The Married Man Flirting at Work
Researchers seem to be utterly fascinated by the married man flirting, and the phenomena of flirting in general. We habitually tend to think of flirting behaviors as synonymous with the expression of sexual interest (Greer & Buss, 1994; Jesser, 1978; Perper, 1985; Simpson et al., 1993).
We’ve been researching the married man flirting for quite a long time. Abrahams (1994) believed that sexual intent underlies the decision to flirt or not.
Abbey and others (Abbey et al., 1987; Abbey & Melby, 1986; Harnish et al., 1990; Shotland & Craig, 1988; Sigal et al., 1988) also have explored the idea that flirtatiousness is a reliable indication of sexual interest.
Research by Messman, Canary, & Hause, (2000) suggested that the decision not to flirt with a person is highly correlated with a lack of attraction.
Many researchers seem pretty sure that flirting is a pretty reliable indication of attraction and sexual interest, if not intent (McCormick & Jones, 1989; Simpson et al., 1993).
5 Reasons Other than Sex
On the other hand, a married man flirting is not always looking for sex (Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2001).
A number of recent studies suggest that there may be no less than 5 reasons other than sex for a married man to flirt (Lee & Guerrero, 2001) and (Yarab, Allgeier, & Sensibaugh, 1999). I believe that a husband flirting at work is a more complicated context than one who tends to flirt in any and all social situations.
The fact that your husband is a flirt at work may not necessarily be an infallible indication that he is unfaithful.
Research by Downey and Damhave (1991) suggested that these men may be looking to intensify a relationship for non-sexual reasons.
- Your loving husband might feel that he has good reasons at work to be manipulative.
- He may have a relational motivation. He may be seeking to increase the intensity or intimacy of the relationship for pragmatic ends.
- He may be wanting to exert influence, gain concessions, or secure special treatment for himself or his associates.
- Or he may be simply exploring the relationship. A married man flirting may just be having fun, or he may enjoy being found attractive and get a boost to his self-esteem in the process.
- He may also be simply seeking to manipulate the relationship toward a non-sexual goal, such as conforming to a permissive work environment or securing a political ally.
Because the motivations for his flirting may be complex, context is everything.
Why Do Married Men Flirt?
Couples therapists have different takes on a married man flirting.
Some therapists feel that self-esteem is a primary motivation, and flirting may have a relational dimension. They also report that some married men flirt to heighten their desirability to their partner.
It’s a way of directly saying “please don’t take me for granted…other women find me attractive.” These therapists suggest that there may be a bit of normal marital sadism in being openly seen as desirable. They suggest that sometimes the only relationship he is seeking to intensify is with his wife.
They also argue that men want to be desired as much as women do, and we forget that fact at our own clinical peril. Not every couples therapist agrees with this.
Many therapists believe that relational dissatisfaction is why a married man is flirting in the first place. I’m not sure that dismissing this complex and somewhat contradictory research is clinically wise. The married man flirting can be a complicated animal.
In couples therapy, when I work with a married man flirting, I tend to focus on context and self-esteem.
A married man who flirts on a regular basis is a Generative Conversation waiting to happen. His wife wants to understand him. What does his behavior mean? How does he feel about himself? Does he ever consider the unintended consequences of flirting at work?
Excuses aside, a married man flirting is an invitation to explore possible perceived deficits in the marriage… or in his self-image.
Does He Do It Just to Fit In?
Sometimes flirting is a function of power imbalances and permissive work environments. Perhaps a married man is flirting to keep pace with a permissive and an inappropriate peer group.
I’ve seen permissive environments at work lower standards and encourage flirting as a social lubricant between men and women sometimes at opposite ends of the power continuum.
Recently I worked with a physician and his wife. He was a classic “nice guy” who found himself working in a raunchy and permissive environment.
Nurses bantered inappropriately and used suggestive eye contact and provocative body language with the happily married doctors as a way to assert their power and let off some steam.
I worked with him to suggest that as a powerful figure in the hospital, he had the option of setting boundaries and toning down the sexual banter.
The main problem with a married man flirting is the unmitigated perception that he is open to seeking sexual contact outside of marriage. While it’s hard to deny that flirting has a sexual component, I also notice the aspirational component as well.
What is he seeking to achieve? Sex? Fun? Not standing out as a prude from his raunchier peers? Is he merely being playful? political? Or is he simply on the prowl for a workplace affair?
The degree to which a husband is willing to be curious and open about his chronic flirting is important.
There is an intent behind a flirtatious married man. What is it? A skilled couples therapist will invite a curiosity that is not reflexively judgmental.
Context and aspiration are key ideas for me. I want his spouse to be more curious than furious. Because there may be more here than meets the eye.
Most companies are utterly clueless about how to have a family-friendly workplace culture. I encourage the married man flirting at work to take a step back and ask “why am doing this?”
Do You Need Coaching to Help with Boundaries?
When I Said that Researchers Love the Topic of Flirting… I Wasn’t Kidding! :
- Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive female friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830-838.Google Scholar
- Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 173-194.Google Scholar
- Abbey, A., Cozarelli, C., McLaughlin, K., & Harnish, R. (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.Google Scholar
- Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent. Sex Roles, 15, 283-298.Google Scholar
- Abrahams, M. F. (1994). Perceiving flirtatious communication: An exploration of the perceptual dimensions underlying judgments of flirtatiousness. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 282-292.Google Scholar
- Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55.Google Scholar
- deWeerth, C., & Kalma, A. (1995). Gender differences in awareness of courtship initiation tactics. Sex Roles, 32, 717-734.Google Scholar
- Downey, J. L., & Damhave, K. W. (1991). The effects of place, type of comment, and effort expended on the perception of flirtation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 35-43.
- Downey, J. L., & Vitulli, W. F. (1987). Self-report measures of behavioral attributions related to interpersonal flirtation situations. Psychological Reports, 61, 899-904.Google Scholar
- Egland, K. L., Spitzberg, B. H., & Zormeier, M. M. (1996). Fliration and conversational competence in cross-sex platonic and romantic relationships. Communication Research, 9, 105-117.Google Scholar
- Gilbert, D., Guerrier, Y., & Guy, J. (1998). Sexual harassment issues in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10, 48-53.Google Scholar
- Givens, D. B. (1978). The nonverbal basis of attraction: Flirtation, courtship, and seduction. Psychiatry, 41, 346-359.Google Scholar
- Grammer, K., Honda, M., Juette, A., & Schmitt, A. (1999). Fuzziness of nonverbal courtship communication unblurred by motion energy detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 487-508.Google Scholar
- Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A., & Fink, B. (2000). Non-verbal behavior as courtship signals: The role of control and choice in selecting partners. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 371-390.Google Scholar
- Greer, A. E., & Buss, D. M. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 185-201.Google Scholar
- Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2001). Close encounters: Communicating in relationships. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
- Harnish, R., Abbey, A., & Debono, D. (1990). Toward an understanding of “the sex game”: The effects of gender and self-monitoring on perceptions of sexuality and likability in initial interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1333-1344.Google Scholar
- Hecht, M. L., DeVito, J. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1999). Perspectives on nonverbal communication: Codes, functions, and contexts. In L. K. Guerrero, JA DeVito, & M. L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader: Classic and contemporary readings(2nd ed., pp. 3-18). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
- Jesser, C. J. (1978). Male responses to direct verbal sexual initiatives of females. Journal of Sex Research, 14, 118-128.Google Scholar
- Johnson, C., Stockdale, M., & Saal, F. (1991). Persistence of men’s misperceptions of friendly cues across a variety of interpersonal encounters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 463-475.Google Scholar
- 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 relationship (pp. 13-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Lee, J. W., & Guerrero, L. K. (2001). Types of touch in cross-sex relationships between coworkers: Perceptions of relational and emotional messages, inappropriateness, and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 197-220.Google Scholar
- Loe, K. (1996). Working for men—At the intersection of power, gender, and sexuality. Sociological Inquiry, 66, 399-421.Google Scholar
- McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1989). Gender differences in nonverbal flirtation. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 15, 271-282.Google Scholar
- Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, equity, and the use of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 67-94.Google Scholar
- Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: Context and consequences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 237-247.Google Scholar
- Moore, M. M. (1995). Courtship signaling and adolescents: “Girls just wanna have fun”? Journal of Sex Research, 32, 319-328.Google ScholarMoore, M. M. (2002). Courtship communication and perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 97-105.Google Scholar
Moore, M. M., & Butler, D. L. (1989). Predictive aspects of nonverbal courtship behavior in women. Semiotica, 76, 205-215.Google Scholar
Muehlenhard, C. L., Koralewski, M. A., Andrews, S. L., & Burdick, C. A. (1986). Verbal and nonverbal cues that convey interest in dating: Two studies. Behavior Therapy, 17, 404-419.Google Scholar
Muehlenhard, C. L., Miller, C. L., & Burdick, C. A. (1983) Are high-frequency daters better cue readers? Men’s interpretations of women’s cues as a function of dating frequency and SHI scores. Behavior Therapy, 14, 626-636.Google Scholar
Perper, T. (1985). Sexual signals: The biology of love. Philadelphia: ISI Press.Google Scholar
Rowland, D. L., Crisler, L. J., & Cox, D. J. (1982). Flirting between college students and faculty. Journal of Sex Research, 18, 346-359.Google Scholar
Saal, F., Johnson, C., & Weber, N. (1989). Friendly or sexy? It may depend on whom you ask. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 263-276.Google Scholar
Scheflen, A. E. (1965). Quasi-courtship behavior in psychotherapy. Psychiatry, 27, 245-257.Google Scholar
Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66-73.Google Scholar
Sigal, J., Gibbs, M., Adams, B., & Derfler, R. (1988). The effects of romantic and nonromantic films on perceptions of female friendly and seductive behavior. Sex Roles, 19, 545-554.Google ScholarSimpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Biek, M. (1993). Personality and nonverbal social behavior: An ethological perspective of relationship initiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 434-461.Google Scholar
Tolhuizen, J. H. (1989). Communication strategies for intensifying dating relationships: Identification, use, and structure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 413-434.Google Scholar
Trost, M. R., & Alberts, J. K. (1998). An evolutionary view on understanding sex effects in communicating attraction. 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. 233-255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Walsh, D. G., & Hewitt, J. (1985). Giving men the come-on: Effect of eye contact and smiling in a bar environment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 873-874.Google Scholar
Williams, C. L., Giuffre, P. A., & Dellinger, K. (1999) Sexuality in the workplace: Organizational control, sexual harassment, and the pursuit of pleasure. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 73-93.Google Scholar
Yarab, P., Allgeier, E., & Sensibaugh, C. C. (1999). Looking deeper: Extradyadic behaviors, jealousy, and perceived unfaithfulness in hypothetical dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 6, 305-316.Google Scholar
Yelvington, K. A. (1996). Flirting in the factory. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2, 313-333.Google Scholar
Yount, K. R. (1991). Ladies, flirts, and tomboys: Strategies for managing sexual harassment in an underground coal mine. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19, 396-422.Google Scholar