=.002). Perceptions of tactic effectiveness diverge by sex, with men rating women's sexual availability cues—such as provocative dress, body exposure, or sexualized contact—as more potent, especially in short-term contexts (e.g., displaying body: F(1,927)=9.92, p=.002, η²=.010; sexualized contact: F(1,924)=9.54, p=.002). In a study of 126 participants rating 20 acts on a 7-point scale, men scored women's physical acts higher (e.g., "she rubs against him": M=5.50 vs. women's M=4.94, p<.05; "she dances with him": M=5.53 vs. M=4.86, p<.05), while women favored men's relational initiations (e.g., "he asks her out": M=6.37 vs. men's M=5.72, p<.05); overall interaction effect: F(16.091,197.228)=2.28, p<.003. Humor production also shows asymmetry, rated more effective for men (F(1,923)=22.01, p<.001, η²=.023). Cognitive biases amplify these differences: men consistently overestimate women's sexual intent in ambiguous flirtatious or friendly behaviors, a pattern supported by meta-analyses of social-sexual perceptions showing moderate to large effects (e.g., men perceiving greater flirtatiousness, seductiveness, and promiscuity in female cues across 13 samples and 3,631 participants). This perceptual gap, potentially adaptive under to avoid missed mating opportunities, contributes to mismatched interpretations in early interactions. Additionally, some men respond positively to women's flirting without genuine romantic interest, enjoying the attention and validation that boosts ego and releases pleasurable neurotransmitters in the brain, viewing the interaction as fun or habitual without serious intent, acting out of social courtesy to avoid discomfort, seeking temporary excitement without commitment, or responding from habit or signal misinterpretation.

Challenges to Egalitarian Narratives

on flirting behaviors consistently identifies robust sex differences that resist explanations rooted solely in or cultural conditioning, pointing instead to underlying biological and evolutionary influences. Men tend to initiate flirtatious interactions more frequently and perceive ambiguous —such as smiling or —as indicators of sexual at higher rates than women, a quantified in meta-analyses with moderate to large effect sizes (d ≈ 0.75 for perceptions of sexual intent). This sexual overperception in men aligns with evolutionary theories positing adaptive advantages in erring toward false positives to avoid missing opportunities, rather than egalitarian assumptions of perceptual parity. In experimental paradigms like speed-dating and direct propositions, men exhibit lower selectivity, expressing interest in a broader range of potential partners (e.g., consenting to casual encounters with strangers at rates up to 75% versus 0% for women in classic studies), while women prioritize cues of resource provision and commitment. Flirtation tactics deemed effective also diverge sexually: women’s signals emphasizing physical availability (e.g., proximity or touch) elicit stronger male responses in short-term contexts, whereas men’s displays of status or humor prove more impactful on women, patterns holding across self-report and observer ratings. These differences persist in controlled settings minimizing social pressures, challenging narratives that attribute variances primarily to patriarchal norms or learned behaviors. Cross-cultural and longitudinal data further undermine blank-slate , as sex differences in , mate preferences, and remain pronounced even in highly gender-egalitarian societies like and , where women report greater selectivity and men higher interest in casual mating despite extensive policy interventions promoting equality. The ""—larger behavioral divergences in domains like occupational choice and mating strategies in progressive nations—suggests that reduced sociocultural constraints amplify innate predispositions, as evidenced in studies spanning over 30 countries. While some academic interpretations minimize these findings to align with ideological preferences for similarity, the replicability across methodologies and populations supports causal realism favoring evolved sexual asymmetries over purely .

Modern Applications and Challenges

Digital and Online Flirting

Digital flirting refers to romantic or playful interactions conducted via internet-based platforms, including applications, , and messaging services, where participants exchange text, images, or to signal interest absent physical cues. These interactions emerged prominently with the proliferation of smartphones and apps like , launched in 2012, which by 2023 accounted for usage among 46% of online daters in the U.S.. Unlike traditional flirting, digital variants emphasize curated profiles, algorithmic matching, and asynchronous communication, often amplifying selectivity due to abundant options. Empirical analyses of app data reveal that users, particularly women, exhibit heightened choosiness, with women's match rates on averaging 30.7% compared to 2.63% for men, reflecting persistent asymmetries in initiation and response. Behaviors in flirting adapt evolutionary strategies to digital constraints, with men more frequently deploying direct, visual signals of attractiveness and women prioritizing indicators of resource provision or status in profiles and messages. A 2022 study of users found men report greater use for casual encounters and longer daily engagement, while women emphasize long-term compatibility, consistent with offline patterns but intensified by low-cost swiping mechanics. Flirting tactics include emojis for emotional nuance, banter, and photo exchanges, though the absence of tone and fosters misinterpretations; for instance, ambiguous texts can escalate to unwanted advances more readily than in-person exchanges. Online anonymity and social media culture amplify playful roasting or banter, including light-hearted comments on appearance, as a low-risk form of flirting that expresses attraction indirectly through humor, rapport-building, reduced vulnerability via avoiding direct compliments, and testing compatibility or confidence. However, harsh or non-playful criticism typically stems from insecurity, dislike, or other negative motives rather than attraction. Teasing over text to build sexual tension often involves playful "push-pull" banter—alternating compliments with light-hearted teasing—to subtly hint at attraction while maintaining fun and respect. Key elements include mixing humor with gentle teasing, subtle allusions to physical appeal, and emojis like 😏 or 😉 to convey flirtation, while eschewing mean-spirited or overly explicit content early on. Calibration to responses is critical: continuation occurs with reciprocation via teasing replies or flirty emojis, but cessation follows neutral or brief reactions, always prioritizing consent and mutual interest. Illustrative examples encompass messages such as "You're trouble... I can already tell I'm going to get into some fun mischief with you 😏," "Stop being so cute, it's distracting me from my day 😉," or responding to self-disclosures with "Oh great, now I have to picture you in [that outfit] all day. Thanks for that mental image 😏". Responses to expressions of arousal, such as "I'm turned on but not sure where this will end," often playfully escalate by reciprocating energy, encouraging details, or reassuring amid uncertainty, for example: "Let's find out together... I'm turned on too 😏," "Tell me more about how turned on you are... I'm curious and feeling it too 😉," or "No need to know the ending yet—let's just enjoy where this heat takes us 🔥". In school contexts during 2024-2025, flirty but natural texting with peers often references shared class experiences, employs light teasing, genuine compliments, playful banter, and open-ended questions to maintain casual rapport, while using emojis sparingly for playfulness and avoiding double-texting. Examples include initiating with school-related prompts such as "Hey, that test today was brutal 😩 How'd you do?", complimenting specifically like "Your presentation in class was actually really good, you made it interesting 🔥", or teasing lightly as in "Saw you laughing in the hallway earlier, what's so funny? Spill 😏". on virtual agents simulating flirtation further suggests that digital practice may heighten real-world attraction thresholds, potentially desensitizing users to offline subtlety. Effectiveness metrics underscore limitations, with only 1 in 10 partnered U.S. adults attributing their relationship to online origins as of 2023, and app-derived matches converting to long-term unions at rates below 3% in analyzed datasets. High volume—over 350 million global users in 2024—contrasts with fatigue reports, where 54% of women cite message overload as a deterrent. Gender-disaggregated data indicate men face rejection barriers from algorithmic biases favoring female profiles, while women encounter persistent low-quality overtures, challenging assumptions of digital . Risks inherent to online flirting include deception via fabricated identities, known as , which a 2022 clinical review linked to emotional distress and erosion, differing from in-person lies by evoking minimal guilt due to physical separation. Studies document variances in deceit tactics, with men more prone to exaggerating status and women altering appearances, facilitating scams that extracted billions in losses by 2023. exacerbates these vulnerabilities, as evidenced by adolescent surveys where one-quarter met partners online amid elevated risks, underscoring causal links between reduced and predatory behavior. Flirting, when mutual and consensual, remains a protected form of social interaction under free speech principles in many jurisdictions, but it can violate anti- laws if perceived as unwelcome or persistent. In the United States, Title VII of the prohibits workplace conduct that creates a hostile environment based on sex, including advances that interfere with job performance or involve elements, as clarified in the Supreme Court's 1986 ruling. Courts distinguish flirting by requiring evidence of non-consent and severity or pervasiveness for liability; isolated compliments or mutual banter typically do not qualify as unless they target protected characteristics or persist after clear rejection. Persistence despite rebuff, power imbalances, or repetition that disrupts work elevates flirting to actionable claims, with employers liable for failing to address complaints. Ethically, flirting demands explicit respect for and boundaries, prioritizing mutual interest over unilateral pursuit to avoid manipulation or false expectations. Consent in flirting must be affirmative and revocable, distinct from implied permission for escalation to physical or sexual acts, as ethical frameworks emphasize reciprocity to prevent . Philosophers and ethicists argue that deceptive flirting—such as signaling availability without intent—undermines trust and treats others as , contravening Kantian imperatives against using persons instrumentally, though casual, non-committal exchanges among singles raise fewer concerns if transparent. Additionally, flirting is generally discouraged in professional service settings, such as with bank tellers, as these workers are compensated to maintain politeness, which may not reflect genuine reciprocation and risks causing discomfort. In committed relationships, even innocent flirting risks ethical breach by eroding exclusivity, potentially constituting micro-infidelities that prioritize personal gratification over partner welfare. Risks of flirting include miscommunication leading to emotional distress or escalated conflicts, with empirical studies showing men often overestimate women's sexual intent due to evolutionary cues and , heightening false advance accusations. Unwelcome advances can cause anxiety, , or reputational harm, particularly in professional settings where #MeToo-era amplifies scrutiny on male initiators, fostering hesitation due to potential career-ending misinterpretations. For recipients, persistent misreads may result in , trust erosion, or relational instability if flirting signals bleed into committed partnerships, while broader harms encompass or unintended escalation to unsafe encounters without clear boundaries.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10480930/
  2. https://repository.upenn.edu/bitstreams/0e68aba5-18b4-4745-bd55-8b351b3f64ae/download
  3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254254571_Individual_Differences_in_the_Communication_of_Romantic_Interest_Development_of_the_Flirting_Styles_Inventory
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10355297/
  5. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-49033-001
  6. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14747049221088011
  7. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-psychology-of-relationships/202404/the-science-of-flirting
  8. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/06/06/sex-with-a-stranger-evolutionary-psychology-and-sex-differences-in-behavior/
  9. https://www.oed.com/discover/on-flirts-and-flirting/
  10. https://www.etymonline.com/word/flirt
  11. https://fritinancy.substack.com/p/word-of-the-week-flirt
  12. https://www.etymonline.com/word/flirtation
  13. https://wordhistories.net/2016/08/06/flirt/
  14. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/flirting
  15. https://psychcentral.com/health/flirting-behaviors-explained
  16. https://research.manchester.ac.uk/files/46083405/Open_access_copy.pdf
  17. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202407/friendly-or-flirting-how-men-can-tell
  18. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/201910/friendly-or-flirting-how-interpret-modern-mixed-messages
  19. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=intuition
  20. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491401200305
  21. https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049221088011
  22. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199304/the-biology-of-attraction
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20182568
  24. https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2349&context=fac_journ
  25. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:SERS.0000023068.49352.4b
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789486800715
  27. https://www.nicknotas.com/blog/10-playful-teases-that-women-secretly-love/
  28. https://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/a65280466/flirting-at-the-gym/
  29. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-attraction-doctor/202405/3-flirting-errors-are-you-a-bad-flirt-and-dont-know-it
  30. https://www.eharmony.co.uk/dating-advice/attraction/body-language-and-signs-of-attraction/
  31. https://time.com/59786/how-to-flirt-backed-by-scientific-research/
  32. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-right-mindset/202011/the-strongest-signal-that-a-woman-is-flirting
  33. https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2015/02/12/just-time-valentines-day-research-defines-more-behaviors-reveal-romantic-attraction
  34. https://www.virtuallabschool.org/focused-topics/sexual-development-and-behavior-in-k-12-students/lesson-2
  35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/715095/
  36. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/147470491401200305
  37. https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/sexual-overperception-bias
  38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10653507/
  39. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/d3668c15-bbff-4cc2-a338-be4ca86e8e6a/content
  40. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-43615-003
  41. https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2014/06/03/flirting-hard-detect-study-finds
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2744967/
  43. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-school-walls/202303/10-common-cognitive-biases-in-romantic-relationships
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513821000027
  45. https://blogs.getty.edu/iris/seduction-in-ancient-rome/
  46. https://mollybrown.org/the-language-of-flirtation/
  47. https://www.thecollector.com/courtly-love-medieval-dating/
  48. https://historycooperative.org/courtly-love/
  49. https://www.historyextra.com/period/modern/dating-history-how-to-woo-date-court-courtship-marriage-courtly-love/
  50. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20220114-the-surprising-ways-that-victorians-flirted
  51. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/551330/ways-flirt-victorian
  52. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/160104-escort-cards-acquaintance-flirtation-victorian-america-dating-history
  53. https://boundless.org/relationships/a-brief-history-of-courtship-and-dating-in-america-part-1/
  54. https://people.howstuffworks.com/flirting3.htm
  55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1185
  56. https://www.in-mind.org/article/on-kissing-in-elevators-and-flirting-in-the-office-a-cross-cultural-perspective-on-normative
  57. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-13195869/flirting-world-holiday-romance-sexual.html
  58. https://www.pharmacity.vn/10-dau-hieu-cua-phu-nu-thich-quan-he.htm
  59. https://neiudc.neiu.edu/srcas/2024/all/92/
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309585900160
  61. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01614576.1989.11074969
  62. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03637750903074701
  63. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-attraction-doctor/202212/3-steps-to-figure-out-why-someone-is-flirting-with-you
  64. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2015/09/evolution_of_human_mating_2007.pdf
  65. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2024.2439950
  66. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-58325-011
  67. https://news.utexas.edu/2015/08/06/genders-differ-dramatically-in-evolved-mate-preferences/
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268122003134
  69. https://quillette.com/2019/04/08/what-explains-the-resistance-to-evolutionary-psychology/
  70. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201609/the-blank-slate-controversy
  71. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/
  72. https://www.forbes.com/health/dating/dating-statistics/
  73. https://awspntest.apa.org/doi/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.678439
  74. https://www.swipestats.io/blog/tinder-statistics
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S169726002400070X
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4043335/
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266662272200051X
  78. https://www.eharmony.com/online-dating-statistics/
  79. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-dating-apps-have-25-success-rate-millions-users-jay-faeye
  80. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/dating-app-market/
  81. https://www.datingadvice.com/studies/iasods
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9566174/
  83. https://www.psychiatrypodcast.com/psychiatry-psychotherapy-podcast/episode-160-the-psychology-behind-catfishing
  84. https://www.journalofhealthstudies.in/uploads/229/14755_pdf.pdf
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949791423000131
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8881290/
  87. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-harassment-workplace
  88. https://www.workplacefairness.org/crossing-the-line-the-ninth-circuits-guidelines-for-flirting-at-work/
  89. https://worklawyercal.com/2024/12/23/5-key-differences-between-flirting-vs-sexual-harassment-at-workplace/
  90. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mysteries-love/201503/is-flirting-ever-unethical
  91. https://www.askamanager.org/2015/07/should-i-ask-out-an-employee-at-a-store-where-i-shop.html
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4484569/
  93. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-psychology-relationships/202207/why-flirting-can-be-so-risky
  94. https://maplewoodcounseling.com/flirting/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.