Interpersonal Communication Motives for Flirting Face to Face and Through Texting

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate specific interpersonal communication motives that college students use to flirt through texting versus face to face (FtF). Four hundred college students (101 men, 299 women) were surveyed and reported using various communication motives to flirt using texting with a potential romantic partner. College students reported specific motives for flirting. Women reported flirting through text and FtF for pleasure motives significantly more than men, whereas men reported flirting for control and relaxation. In addition, men were more likely to flirt FtF for escape compared with women. Findings suggest that individuals are likely to flirt for pleasure if they are in a committed romantic relationship compared with those not in a committed relationship.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Feinberg

LS.

(1996) Teasing: Innocent fun or sadistic malice?. Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon.

Malt

Love actually! older adults and their romantic internet relationships. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 2007; 5:84–102.

Moore

MM.

Human nonverbal courtship behavior—a brief historical review. Journal of Sex Research, 2010; 47:171–180.

Lepp

, Li

, Barkley

. College students' cell phone use and attachment to parents and peers. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 64:401–408.

Drouin

, Landgraff

. Texting, sexting, and attachment in college students' romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 28:444–449.

Grellhesl

, Punyanunt-Carter

. Using the uses and gratifications theory to understand gratifications sought through text messaging practices of male and female undergraduate students. Computers in Human Behavior, 2012; 28:2175–2181.

Thurlow

, Brown

. Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people's text- messaging. Discourse Analysis Online, 2003; 1:1–27.

Grinter

, Eldridge

Y do tngrs luv 2 txt msg?, Prinz

, Jarke

, Rogers

, Wulf

. eds.: Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Computer-Supporded Cooperative Work ECSCW’01, Bonn, Germany. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 219–238.

Reid

, Reid

Insights into the social and psychological effects of SMS text messaging. www.160characters.org/documents/SocialEffectsOfTextMessaging.pdf (accessed Nov. 23, 2009).

10.

Ling

, Yttri

. 2002. Hyper-co-ordination via mobile phones in Norway. In Katz

, Aakhus

eds. Perpetual contact: mobile communication, private talk and public performance. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 139–169.

11.

Berg

, Taylor

, Harper

. 2003. Mobile phones for the next generation: Device designs for teenagers. Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

12.

LaFrance

, Henley

. 1994. On oppressing hypotheses: Or differences in nonverbal sensitivity revisited. In Radtke

, Stam

, eds. Power/gender: Social relationships in theory and practice. London: Sage Ltd, pp. 287–311.

13.

Savicki

, Kelley

. Computer mediated communication: gender and group composition. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2000; 3:817–826.

14.

Drouin

, Landgraff

. Texting, sexting, and attachment in college students' romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 2012; 28:444–449.

15.

Rubin

, Perse

, Barbato

. Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 1998; 14:602–628.

16.

Graham

, Barbato

, Perse

. The interpersonal communication motives model. Communication Quarterly, 1993; 41:172–186.

17.

Flaherty

, Pearce

, Rubin

. Internet and face-to-face communication: not functional alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 1998; 46:250–268.

18.

Henningsen

Flirting with meaning: an examination of miscommunication in flirting interactions. Sex Roles, 2004; 50:481–489.

19.

Montag

, Błaszkiewicz

, Sariyska

, et al. Smartphone usage in the 21st century: who is active on WhatsApp?. BMC Research Notes, 2015; 8:331.