HOT APE
Jean Smith's HOT APE, from her 2015 TEDxLSHTM talk
What it claims
In her 2015 TEDxLSHTM talk, Jean Smith presents six things to notice, which she calls signs of flirting: Humor, Open body language, Touch, Attention, Proximity and Eye contact 1. Smith says eye contact is the most important, and that flirting involves more frequent, longer and more intense looks 2. She says shared humor helps tell compatible from incompatible partners, and that someone standing nearer than usual can signal interest 3.
The potentially useful principle
The six words name things you can see or hear, which makes them a handy checklist for observation. In this course they are cues to notice and compare with her baseline, never a verdict about her feelings and never permission for touch.
Evidence status
Evidence: Speculative
Smith's list of six is Speculative 1. It comes from a talk, not a peer-reviewed publication, and her underlying research was not located as a publication 1. Research on the cues themselves is more cautious: there is some evidence that no single nonverbal cue reliably shows romantic interest, and that observers read the patterns inconsistently 4. In one study, the amount of eye contact people found comfortable differed from person to person 5. Comfortable distances tend to vary by country and by age 6.
A rigorous interpretation
Read the six as cues, not as proof of a feeling. One cue tells you little. Several cues from different kinds of behavior, compared with how she acts with other people, tell you more, and still not what she feels. Touch is on the list as something to notice when she starts it. In this course, no cue is permission for you to touch.
Practice exercise
Cue observation: name what she actually did, give a read of each dimension, and choose the smallest next step the evidence supports.
- HOT APE: six things worth noticing (M02-L1)
- Clusters beat single cues (M03-L2)
Why do we believe this?
Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim carries one of five labels.
- Well supported
- A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate.
- Supported with caveats
- Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings.
- Plausible
- One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question.
- Speculative
- An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested.
- Marketing claim
- Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence.
Evidence: SpeculativeJean Smith presents six signs of flirting, summarised as H.O.T. A.P.E.: Humor, Open body language, Touch, Attention, Proximity and Eye contact.
Why this label
An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested. Smith's list is a practitioner's mnemonic from a conference talk. Research on the individual cues is in the topics flirting-signals, flirting-detection, humor-teasing, gaze, proximity and touch; none of that is cited in the talk as read.
What it does not show
- TEDx talk, not a peer-reviewed publication
- The YouTube description (re-checked 2026-10-04) confirms six steps named H.O.T. A.P.E.; the expansion into Humor, Open body language, Touch, Attention, Proximity and Eye contact was read from a third-party transcript and was not re-checked against the video
- The description says her research was 250 face-to-face interviews in four cities, published as her book The Flirt Interpreter; that book was not read
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Source
- Smith, J. (2015). The Science of Flirting: Being a H.O.T. A.P.E. | Jean Smith | TEDxLSHTM, TEDx Talks (YouTube).
Evidence: SpeculativeSmith calls eye contact the most important sign and says flirting involves more frequent, longer and more intense eye contact.
Why this label
An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested. Maps to the gaze topic, which covers gaze norms and their cultural limits. Importance ranking is Smith's own assertion.
What it does not show
- Ranking of signs untested in the source
- Gaze norms vary by culture and context
- Specific statements in the talk were read from a third-party transcript; the video and transcript could not be re-fetched in the 2026-10-04 audit
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Source
- Smith, J. (2015). The Science of Flirting: Being a H.O.T. A.P.E. | Jean Smith | TEDxLSHTM, TEDx Talks (YouTube).
Evidence: SpeculativeSmith says shared humour helps tell compatible from incompatible partners and that someone stepping closer than usual or standing beside you can signal interest.
Why this label
An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested. Overlaps humor-teasing and proximity. A cue is evidence about engagement at most, never permission for touch or escalation.
What it does not show
- Single speaker's claim
- Proximity depends on venue, culture and crowding
- Specific statements in the talk were read from a third-party transcript; the video and transcript could not be re-fetched in the 2026-10-04 audit
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Source
- Smith, J. (2015). The Science of Flirting: Being a H.O.T. A.P.E. | Jean Smith | TEDxLSHTM, TEDx Talks (YouTube).
Evidence: PlausibleNo single nonverbal cue has been shown in this evidence set to indicate romantic interest reliably; the research points to probabilistic patterns that observers read inconsistently.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Third-party observers judged interest above chance in one speed-dating study, particularly for male interest and with large variation between daters, while a later three-study set found they could not do so reliably. Together with the weak mirroring result, this argues for treating cues as prompts for a question rather than answers.
What it does not show
- This is a synthesis of a few studies, not a systematic review
- Absence of a validated cue list in these sources is not proof that none exists
- Speed-dating video clips of short interactions, which may differ from real settings
- Mixed replication record across the two observer studies
- One of the three supporting sources (Grammer 1998) has no abstract seen.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Asendorpf, J. B. (2009). The Ability to Judge the Romantic Interest of Others, Psychological Science.
- Samara, I., Roth, T. S., Nikolic, M., Prochazkova, E., Kret, M. E. (2022). Can third-party observers detect attraction in others based on subtle nonverbal cues?, Current Psychology.
- Grammer, K., Kruck, K. B., Magnusson, M. S. (1998). The Courtship Dance: Patterns of Nonverbal Synchronization in Opposite-Sex Encounters, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior.
Evidence: PlausibleThere is no single comfortable amount of eye contact: preferred duration of direct gaze differed between people, and gender, personality traits and attractiveness did not predict it in one study spanning a wide range of ages and cultures.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Preferred gaze duration differed between people (some preferred longer eye contact, some shorter), so a fixed 'hold it for N seconds' rule cannot be justified. Lessons should teach noticing the other person's comfort rather than applying a target duration.
What it does not show
- Single study (Binetti et al. 2016).
- Participants watched filmed or computer-presented faces, not live partners.
- Measures preference and arousal, not romantic outcomes.
- Absence of a predicted difference is not proof there is none.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Binetti, N., Harrison, C., Coutrot, A., Johnston, A., Mareschal, I. (2016). Pupil dilation as an index of preferred mutual gaze duration, Royal Society Open Science.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsComfortable distances vary between countries and also with age and, in this dataset, gender, so no single distance is right everywhere.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Preferred distances differed by country, and older participants preferred more space with acquaintances and close people. Women preferred somewhat more space with strangers and acquaintances in this dataset, contrary to many earlier studies, so lessons should avoid any claim about what men or women prefer.
What it does not show
- Preference task, not behaviour.
- Gender effect was small, ran against much earlier work, and differed across countries.
- Detailed coefficients were read from an open manuscript copy, not the journal version.
- Climate links are correlational.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Hilpert, P., et al. (2017). Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A Global Comparison, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.