HOT APE: six things worth noticing
Lesson 1 of 5 in this module · about 7 minutes · Romantic communication
The idea
HOT APE is a reminder of where to look: Humor, Open body language, Touch, Attention, Proximity and Eye contact, each noticed as something she does. Jean Smith summarized these six signs of flirting in a 2015 TEDx talk 1. Her list comes from a talk, not a published study we could read, so this course labels it Speculative 1.
H: Humor. Is laughter shared, and does she add to the joke? Several studies of first conversations between strangers find that shared humor and laughter go with more liking and closeness 2. One laugh is one cue: it may be amusement or good manners.
O: Open body language. Which way do her shoulders and feet point? Check the room first: a hard chair or a cold patio changes how anyone sits.
T: Touch. Notice touch she starts herself. In surveys, how much touch people say they would welcome depends on how close they are to the other person, so touch welcome from one person cannot be assumed welcome from another 3. Studies of how people signal willingness for intimacy find a mix of words and actions, and the same action can mean different things to different people 4. In this course, no cue is ever permission to touch, and touch she starts is never permission for more.
A: Attention. Does she ask follow-up questions, or pick the thread back up after an interruption? These examples are ours; Smith’s talk names attention more briefly 1. In several studies, asking follow-up questions made a listener seem more responsive 5. Compare it with what her job or good manners would ask.
P: Proximity. Does she move closer, or stay close, when she is free to move away? Smith says that someone stepping closer than usual can signal interest 6. On average, people prefer more space with a stranger than with an acquaintance 7, and comfortable distances vary with country and age 8. In one lab study, standing too close caused discomfort sooner and more steeply than standing too far away 9. So the cue is her movement, not yours.
E: Eye contact. Do her looks come back? Smith calls eye contact the most important sign 10. In one study, people differed in how long they liked eye contact to last, and there was no single comfortable amount 11. How eye contact is used and read also differs between cultures 12. Compare it with how she looks at others.
Why it matters
In the studies this course draws on, no single nonverbal cue has been shown to indicate romantic interest reliably; observers read the loose patterns inconsistently 13. In one study, strangers watching short speed-dating clips judged interest a little better than chance, but accuracy varied widely and a later study did not find the effect reliably 14. In one pair of studies, people overrated how well they read others, and the least accurate overestimated the most 15. And people who want more sexual involvement themselves tend to see more sexual interest in others 16. So a read rests on several cues in this conversation, compared with her baseline.
What it looks like
Example
At a board-game café, Priya, 29, was brief and polite with the quizmaster. With you she laughs at your guess, adds a joke of her own, turns her chair toward you and asks a follow-up question. Four cues, all new. You say, “Want to pick the next category together?” and let her answer.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same café. Priya laughs once at your guess, as she laughed at the quizmaster’s joke. You take that one laugh as a sign, slide your chair closer and stop asking her anything. A laugh she gives everyone is one cue, and it may be good manners.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Name what she did, compare it with how she treats others, and treat one cue as one cue.
A cluster can justify staying in the conversation, or one small, low-pressure step and a pause. It never justifies touch, a bigger move, or a conclusion about her feelings. When the cues are few, mixed or no different from how she treats everyone, the accurate answer is “Insufficient information”.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: The same smile for everyone.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, watch one minute of a conversation scene in a film or series and list only what the characters do. Then cross out any word that names a feeling.
What this doesn’t tell you
Even a strong cluster tells you about engagement in this conversation, not about what she feels or wants. In one speed-dating study, flirting was strongly returned within pairs, yet the choices to meet again were not 17.
Why do we believe this?
Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim in this course 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: Supported with caveatsIn first conversations between strangers, shared humor and laughter go with more liking and closeness, and in one dating-interest study both a man's humor and a woman's responsive laughter went with her interest.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Experiments with strangers show that humor and shared humorous experiences are associated with liking and closeness. In opposite-sex stranger pairs, mutual laughter and the woman's dating interest were associated, and responsiveness mattered as well as joke-telling.
What it does not show
- Mixed designs: some correlational, some manipulated humor tasks; the closeness experiment used same-sex pairs.
- Brief lab interactions (10-12 minutes in the dating-interest study); participant demographics not checked in full text.
- Dating-interest result is one study (102 dyads) and cannot say humor caused interest.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Treger, S., Sprecher, S., Erber, R. (2013). Laughing and liking: Exploring the interpersonal effects of humor use in initial social interactions, European Journal of Social Psychology 43(6), 532-543.
- Fraley, B., Aron, A. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial encounters, Personal Relationships 11(1), 61-78.
- Hall, J. A. (2015). Sexual Selection and Humor in Courtship: A Case for Warmth and Extroversion, Evolutionary Psychology 13(3).
Evidence: Supported with caveatsHow much of the body a person says another may touch tracks how emotionally close they are, so permission for touch depends on the relationship, and touch welcome from one person cannot be assumed welcome from another.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. In a five-country survey, people shaded body maps of where each member of their social network could touch them, and the area grew with closeness. In a separate study, whether a touch was remembered as positive or negative depended on who the person was and on reciprocity. A cue is never permission to touch.
What it does not show
- Self-reported hypothetical permission maps, not behaviour.
- Samples were from Finland, France, Italy, Russia and the UK; other cultures may differ.
- Sailer 2024 relies on remembered experiences chosen by participants.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Suvilehto, J. T., Glerean, E., Dunbar, R. I. M., Hari, R., Nummenmaa, L. (2015). Topography of social touching depends on emotional bonds between humans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
- Sailer, U., Friedrich, P., Asgari, H., Hassenzahl, M. (2024). Determinants for positive and negative experiences of interpersonal touch: context matters, Cognition and Emotion.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsPeople signal and read sexual consent through a mix of verbal and nonverbal strategies, and the same signals can mean different things to different people, so no single cue is a reliable sign on its own.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Student studies find consent is conveyed and interpreted through words and actions, men and women differ somewhat in which they use and rely on, and people report most often showing consent by making no response. A cue is therefore a prompt to check in, not proof of willingness.
What it does not show
- Mostly US and Canadian college students, largely heterosexual, self-reported or hypothetical scenarios.
- The Hickman and Muehlenhard abstract gives no category scheme; the five-category scheme in earlier notes came from secondary summaries and is not relied on here.
- Describes how people report communicating, not what is ethically sufficient.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Muehlenhard, C. L., Humphreys, T. P., Jozkowski, K. N., Peterson, Z. D. (2016). The Complexities of Sexual Consent Among College Students: A Conceptual and Empirical Review, The Journal of Sex Research.
- Hickman, S. E., Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). “By the semi‐mystical appearance of a condom”: How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations, The Journal of Sex Research.
- Jozkowski, K. N., Peterson, Z. D., Sanders, S. A., Dennis, B., Reece, M. (2014). Gender Differences in Heterosexual College Students' Conceptualizations and Indicators of Sexual Consent: Implications for Contemporary Sexual Assault Prevention Education, The Journal of Sex Research.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsListeners can show responsiveness through observable behaviour, and asking follow-up questions makes a listener seem more responsive.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Coded behaviours in dating-couple conversations were linked to the discloser feeling responded to, and in experiments instructed question-asking raised perceived responsiveness among strangers.
What it does not show
- Couples study used dating couples in a lab; question studies used strangers online or in lab.
- Perceived responsiveness was self-reported by conversation partners.
- Behaviours that read as responsive in one setting may not in another or across cultures.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- MAISEL, N. C., GABLE, S. L., STRACHMAN, A. (2008). Responsive behaviors in good times and in bad, Personal Relationships.
- Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Minson, J., Gino, F. (2017). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
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: Supported with caveatsAcross 42 countries, people on average preferred more space with a stranger than with an acquaintance, and more with an acquaintance than with a close person.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A large community-sample survey found the same ordering of comfortable distances in the overall data: stranger, then acquaintance, then close person. Lessons can say that comfortable distance generally shrinks as closeness grows, and that it is a default, not a signal of interest.
What it does not show
- Stated preference on a drawn scale, not observed behaviour.
- Sample not nationally representative; recruited by the authors in each country.
- Average pattern; individuals vary widely.
- Seen as a conversation distance; says nothing about touch.
- The stranger, acquaintance, close-person ordering is not stated in the abstract; it was read from an open manuscript copy.
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.
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.
Evidence: PlausibleStanding too close tends to cause discomfort sooner and more steeply than standing too far away.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. In one lab study, reported discomfort rose as soon as an approach entered personal space, while discomfort at too-far distances rose more gently. Practical upshot for lessons: leave room, and let the other person set the pace of closing distance.
What it does not show
- Single lab study.
- Participants rated discomfort in a laboratory setup, not in real social encounters.
- Does not distinguish who the other person was or what the relationship was.
- Does not show that a particular distance signals interest.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Welsch, R., von Castell, C., Hecht, H. (2019). The anisotropy of personal space, PLOS ONE.
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: 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 caveatsEye-contact norms and how eye contact is read differ by culture: in studies comparing Japanese participants with Finnish or British ones, Japanese participants found eye contact less approachable and used gaze more flexibly.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Three studies with different methods (live eye contact, eye tracking, gaze-judgment tasks) found cultural differences in how eye contact is experienced and used, alongside shared basic responses such as arousal. Gaze meaning is not universal, so lessons should avoid presenting one norm as correct.
What it does not show
- Only Finnish, British and Japanese samples; results do not cover other cultures.
- Largely university samples with small group sizes.
- Group averages: individuals within a culture differ widely.
- Lab tasks, not courtship contexts.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Akechi, H., Senju, A., Uibo, H., Kikuchi, Y., Hasegawa, T., Hietanen, J. K. (2013). Attention to Eye Contact in the West and East: Autonomic Responses and Evaluative Ratings, PLoS ONE.
- Senju, A., Vernetti, A., Kikuchi, Y., Akechi, H., Hasegawa, T., Johnson, M. H. (2013). Cultural background modulates how we look at other persons' gaze, International Journal of Behavioral Development.
- Uono, S., Hietanen, J. K. (2015). Eye Contact Perception in the West and East: A Cross-Cultural Study, PLOS ONE.
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: PlausibleStrangers watching short speed-dating clips could judge above chance who was interested in one study (near chance for female interest), accuracy varied a lot between the people watched, and a later study did not find it reliably.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Observers beat chance with clips as short as 10 seconds and were better for male than female interest. A second study is reported, from a search-result summary only, to show similar accuracy in three countries. Later, three studies with similar videos found observers could not reliably detect attraction, except when both daters were interested.
What it does not show
- Place 2009 and 2012 use the same stimulus videos, so they are not independent
- Observers, not the actual conversation partners, judged interest
- Speed dates are a short, structured setting
- A 2022 study did not reproduce the effect, so the record is mixed
- Abstract of Place 2012 seen only as summarised by a search result
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.
- Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Zhuang, J., Penke, L., Asendorpf, J. B. (2012). Judging romantic interest of others from thin slices is a cross-cultural ability, Evolution and Human Behavior.
- 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.
Evidence: PlausiblePeople overrate how well they read others, and the least accurate overestimate most; self-rated mind-reading ability tracked actual accuracy only weakly or not at all.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Supports calibration drills with feedback instead of trusting a feeling of insight. Plausible rather than supported because it rests on one paper (two studies); the authors state that earlier work also found a weak or non-existent link, which was not checked here.
What it does not show
- Two studies: a video-based accuracy test and a negotiation exercise with MBA students (Study 2: 164).
- Self-estimates were relative-ability (percentile) judgments; not tested in dating or flirting.
- Narcissism result is correlational.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Ames, D. R., Kammrath, L. K. (2004). Mind-Reading and Metacognition: Narcissism, not Actual Competence, Predicts Self-Estimated Ability, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsPeople who want more sexual involvement themselves tend to see more sexual interest in others, so one's own wishes can colour how friendliness is read.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Lenton and colleagues found projection of one's own casual-sex desire onto others, stronger when the target's motive was ambiguous. Lee and colleagues found that sex differences in misperception shrank once such projection and sociosexual orientation were accounted for.
What it does not show
- Two papers using study-setting ratings (scenario or speed dating)
- Self-report measures
- Associations, not proof of a causal mechanism
- Does not say who is right in a particular encounter; checking directly and kindly is what resolves it
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Lenton, A. P., Bryan, A., Hastie, R., Fischer, O. (2007). We Want the Same Thing: Projection in Judgments of Sexual Intent, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
- Lee, A. J., Sidari, M. J., Murphy, S. C., Sherlock, J. M., Zietsch, B. P. (2020). Sex Differences in Misperceptions of Sexual Interest Can Be Explained by Sociosexual Orientation and Men Projecting Their Own Interest Onto Women, Psychological Science.
Evidence: PlausibleIn a speed-dating study, flirting that outside observers rated was strongly reciprocal within pairs, yet the choices to meet again were not, so flirtatious behaviour was a poor guide to who would choose whom.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Back and colleagues separated what people do in the moment from what they decide afterwards. People who flirted back often did not choose each other, while people strongly expected their own choices to be returned.
What it does not show
- Single speed-dating study (N = 382), a structured setting with many partners
- Flirting rated by observers, not by the partner
- Choices were recorded right after each date, not later behaviour
- Cannot show any individual's intent; use direct, kind communication to find out
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Back, M. D., Penke, L., Schmukle, S. C., Sachse, K., Borkenau, P., Asendorpf, J. B. (2011). Why Mate Choices are not as Reciprocal as we Assume: The Role of Personality, Flirting and Physical Attractiveness, European Journal of Personality.
More practice
The rest of the set, Cue observation: six moments: 6 moments, about 12 minutes. Say what you saw and heard, then what it supports, then the smallest sensible next step. Open the exercise set.
Go further
Outside talks, videos and pages on the topics this lesson cites. Nothing from them loads until you follow a link, and a link is not an endorsement: read the note under each one.
Jean Smith: The Science of Flirting: Being a H.O.T. A.P.E. | Jean Smith | TEDxLSHTM
Smith's H.O.T. A.P.E. model of flirting signs (humour, open body language, touch, attention, proximity, eye contact), from her interviews in four cities, presented as teachable cues.
Keep in mind. Popular framework from observational interviews, not a validated model; touch is presented as a signal, never as permission.
Marni Kinrys: She Keeps Ending Up Near You. That's Not a Coincidence.
Kinrys's short presents a woman repeatedly positioning herself nearby as a signal that she is inviting an approach. Relevant to proximity changes, as a claim to test against context.
Keep in mind. Anecdotal and stated with more certainty than the evidence allows; proximity is often incidental (shared space, crowded venue). An approach invites a response; it does not presume one.
Vanessa Van Edwards: Why Women Never Make The First Move!
Van Edwards on who tends to initiate in courtship and the small opening signals that precede an approach; read the video before linking to confirm the claims shown.
Keep in mind. Popular-science framing; check any quoted statistic against the primary study before the app repeats it.