Self-presentation, individual differences, and gendered evaluations of nonverbal greeting behaviors among close male friends.

Bowman, Jonathan M. ; Compton, Benjamin L.

When looking at the development of friendships, it is important to look at the origins of such relationships. Evolutionary processes caused something resembling "friendship" to have evolved over time in animals, but nowhere is it so well-developed as in human beings (Seyfarth & Cheney, 2012). However, such a well-developed social construct leads scholars to find many ways to define a friendship. Many separate studies have attempted to dissect factors that can become reified as the defining characteristics of friendship. Regardless of definition, most scholars agree about the importance of ritualized greeting behaviors among most--if not all--human friendships. Indeed, a greeting serves to begin or end a conversation between two more people (Gander, 2007) and most every conversation is initiated by some sort of greeting.

Specific types of ritualized greetings vary depending upon a wide range of factors, but particular importance is attached to greetings according to the level of friendship between greeting partners. Over time, different ritualized greetings have become more sociably acceptable, such that in modern times things like the handshake have near-universal acceptance in Western society. Regardless of the relationship, most greetings involve haptic interactions; the simple act of touching is enough to communicate partner emotions (Thompson & Hampton, 2011). Scholars have oft-studied the hug, for example, and have found it to be increasingly widespread over the past 50 years, much more so than in previous generations (Winters, 2011). The use of touch in ritualized greeting behaviors are also dependent upon the age of the participants, given that societal expectations for appropriate behavior within relationships have changed (McDougall & Hymel, 2007).

The level, or depth, of friendship often predetermines the specific action that will be performed during the greeting. It would be widely assumed that the greater relational closeness between two or more individuals, the greater the influence of the greeting on the experience of that relationship (Weinstein, Laverghetta, Alexander, & Stewart, 2009). Indeed, Weinstein and colleagues found that greetings between university professors and university students often correlated with higher test scores. Scholars may argue that perhaps greetings create a positive emotional experience in the relationship, leading to increasingly positive perceptions and outcomes for the individuals involved. Because friendships have various depths and levels that characterize the relationship, the emotional intimacy in a relationship often correlates with the amount of nonverbal intimacy expressed during physical contact such as those found in ritualized greetings (Heslin & Boss, 1980). Relatedly, higher levels of perceived affection (or even romance) in a relationship often led to greater expectations for expressions of nonverbal intimacy (Fuhrman, Flannagan, & Matamoros, 2009). This suggests that two friends who experience greater emotional closeness would greet each other differently than friends with less emotional intimacy. For the purpose of this study, we are particularly interested in the two categories of Heslin's (1974) five major categories of touch that are most associated with greetings among close friends: the friendship-warmth function of touch (which involves the negotiation of touch between two individuals) and the love-intimacy function of touch (which involves nonsexual intimate touches, such as hand-holding or prolonged hugging).

GENDER AND RITUALIZED GREETINGS

A major factor that determines how specific greetings are performed within relationships includes the genders of the participants involved. Gender is believed to be the most important individual factor influencing nonverbal immediacy behavior (Astrom, 1994). There are significant differences between men and women in both approach behaviors as well as which areas of the body are appropriate for touching (Hewitt & Feltham, 1982; Nguyen, Heslin, & Nguyen, 1975). For example, women generally move more proximally close to the other person during a greeting than would men in a similar situation. Independent of the perceived closeness between two individuals, it was found that men were also less comfortable with more intimate styles of greetings (i.e., kissing, etc.) than were women (Felmlee, Sweet, & Sinclair, 2012). Indeed, this male discomfort with perceived intimacy plays itself out in the very manner that men tend to express intimacy with one another; same-gender friendships among women are more likely to participate in conversation (emotional intimacy), while same-gender male friendships that focus more on physical activity (Baumgarte & Nelson, 2009). While many potential reasons abound, some scholars have suggested that a strong motivation has to do with male sexuality: the fear of being considered homosexual has played into reasons why women are typically more comfortable with same-sex touching than are men (Floyd, 2000).

Same-Sex Friendships

When looking specifically at male same-sex relationships, it should be noted that males also participate in same-sex non-romantic intimate relationships, despite cultural beliefs to the contrary (Bowman, 2008). Still, men are less likely to display physical intimacy with other males than they are with their female friends (Derlega, Lewis, Harrison, & Winstead, 1989). Regardless of the perceived level of intimacy, there has been some direct evidence suggesting that there can be diminished emotional intimacy between men based on issues such as homophobia or perceptions of homophobia (Devlin & Cowan, 1985). Even among those male friends who are emotionally intimate, intimate touch in nonverbal greeting rituals is decidedly less so than among same-sex female friends. Perhaps this can be attributed to greetings between males being seen as interactions or enactments of masculine performances (Migliaccio, 2009). These performances are based on both individuals' expectations of the perceived friendship.

Although male same-sex heterosexual friendships include varying levels of intimacy, there are some significant factors that may change the expectations of friendship partners for both heterosexual and homosexual friendship participants. Indeed, the more interactions and close relationships that a heterosexual man has with homosexuals, the less negatively valenced the attitudes they experience as a result of that increased contact (Hodson, Harry, & Mitchell, 2009). The more discomfort that a friendship partner perceives as a result of these differences in sexual orientation, the more likely each participant is involved in less-intimate levels of friendships with out-group friendship partners. Despite sexual orientation, men expressed more behavior inhibition in interaction with people whose sexual orientations differed (Cook, Calcagno, Arrow, & Malle, 2012), which may eventually influence behaviors like ritualized greetings or even the desire to participate in such greetings. Overall, heterosexuals are more likely to find intimate male-to-male contact inappropriate compared to homosexuals viewing the same situation (Derlega, Catanzaro, & Lewis, 2001).

Perception in Third-Party Observers

The greeting between two people is oftentimes a private performance, but bringing in a third party observer adds another dimension and additional perceptions to manage. There can be three different perspectives during a social interaction: the encoder of the greeting behavior, the decoder (or receiver) of the greeting behavior, and third-party observers of that greeting (Floyd & Erbert, 2003). The majority of the times, all three roles have their own interpretations of the meanings ascribed to each behavior, yet the third-party perspective oftentimes has the least accurate interpretation and/or recollection of the interaction. For example, the perception of male-to-male reciprocal touching is deemed less normative than the reciprocal touching of a cross-sex friendship, such that the simple act of hugging between two men could suggest a sexual relationship in a third-party observer where none exists (Derlega, Lewis, Harrison, & Winstead, 1989).

A person's perceptions, including how a person perceives something like a ritualized greeting, are often influenced by factors associated with their social experiences. A study conducted in Belgium found that males who have an extensive network of friends are more likely to have a negative view of homosexuals, while females with an extensive network of friends were more likely to have a positive view of homosexuals (Hooghe, 2011). This difference in gender views was explained by traditional roles of masculinity in peer pressure groups of predominantly male-oriented networks. Although some scholars have argued that men's friendships with other men potentially could create greater social equality, the Belgium study argues that it is indeed masculinity-driven male friendships that promote homophobic group-think (Armengol-Carrera, 2009). Part of the way male-friends may contribute to homophobic beliefs is by expressing that heterosexuality is not an act or performative, but that it is a naturally occurring state (Kehler, 2007). Especially during both high school and college where identities are not yet solidified, men may display their perceptions of heterosexual masculinity, oftentimes performed through ritualized practices that avoid any perception of femininity or homosexuality.

Information Processing in Third-Party Observers

The way one perceives another's ritualized greeting behavior is often affected by their general ability to process relational information (Knobloch & Solomon, 2005). Individuals who have experienced less relational uncertainty in their own lives are more likely to misinterpret others' actions due to a lack of knowledge about relational cues. Also, if the observer is not a member of the relationship they are observing, then their perception of the relationship can be influenced by the perceived personality characteristics (Chen, Bond, & Fung, 2006). If the two individuals in a dyadic relationship are seen as having very upbeat, friendly personalities, the observer is less likely to believe there is anything unique in their greeting patterns. Indeed, specific background features can play into the personal bias of a person's observations (Cunningham & Melton, 2012).

Of course, a person's perceptions after observation of others' behaviors may also be based on their ideas of traditional gender roles, which are in some way influenced by their cultural ideas of personal attributes and behaviors (Adana, Arslantas, Ergin, Bicer, Kiransal, & Sahin, 2011). It should be noted that gendered expressions often induce different expectations depending upon a range of other factors (Scott-Carter, Corra, & Carter, 2009). At the core of gender roles, however, the female gender role is seen as nurturing, while the male gender role is often focused more on protection or aggression (Gross, 2003). The idea of the male gender role is directly linked with the masculine identity, related to such qualities as success and self-reliance, which could actually have negative effects on men seeking counsel, psychotherapy, or romantic relationships (Deering & Gannon, 2005; McCarthy & Holliday, 2004; Morr Serewicz & Gale, 2008).

It isn't just the traditional gender roles of men and women, but also the "gay stereotype" held by these men and women that can alter perception and individual processing of relationship behaviors like greetings. The "gay stereotype" is applied more often when being used by a person who has little to no historical encounters with the LGBTQ population throughout their daily lives (Sakalli, 2002). These stereotypes are prevalent among heterosexual men; indeed, men are more likely to use stereotypic descriptions of homosexual men than are women. These stereotypes aren't just limited to homosexual men, however. It was found that homosexual men are often compared to heterosexual women, while homosexual women are seen as similar to heterosexual men (Kite & Deaux, 1987). Interestingly, there is a larger perceived stereotype difference between a heterosexual and homosexual male than between a heterosexual and homosexual female. This has been reified within our culture: straight actors playing homosexual male characters on television are more likely to speak at a high pitch when playing those characters (Cartei & Reby, 2012), suggesting yet another example of the existence of the effeminate stereotype of male homosexuals.

A discussion of sexual orientation and touch necessarily must include the increasing sexual themes that men tend to place upon most any interaction. With ritualized greetings varying in the amounts of intimacy, it is important to look at the difference between men and women in their sexual cognitions of said greetings. While some scholars may disagree that there is not enough empirical evidence to conclude a difference (Fisher, Moore, & Pittenger, 2012), most scholars agree the traditional sex roles continue to dominate heterosexual relationships (Sanchez, Fetterolf, & Rudman, 2012) and that men tend to sexualize non-sexual interactions.

HYPOTHESES

Based on the above-mentioned previous research in the area of self-presentation and individual differences' impacts upon evaluation of friendship behavior, we offer the following hypotheses and research questions for test in the current study.

Heterosexual Self-Presentation

First, individuals who report a higher degree of fear of being perceived as homosexual are more likely to report intimate touching behaviors as less normative on a variety of measures.

H1a-1c. In highly intimate forms of touch, heterosexual self-presentation will be negatively correlated with ratings of a) how typical the touch was, b) how often male friends engage in similar forms of touch, and c) how appropriate the touch was. In nonintimate (routine) forms of touch, no significant correlations will emerge.

Also, those individuals who report a higher degree of fear of being perceived as homosexual are also more likely to rate these intimate touching behaviors as indicators of closer relationships.

H2. In highly intimate forms of touch, heterosexual self-presentation will be positively correlated with ratings of the intimacy of touch. In nonintimate (routine) forms of touch, no significant correlations will emerge.

Relational Closeness

Relatedly, it is expected that all participants are making evaluations of the participants and the nature of their relationship. As such, it is expected that there will be significant differences in the evaluation of the relationship closeness based upon whether the touch is highly intimate or nonintimate (routine).

H3. Third-party observers will be significantly more likely to attribute relational closeness in highly intimate forms of touch than in nonintimate (routine) forms of touch.

Because of this perceived relational closeness associated with the intimacy of touch, people will assume that intimate touchers are close enough that they don't care about what others think about their relationship and are comfortable with the intimate form of touch displayed.

H4a-4b. Third-party observers will be a) significantly more likely to attribute actors' comfort with touch and b) significantly less likely to attribute actors' fears regarding public self-presentation when they are engaging in highly intimate forms of touch than in nonintimate (routine) forms of touch.

Masculinity and Femininity

Also, gendered norms in our culture will likely have an impact on the evaluation of male same-sex touching behavior, such that people who have internalized a stronger sense of femininity are more likely to have also developed the nurturance associated with traditional sex roles, leading to greater belief in the acceptability of highly intimate touch.

H5a-5c: In highly intimate forms of touch, femininity will be positively correlated with ratings of a) how typical the touch was, b) how often male friends engage in similar forms of touch, and c) how appropriate the touch was.

However, it is unclear whether masculinity will be more likely have 1) a negative correlation or 2) no significant correlation, given that femininity is the clear traditional sex role associated with displays of emotional intimacy.

RQ1. Is there a relationship between masculinity and ratings of a) how typical the touch was, b) how often male friends engage in similar forms of touch, and c) how appropriate the touch was?

Perception and Cognitive Load

When observing the greeting as a third party person, it is interesting to look at the process of cognitive load to track the concentration of thought and attention focus. Performing a cognitive demand, such as an observation of something that is more personally distressing, can alter a person's memory and therefore cause attention to be affected (Sylva, Rieger, Linsenmeier, & Bailey, 2010). The focus of attention positively correlates with short-term memory (Lewis-Peacock, Drysdale, Oberauer, & Postle, 2012). This ability of short-term memory can be remembered after a brief delay, and it has been found that things outside of the attention of focus are not as likely to be recalled later. If participants are more likely to be distracted by actors engaging in intimate touch because of the salience of self-presentational goals, then those participants should be less likely to notice details about the video that don't relate to those self-presentational goals.

H6. In highly intimate forms of touch, a negative correlation between heterosexual self-presentation will be positively associated with participant's ability to remember a specific detail from the video (which actor, if any, was carrying a specific artifact.) In nonintimate (routine) forms of touch, no significant association will emerge.

METHODS

Detailed Methodology

For this study, participants were students at a medium-sized private institution in the southwestern United States. Participants volunteered for a 20-minute survey that also included the viewing and evaluation of a short video. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two combinations of touch type, with the constraint of maintaining equal sample sizes.

Participants. The participants in the study were 151 undergraduate students who participated in exchange for class credit. Students ranged in age from 18 to 26, with an average age of just over 20 (m = 20.34). Participants represented both sexes, although the campus has significantly more women than men; as such, the sample was skewed towards women, with just over two-thirds (73%) of participants being female. While all students were encouraged to participate, because of the research question only those students that self-identified as heterosexual on the anonymous questionnaire were kept in the sample for final data analysis, with 5 students being removed from the sample for a final IV of 146.

Procedure. Participants volunteered for a study consisting of measures of four separate sections, administered online through the Qualtrics[C] survey software. Students were recruited in a wide range of courses and disciplines across campus. Upon agreeing to participate, students were sent a link to the Qualtrics[C] website, with the constraint that students take the survey on a computer that can play embedded YouTube[C] videos (i.e., not on iPhones or iPads.) Students were then given a 7-day period to take the survey, and then indicated their consent to participate in the research project.

Section one: Student profile. After consenting, participants received a series of questions which attempted to ascertain basic sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex, year, sexual orientation, major, state of origin, etc.), as well as a variety of filler questions about general attitudes towards various areas of life. Following the methodology of Bowman (2008), few embedded questions within the larger survey were the main items of interest for this section, specifically three items drawn from Floyd's (2000) scale of homophobia. These questions were developed to focus directly on the fear of being seen as homosexual. The three items used in this survey, rated on a likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree), include "I would be very upset if someone else thought I was gay," "If a homosexual person began talking to me in public, I would be concerned about what other people might think," and "I am careful not to do things that might make others think I am homosexual." These three items were buried in a questionnaire of 26 other items which assessed students' perceptions of various campus, personal, and social issues. Because these three items were significantly correlated (r = .637), a composite measure was created by summing the three items on the scale.

Section two: Video and video responses. At this point, participants began the second portion of the study, watching a short clip of three friends meeting up. These were filmed in a natural setting on campus, using a "hidden-video" style format. Before watching the video, participants read a scenario referencing several well-known locations on campus, with scenario content framed as follows: "Brandon, who lives off campus, was meeting up with Kyle and Ian, who live in the sophomore residential halls, to go to Saturday brunch. They went to eat at the cafeteria and discussed their weekend. (Brandon is wearing the plaid shirt, Kyle is wearing the white shirt, and Ian is wearing the black shirt.) "In the video, two of the friends (Brandon and Ian) engaged in a ritualized greeting. In the nonintimate video, the two friends said hello and each gave the other a friendly pat on the back. In the intimate video, the two friends said hello and then engaged in a criss-cross hug with full body contact. (It must be noted that 48 separate videos were filmed using varying levels of intimacy, and these two videos were selected based upon responses to a pilot test conducted with a representative sample.) After watching the video, students privately indicated their responses on a 9-point scale to seven questions that attempted to ascertain one's belief in the appropriateness of touch, one's concerns about how the touch may affect one's image, and likely attributions one's friend would make upon occurrence of the touch.

Section three: Recall responses. In an attempt to measure whether participants were able to recall a specific detail of the short video clip, a question about one thing that was visible in the video was included. Students were asked to report on whether they noticed a particular object held by an actor in the video (e.g., a folder, etc.) and if so, who was holding it.

Section four: Gender identity. Finally, twenty questions drawn from a modified version of Bern's Sex Role Inventory (Wheeless & Dierks-Stewart, 198) were included to determine the gender identity of participants. After responding to each of the questions, participants submitted their names to receive course credit for their participation in the extra credit opportunity.

RESULTS

Hypotheses 1a-1c

The first set of hypothesis was designed to test the impact of one's desire to present oneself as heterosexual (heterosexual self-presentation) upon the perceived typicality of intimate vs. non-intimate touch, appropriateness of intimate vs. non-intimate touch, and frequencies of expression associated with intimate vs. non-intimate touch.

Hypothesis 1a. As predicted, a strong negative correlation emerged between heterosexual self-presentation and the perceived typicality of highly intimate touch, r (81) = -.30, p = .008. Also as predicted, no significant correlation emerged between the two factors for non-intimate touch, r (65) = -.095, p = .45.

Hypothesis lb. As predicted, a strong negative correlation emerged between heterosexual self-presentation and the perception of how often men engage in highly intimate touch, r (79) = -.30,p = .008. Also as predicted, no significant correlation emerged between the two factors for non-intimate touch, r (65) = -.064,p = .62.

Hypothesis 1c. As predicted, a strong negative correlation emerged between heterosexual self-presentation and the perceived appropriateness of highly intimate touch, r (81) = .32,p = .004. Also as predicted, no significant correlation emerged between the two factors for non-intimate touch, r (65) = -.121,p = .32.

Clearly, one's desire for heterosexual self-presentation is a strong factor in the evaluation of the nonverbal behaviors of others, with those individuals who have a higher desire to present themselves as not homosexual being more likely to negatively evaluate the more intimate forms of ritualized greetings among same-sex friends.

Hypothesis 2

The second hypothesis was designed to test the impact of one's desire to present oneself as heterosexual (heterosexual self-presentation) upon the ascribed closeness of relationships based upon intimate vs. non-intimate touch.

As predicted, a positive correlation emerged between heterosexual self-presentation and the perceived intimacy of highly intimate touch, r (81) = .213,p = .057. Also as predicted, no significant correlation emerged between the two factors for non-intimate touch, r (65) = .126, p = .32.

In more physically intimate interactions, individuals with a relatively higher desire to present themselves as heterosexual are also more likely to evaluate that physical touch as intimate than are those individuals who do not have this concern with heterosexual self-presentation.

Hypothesis 3

The third hypothesis was designed to test whether, in general, participants observing actors engaging in highly intimate greetings are significantly more likely to assume that they are closer than are actors engaging in nonintimate forms greetings.

As predicted, a one-way ANOVA demonstrated a significantly higher rating of perceived relational closeness between actors engaged in highly intimate touch (m = 5.91, sd = .99) than actors engaged in nonintimate, routine forms of touch (m = 5.43, sd = 1.14), F = 7.46, p = .007.

Participants clearly believe that people who engage in more intimate greeting behaviors have a closer relationship.

Hypotheses 4a-4b

The fourth hypotheses was designed to test the impact of these evaluations of relational closeness: whether, in general, participants observing actors engaging in highly intimate greetings are significantly more likely to assume that they a) don't care about what others think about their relationship and b) are comfortable with the intimate form of touch displayed.

Hypotheses 4a-4b. As predicted, a one-way ANOVA demonstrated a significantly higher rating of perceived comfort with the greeting between actors engaged in highly intimate touch (m = 5.26, SD = 1.13) than actors engaged in nonintimate, routine forms of touch (m = 4.69, SD = 1.13), F = 9.10,p = .003. Also confirming our predictions, a one-way ANOVA demonstrated a significantly lower rating of perceived fears of making a bad impression on other people for actors engaged in highly intimate touch (m = 2.88, SD = 1.46) than for actors engaged in nonintimate, routine forms of touch (m = 3.58, SD = 1.24), F = 9.70,p = .002.

Third party observers seem to assume that people in close friendships don't worry as much about the impact of their nonverbal behaviors because that relationship is already close; people in less-close friendships may have greater issues of self-presentation, explaining the differences in comfort and fear of a bad impression.

Hypotheses 5a-5c and Research Question 1

The fifth set of hypothesis and the research question were designed to test the impact of femininity and masculinity upon one's evaluation of the perceived typicality, the appropriateness, and how often men engage in with highly intimate touch.

Hypothesis 5a. As predicted, a strong positive correlation emerged between femininity and the perceived typicality of highly intimate touch, r(81) = .27,p = .017.

Hypothesis 5b. As predicted, a strong positive correlation emerged between femininity and the perception of how often men engage in highly intimate touch, r(79) = .23, p = .043.

Hypothesis 5c. As predicted, a strong positive correlation emerged between femininity and the perceived appropriateness of highly intimate touch, r(81) = .24,p = .035.

Research Question 1. No correlations emerged between masculinity and the perceived typicality (r(81) = .10, p = .391), frequency (r(79) = .10, p = .386), or appropriateness of highly intimate touch (r (81) = .12, p= .270).

Clearly, femininity influences impressions of the likelihood of engaging in a highly-intimate nonverbal greeting ritual among same-sex friends.

Hypothesis 6. The sixth hypothesis was designed to test whether, in general, participants with higher levels of heterosexual self-presentation are more likely to be distracted by actors engaging in highly intimate touch, while there is no difference in distraction when touch is nonintimate.

As predicted, a negative association emerged between heterosexual self-presentation and the ability to remember details of a video that included a greeting with highly intimate touch, r (81) = -.312,p = .005. Also as predicted, no significant association emerged between the two factors for non-intimate touch, r(65) = -.049, p = .70.

As expected - but no less surprising--performing an additional cognitive demand (like observing a greeting that includes a salient, personally-distressing highly intimate touch) can distract individuals because of their high need for heterosexual self-presentation.

DISCUSSION

The present study looked at the influence of personality characteristics and self-presentational goals on third-party perceptions of ritualized nonverbal greetings in natural settings. Additionally, the study looked at cognitive processing and its effect upon information retrieval and cognitive load, as impacted by participants' own self-presentational goals as third-party observers.

Self-Presentation

The impact of self-presentation on perceptions of various levels of intimate physical contact was based on the notion that males have less intimate interactions due to homophobia (Devlin & Cowan, 1985). With this, it was found that men and women who cared deeply about successfully presenting themselves as heterosexual were more likely to believe that male-to-male intimate greetings were less typical, less frequent, and less appropriate. On the other hand, those who had a lesser desire for heterosexual self-presentation did not find the more intimate same-sex greetings to be irregular. Clearly, during the process of self-presentation, individuals portraying themselves as heterosexual seem more comfortable with others who also engage in similarly heteronormative behaviors that they themselves would be likely to show.

Additionally, it was found that those men and women who had high desire for a heterosexual self-presentation not only saw intimate greetings as irregular, but also assumed a closer relationship between the two males observed in the videos. Not only would they believe there to be greater relational closeness in the relationship, but also they seemed willing to ascribe characteristics typically associated with intimacy (or even romance) to the interaction partners. Thus, if a pair of males were to shake hands, it would be first be perceived that they were friends. Alternately, if a pair of males were to hug in a particularly intimate manner, it would be perceived that they may have a romantic relationship.

Interestingly (and significantly) this perception changes for those individuals who do not purport to show a desire to be perceived themselves as heterosexual. Regardless of self presentation, participants were more likely to assume that both male participants did not care about what others thought of their relationship; males in the video were perceived to be relatively comfortable with their actions during the greeting. Also, partners expressing more-intimate greetings were not perceived to fear making a bad impression on other people by third-party observers. This clearly demonstrates that third-party observers may assume that people involved in close relationships do not worry about their self-presentational needs in ritualized greeting behaviors because the relationship is already close. Perhaps people in less-close relationships have more concern with their self-presentation during greetings because those relationships are not already firmly established and comfortable.

While sex was not seen as a significant predictor of third-party observations, the third individual difference tested was the impact of individual gender associations on the perceptions. Overall, third-party observers' femininity had a stronger connection between seeing highly intimate touching and typicality, frequency, and appropriateness. Masculinity, however, was found to have no correlation with perceived typicality, frequency, or appropriateness ascribed to these more intimate nonverbal greeting behaviors.

The final area of inquiry for the current study looked at the cognitive load associated with both self-presentation and third-party perceptions. People with higher concerns for heterosexual self-presentation were less likely to remember specific details surrounding the intimate greetings. However, when it came to non-intimate greetings, respondents were able to remember the details. This suggests that when people observe something irregular and personally salient, such as an intimate same-sex greeting, that the third-party observer will only think of that irregular behavior as opposed to other possible observations.

Future Directions

Potential extensions of this study are numerous; such findings are heuristically provocative. As the study focused on men's and women's evaluations of same-sex male nonverbal greeting behaviors, a natural follow-up would include the general appropriateness associated with nonverbal intimacy between female friends. While research has typically designated females as more accepting of intimate physical behaviors (Floyd, 2000), a research question would help clarify the cultural norms that then may or may not be influenced by self-presentation. Indeed, a comprehensive look at gender roles and self-presentation may prove useful.

Additionally, our statistically significant hypotheses associated with cognitive load and memory builds upon a traditional understanding of ritualized greeting behaviors. With people seeing more mediated and/or public acts of intimacy among both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, self-concept and its impact upon third-party observations may prove fruitful in understanding peoples' memories and perceptions associated with nonverbal displays. Increased scrutiny may clarify how intimacy and affection displays affect our short-term memory and cognitive processing for both participants and observers. Indeed, even perceptions of situational appropriateness may alter the likelihood of recollection and perception.

Finally, this study was able to demonstrate that a wide variety of differences and processes can influence third-party observations. Increasing the representative nature of the sampling process--particularly with regard to the inclusion of a large sample of non-heterosexual or questioning participants--may influence the understandings of in-group and out-group cognitive experiences of intimacy within close relationships of many types. If our cognitive load research is to generate a much broader discussion, there must be greater attention to the wide contexts in which observation and experience may occur. Limitations notwithstanding, however, this study sheds light on the influence of gender orientation, self-presentation, and perceptions of nonverbal norms upon both cognitive processing of third-party observations and also one's subsequent attitude towards relational behaviors; future research in this area will likely prove fruitful and may dramatically impact our understanding and experience of the sense-making process associated with ritualized greetings.

References

Adana, F., Arslantas, H., Ergin, F., Bicer, N., Kiransal, N., & Sahin, S. (2011). Views of male university students about social gender roles: An example from east of Turkey. Journal of Family Violence, 26(7), 519-526. doi: 10.1007/s10896-011-9385-1

Armengol-Carrera, J.M. (2009). Of friendship: Revisiting friendships between men in American literature. Journal of Men's Studies, 17(3), 193-209. doi: 10.3149/jms.1703.193

Astrom, J. (1994). Introductory greeting behavior: A laboratory investigation of approaching and closing salutation. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 79(2), 863. doi: 10.2466/pms. 1994.79.2.863

Baumgarte, R., & Nelson, D. (2009). Preference for same- versus cross-sex friendships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(A), 901-917. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00465.x

Bowman, J.M. (2008). Gender role orientation and relational closeness: Self-disclosive behavior in same-sex male friendships. Journal of Men's Studies, 76(3), 316-330. doi: 10.3149/jms. 1603.316

Cartei, V., & Reby, D. (2012). Acting gay: Male actors shift the frequency components of their voices towards female values when playing homosexual characters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26(1), 79-93. doi: 10.1007/s10919-011-0123-4

Chen, S., Bond, M., & Fung, I. (2006). Perceiving communion in the dyadic relationship of others. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 103-111. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2006.00187. x

Cook, J.E., Calcagno, J.E., Arrow, H., & Malle, B.F. (2012). Friendship trumps ethnicity (but not sexual orientation): Comfort and discomfort in inter-group interactions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(2), 273-289. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02051.x

Cunningham, G.B., & Melton, N. (2012). Prejudice against lesbian, gay, and bisexual coaches: The influence of race, religious fundamentalism, modem sexism, and contact with sexual minorities. Sociology of Sport Journal, 29(3), 283-305.

Deering, C., & Gannon, E.J. (2005). Gender and psychotherapy with traditional men. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 59(4), 351-360.

Derlega, V.J., Catanzaro, D., & Lewis, R.J. (2001). Perceptions about tactile intimacy in same-sex and opposite-sex pairs based on research participants' sexual orientation. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2(2), 124-132. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.2.2.124

Derlega, V.J., Lewis, R.J., Harrison, S., & Winstead, B.A. (1989). Gender differences in the initiation and attribution of tactile intimacy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13(2), 83-96. doi: 10.1007/BF00990792

Devlin, P.K., & Cowan, G.A. (1985). Homophobia, perceived fathering, and male intimate relationships. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(5), 467.

Felmlee, D., Sweet, E., & Sinclair, H.H. (2012). Gender rules: Same- and cross-gender friendships norms. Sex Roles, 66(7/8), 518-529. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0109-z

Fisher, T.D., Moore, Z.T., & Pittenger, M. (2012). Sex on the brain?: An examination of frequency of sexual cognitions as a function of gender, erotophilia, and social desirability. Journal of Sex Research, 49(1), 69-11. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2011.565429

Floyd, K. (2000). Affectionate same-sex touch: The influence of homophobia on observers' perceptions. Journal of Social Psychology, 140(6), 774-788. doi: 10.1080/00224540009600516

Floyd, K., & Erbert, L.A. (2003). Relational message interpretations of nonverbal matching behavior: An application of the social meaning model. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(5), 581-597. doi: 10.1080/00224540309598465

Fuhrman, R.W., Flannagan, D., & Matamoros, M. (2009). Behavior expectations in cross-sex friendships, same-sex friendships, and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 16(4), 575-596. doi:10.1111/j. 1475-6811.2009.01240.x

Gander, H. (2007). On attention: From a phenomenological analysis towards an ethical understanding of social attention. Research in Phenomenology, 37(3), 287-302. doi: 10.1163/ 156916407X227857

Gross, R.M. (2003). What went wrong? Feminism and freedom from the prison of gender roles. Cross Currents, 53(1), 8.

Heslin, R. (1974). Steps toward a taxomony of touching. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Heslin, R., & Boss, D. (1980). Nonverbal intimacy in airport arrival and departure. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(2), 248-252. doi: 10.1177/014616728062010

Hewitt, J., & Feltham, D. (1982). Differential reaction to touch by men and women. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 55(3), 1291-1294. doi: 10.2466/pms.1982.55.3f.1291

Hodson, G., Harry, H., & Mitchell, A. (2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 509-525. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.558

Hooghe, M. (2011). The impact of gendered friendship patterns on the prevalence of homophobia among Belgian late adolescents. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(3), 543-550. doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9635-y

Kehler, M.D. (2007). Hallway fears and high school friendships: The complications of young men (re)negotiating heterosexualized identities. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(2), 259-277. doi: 10.1080/01596300701289375

Kite, M.E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(1), 83. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987. tb00776.x

Knobloch, L.K., & Solomon, D. (2005). Relational uncertainty and relational information processing: Questions without answers? Communication Research, 32(3), 349-388. doi: 10.1177/0093650205275334

Lewis-Peacock, J.A., Drysdale, A.T., Oberauer, K., & Postle, B.R. (2012). Neural evidence for a distinction between short-term memory and the focus of attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(1), 61-79. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00140

McCarthy, J., & Holliday, E.L. (2004). Help-seeking and counseling within a traditional male gender role: An examination from a multicultural perspective. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(1), 25-30. doi: 10.1002/j.11556-6678.2004.tb00282.x

McDougall, P., & Hymel, S. (2007). Same-gender versus cross-gender friendship conceptions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(3), 347-380. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2007.0018

Migliaccio, T. (2009). Men's friendships: Performances of masculinity. Journal of Men's Studies, 17(3), 226-241. doi:10.3149/jms.1703.226

Morr Serewicz, M., & Gale, E. (2008). First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship. Sex Roles, 53(3/4), 149-164. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9283-4

Nguyen, T., Heslin, R., & Nguyen, M.L. (1975). The meanings of touch: Sex differences. Journal of Communication, 25(3), 92-103. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1975.tb00610.x

Sakalli, N. (2002). Pictures of male homosexuals in the heads of Turkish college students: The effects of sex difference and social contact on stereotyping. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(2), 111. doi: 10.1300/J082v43n02_07

Sanchez, D.T., Fetterolf, J.C., & Rudman, L.A. (2012). Eroticizing inequality in the United States: The consequences and determinants of traditional gender role adherence in intimate relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49(2/3), 168-183. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2011.653699

Scott-Carter, J.J., Corra, M., & Carter, S.K. (2009). The interaction of race and gender: Changing gender-role attitudes, 1974-2006. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 90(1), 196-211. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00611.x

Seyfarth, R.M., & Cheney, D.L. (2012). The evolutionary origins of friendship. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 153-177. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100337

Sylva, D., Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J.W., & Bailey, J. (2010). Concealment of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1), 141-152. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9466-2

Thompson, E.H., & Hampton, J.A. (2011). The effect of relationship status on communicating emotions through touch. Cognition & Emotion, 25(2), 295-306. doi: 10.1080/02699931. 2010.492957

Weinstein, L., Laverghetta, A., Alexander, R., & Stewart, M. (2009). Teacher greetings increase college students' test scores. College Student Journal, 43(2), 452-453.

Wheeless, V.E., & Dierks-Stewart, K. (1981). The psychometric properties of the Bern sex-role inventory: Questions concerning reliability and validity. Communication Quarterly, 28, 173-186.

Winters, W.L. (2011, June). The metaphoric hug: A secret medicinal. Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal, 2.

JONATHAN M. BOWMAN * AND BENJAMIN L. COMPTON **

* University of San Diego.

** University of Kansas.

A version of this article was presented at the 2013 Annual Conference of the National Communication Association in Washington, DC.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Jonathan M. Bowman, University of San Diego Department of Communication Studies, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110. Email: bowman@ sandiego.edu

DOI: 10.3149/jms.2203.207