DepartmentofBehavioralandSocialSciences,WebsterUniversity

Thisarticlereviewsresearchfindingsdocumentingthenatureofnonverbal
courtshipbehaviorcompiledthroughbothobservationandselfreportmethods.I
brieflypresentthemajortheoreticalperspectivesguidingresearchmethodologies
usedinthefieldandinthelaboratory.Studiesofverbalcourtship,including
thoseconductedviacomputer,viatextmessaging,orthroughpersonal
advertisement,arenotincludedinthisreview.Thearticleendsbyelucidating
somekeyfeaturesofhumannonverbalcourtshipbehaviorthathavebecome
apparentafterscrutinizingthesedata.

Theresalanguageinhereye,hercheek,herlip;Nay,herfootspeaks.Herwantonspirits
lookoutateveryjointandmotiveofherbody.(Shakespeare,TroilusandCressida,Act
IV,Scene5,Line55)

InthisscenefromaplaybyShakespeare,inwhichthecourtshipofTroilusand
Cressidaunfolds,romanticinterestisbeingconveyedthroughnonverbal
communication.Manyexperts(Davis,1971;EiblEibesfeldt,1971;Mehrabian,
1972;Noller,2006)havearguedthatnonverbalbehaviorsarecentralnotonlyto
theexpressionofloveinestablishedrelationships,butalsototheexpressionof
romanticorsexualinterestduringcourtship.CateandLloyd(1992)arguedfora
broaddefinitionofcourtshipintheirbookofthesamename,including
relationshipsthatprogresstomarriage,aswellasthosethatendbeforemarriage
(i.e.,dating).Theirviewofcourtshipisonethatseesrelationshipsevolving
throughinteractionsbetweenpartnerswhoarealsoinfluencedbythecultureand
historicalcontextinwhichtheylive.Furthermore,CateandLloydsawtheentire
processofcourtshipasinherentlyinterestingforstudybyscientists.Theirworkon
courtshipfocusedonitshistoryandthemodelsthathavebeenofferedtoexplain
interpersonalattraction;theydidnotaddresstheroleofnonverbalbehavior.
Instead,CateandLloydofferedaninterpersonalprocessmodelthatintegrates
differentlevelsofcausestounderstandtheinteractionofpartnersduring
courtship.
Nevertheless,assoelegantlyportrayedbyShakespeare(1986),thereareagroup
offacialexpressionsandgesturesthatarepartofhumancourtshipandare
commonlylabeledflirtingbehaviorsbyscientistsand
CorrespondenceshouldbeaddressedtoMonicaM.Moore,DepartmentofBehavioralandSocial
Sciences,WebsterUniversity,470E.LockwoodAve.,St.Louis,MO63119.Email:
mooremm@webster.edu

nonscientistsalike.Flirtingisdefinedastoplayatcourtship:actthelover
withoutseriousintent(MerriamWebstersNewInternationalDictionary,2002,
p.871)andcanbeexhibitedthroughbothverbalandnonverbalbehaviors.Yet
Remland(2009)pointedoutthat,intheabsenceofconflictingcues,flirtatious
expressionsandgesturesusuallycommunicatesomeromanticaspiration.The
ambiguousnatureofnonverbalcommunicationmayconveyanadvantagetothe
user,however.Scientists,suchasPerper(1989)andBussandSchmitt(1993),
arguedthatanindirectsystem,suchasonethatreliesonsubtlenonverbalcues,
givesindividualsanopportunitytoassesspotentialromanticorsexualpartners
beforecommittingthemselves.
Withalmost50yearsofsystematicinvestigationandcontinuedfascinationwith
theroleflirtingplaysinthescopeofhumansexuality,itseemsagoodtimeto
reviewtheevolutionofourunderstandingofnonverbalcourtshipsignalingin
humans.Inthisarticle,Ihaveseveralgoals.First,Ibrieflyintroducethedominant
theoriesguidingtheresearchmethodologiesemployedtostudynonverbal
courtshipbehaviors.Second,Ipresenttheliteraturedealingwiththenonverbal
aspectsofhumancourtshipbehavior,focusingparticularlyontheinitialstages,
indicatinginterestinorsexualattractiontoapotentialpartner.Iincludesome
studiesofhownonverbalbehaviorsmayaidinthemaintenanceofarela
tionshiporleadtotheinitiationofsexualbehaviors,suchasintercourse.Inthis
regard,mostoftheresearchintheareaofnonverbalcourtshipsignalingisfocused
onheterosexuals,butIdiscusswhatlittleworkhasbeendoneonhomosexuals.
Third,aspartofthisreview,Ipointoutthefunctionalsignificancethatnonverbal
courtshipbehaviorsmayhaveinnotonlyinitiatingormaintainingsexualor
romanticinterest,butalsoingivingpowertotheuserorincreasingfunintherela
tionship,tonameexamples.

Ihaveelectedtoreviewtheinvestigationofhumancourtshipbehavior
chronologicallybecauseanhistoricalapproachwillbestdisplayboththeprogress
thathasbeenmadeinvestigatingthistopic,aswellasterritoryyettobeexplored.
Asiscommoninscience,researchersofteninitiatedlaterstudiestoaddressissues
thataroseduringearlierprojectsortoprobedeeperintoparticularphenomena.
Usingthishistoricalapproach,Iintroducetheearlystudiesthatlaidthe
groundworkforthestudyofnonverbalcourtshipsignaling,butIalsodiscuss
recentworkinthearea.Ipresenttwoapproachestodocumentingthesenonverbal
signals:observationsmadeeitherinthelaboratoryorinthefieldandselfreports
madethroughinterviews,essays,orquestionnairesaboutthenonverbal
behaviorsusedtosignalattraction.Studiesofpickuplinesandotherverbal
componentsofcourtshipbehavior,includingcourtshipconductedonline,through

textmessaging,orthroughpersonaladvertisements,arebeyondthescopeofthis
article.Iendbyreturningtosomekeyfeaturesoftherolethatnonverbalbehaviors
playintheearlystagesofhumancourtshipthathavebecomeapparentafterone
scrutinizesdataamassedover50yearsofstudy.
TheoryandMethodology
Thestrongparallelsbetweentheflirtingbehaviorsofhumansandthemating
interactionsofnonhumanspromptedoneexpert(Birdwhistell,1970)tousethe
termcourtshipdancetodescribethebehaviorsofbothAmericanteenagersand
wildturkeys.Giventhissimilaritybetweenhumansandothermammalsorbirds
insignalingattractionviafacialexpressionsorposturepatterns,itisnotsurprising
thatresearchersfromboththenaturalandsocialsciencesanthropology,biology,
ethology,psychology,psychiatry,sociology,andzoologyhaveprovidedmuch
oftheinformationaboutnonverbalcourtshipbehaviorinhumans.
Reflectingthedisciplinesrepresentedearlier,muchoftheresearchonhuman
courtshipbehaviorhasbeenconductedusingoneofthreetheoretical
orientations:anevolutionaryframework,asociallearningapproach,orsocial
scripttheory.Ofcourse,manyresearchersemployedmorethanonetheoryduring
thehypothesisdevelopmentphaseoftheirinvestigations,aswellaswhen
explainingtheirfindings(Moore,1995;Perper&Weis,1987).Finally,therearea
numberofstudiesthatcouldbeconsideredatheoretical.Often,thisresearch
(Scheflen,1965)waspurelydescriptive,earlyworkthatformedthefoundationfor
laterresearch.
Themethodologicalapproachesusedbyvariousresearchersinterestedinhuman
nonverbalcourtshipbehaviormostoftendovetailedwiththetheoreticalorientation
utilizedbythoseinvestigators.Individualsemployingevolutionarytheoryintheir
worktended
towardobservationalresearch,eitherinthefieldorinthelaboratory,whereas
thoseresearcherswhoframedtheirunderstandingofcourtshipbehaviorinterms
oflearningorscriptingmoreoftenusedselfreportmethods.Theselfreport
formatsmostcommonlyemployedinstudyinghumancourtshiphavebeen
questionnaires,interviews,descriptiveessays,andpersonaldiaries.
Thus,threemajortheoreticalapproachesevolutionarytheory,sociallearning
theory,andsocialscripttheorytogetherwithavarietyofresearchmethods,
includingselfreportsandobservationsmadebothinthefieldandinthe
laboratory,havehelpeduspiecetogetherthepuzzleofhumancourtship.This
processhasbeenandcontinuestobeanimportantendeavor,giventhat

relationshipsplaysuchacentralroleinthelivesofhumans,bringingtremendous
joyandgreatpain.Althoughcourtshipbehaviorhaslongbeenportrayedin
literatureandinplays,itwasnotuntilrecentlythatscientistsdocumentedthe
behaviorsthatgeniuses,suchasShakespeare,revealedsokeenlyintheactionsof
lovers.
HumanNonverbalCourtshipResearchObservationalStudies
Apsychiatrist,AlbertScheflen(1965),providedsomeoftheearliestdescriptions
ofhumannonverbalcourtshipbehaviorsinconnectionwithclienttherapist
intera