Baseline first
Lesson 1 of 5 in this module · about 7 minutes · Emotional skills
The idea
Your baseline for someone is how she behaves with other people, or earlier, before you changed anything. You can collect it in three places: with others, before you join; earlier in this conversation, before you said or did anything new; and in this setting, since a crowded room or a cold patio changes how anyone acts. You are not trying to catch her out. You are learning what ordinary looks like for her, so you can tell when something differs.
There is no standard amount of any cue to measure her against. The research points the other way.
- Eye contact. In one study, people differed in how long they liked direct eye contact to last, and gender, personality traits and attractiveness did not predict it 1. Those participants watched faces on a screen, not live partners 1.
- Distance. Across 42 countries, comfortable distances varied with country and with age 2. Those were stated preferences, not observed behavior 2.
- Style. In one large survey of adults, people described different styles of showing romantic interest: traditional, physical, sincere, playful and polite 3. These were self-reports, and the labels describe tendencies, not what one person’s behavior means 3.
- Setting. One older, small field study reports that dozens of courtship behaviors in women appeared more often in places where meeting a partner was the point than in neutral places 4. We have not confirmed its details, so we use it only for a modest point: the same behavior can be common in one place and rare in another.
Practice guidance, not research: people also differ in how they show engagement and how they like to communicate. Some are expressive, some reserved; some say things directly, others hint. So compare each person with herself, never with someone else.
A first impression is not a baseline. In five experiments, trait judgments of unfamiliar faces after about a tenth of a second closely matched untimed judgments, and extra viewing time mostly added confidence 5. Those were faces only, shown to students in a lab. A judgment can be consistent and still wrong 5. A baseline gives your snap read something to be checked against.
Comparing with a baseline is a course principle, not a research finding.
Why it matters
With no standard amount of eye contact or distance to go by, “she stood close” or “she looked at me a lot” means little until you know what is usual for her, here. Without a baseline, her ordinary warmth looks like something aimed at you.
What it looks like
Example
At a community garden, Marisol, 31, laughs at nearly everything the man beside her says, rests a hand on his sleeve and stands close as they sort seedlings. Ten minutes later she does the same with you. You note it as her baseline and keep working. When she asks two follow-up questions about the apple tree you are grafting, and stays after the shift, you say, “Want a look at the graft?”
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same garden. You read her laughter, her closeness and her hand on your sleeve as meant for you, and answer with touch of your own.
She did all of it with the man beside her first, so none of it was new, and none of it was permission.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Watch how she acts with others first, and read only what she does differently with you.
Her questions and her staying are the differences worth noticing. They tell you about engagement in this conversation, not what she feels, and are a reason to keep talking and watch. In this course, no cue, including touch she starts, is ever permission to touch. With no chance to watch her first, use your own opening minutes as the baseline and hold any read lightly: “Insufficient information” is the accurate answer until something changes. Take baselines only from what you see in the ordinary course of the day. If getting one would mean hovering, following her or staring, do without. A baseline moves, so update it as the conversation goes.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: The same warmth for everyone.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, watch a film character in a work scene and a home scene. Notice what stays steady in how they talk, such as laughter or distance, and what changes with the setting.
Fiction only, with no notes on anyone real.
What this doesn’t tell you
We know of no study that tests whether comparing with a baseline makes anyone’s read of romantic interest more accurate. The studies above show a narrower point: people differ and settings differ, so a cue has no fixed meaning. A difference from baseline is not a verdict. It tells you something changed, not why, and not what she feels.
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: 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.
Evidence: PlausiblePeople report different styles of showing romantic interest, such as traditional, physical, sincere, playful and polite, so flirting does not look the same for everyone.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Hall and colleagues' survey of about 5,000 adults supported five self-reported styles. The physical, sincere and playful styles went with more dating success; women scored higher on all styles except playful.
What it does not show
- Self-report survey of a large adult sample; country not checked
- The inventory was later revised by the same group
- Correlations with dating success cannot show that a style causes success
- Style labels describe tendencies, not what any individual's behaviour means
- Styles are self-reported; the study does not show how observers read each style.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Hall, J. A., Carter, S., Cody, M. J., Albright, J. M. (2010). Individual Differences in the Communication of Romantic Interest: Development of the Flirting Styles Inventory, Communication Quarterly.
Evidence: PlausibleIn one field study, researchers catalogued dozens of nonverbal courtship behaviours in women and saw signals more often in settings where meeting a partner was the point than in neutral ones.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Moore's 1985 field observation of 40 women across four settings, with a catalogue of 52 behaviours, is the foundation study; the 2010 review places it in the wider literature. The point for a lesson is that these are clusters of small behaviours that vary by context, not a decoder ring.
What it does not show
- Single small field study (40 women across settings); location and culture not checked
- Observer-coded and not independently replicated in this source set
- Describes how often behaviours occur, not what any one person means by them
- The 1985 abstract was not seen (findings unconfirmed); the 2010 review's abstract states no specific results
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: Context and consequences, Ethology and Sociobiology.
- Moore, M. M. (2010). Human Nonverbal Courtship Behavior—A Brief Historical Review, The Journal of Sex Research.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsPeople form trait impressions of a face after about a tenth of a second; those snap judgments correlated highly with untimed ones, and extra viewing time mostly raised confidence, though judgments became more negative from 100 to 500 ms and impressions more differentiated with more time.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. In five experiments, snap judgments of attractiveness, likability, trustworthiness, competence and aggressiveness correlated highly with untimed judgments. Agreement between viewers is not accuracy: fast impressions can be consistent and wrong.
What it does not show
- Faces only, not posture or movement.
- Student participants; laboratory display.
- Consistency of judgments is not evidence that they are correct.
- Judgments became more negative between 100 and 500 ms, so a first glance is not identical to a considered judgment.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Willis, J., Todorov, A. (2006). First Impressions: Making Up Your Mind After a 100-ms Exposure to a Face, Psychological Science.
More practice
The rest of the set, Baseline first: six comparisons: 6 moments, about 12 minutes. Compare the two descriptions of the same person: what changed, and what that supports. 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.
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.
Vanessa Van Edwards: The 5 Flirting Styles: Which One Do You Speak?
Summary of the five flirting styles from Jeffrey Hall's research (physical, traditional, sincere, polite, playful) and how style mismatch can cause missed or misread signals.
Keep in mind. Secondary summary of academic work; the app should cite Hall's research directly.