Led by Katie N. Adams and Omri Gillath, this research published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
reveals an unexpected hierarchy of where flirting works — or not. Bars, apps, funerals or gym… the results are clear: flirting in a setting perceived as inappropriate drastically reduces your chances of success.
Why some places make your advances more effective than others
To understand this phenomenon, researchers conducted five successive studies involving more than 1000 participants. First, a small group listed the places where they thought a romantic approach was suitable or not. This first phase made it possible to identify 48 distinct locations ranging from the nightclub to the doctor’s office.
In the next study, an expanded sample was asked to rate each of these locations on a scale of suitability for flirting. Three categories emerged: high, moderate and low adequacy. Bars, dating apps and private apartments were in the top category, while funerals, workplaces or doctor’s offices were at the bottom of the ranking.
The researchers then put these results to the test in a series of experiments where they modified another factor each time: the attractiveness of the person, the familiarity between the individuals or the nature of the proposal. But in all cases, it was the framework that weighed the most in the balance.
Even attractive, if the framework does not follow…
In the first experiment, participants read scenarios where an attractive or unattractive person proposed in different locations. As expected, people rated as attractive were more likely to elicit a yes. But this effect disappeared in environments deemed inappropriate. A charming stranger in a waiting room? Not enough…
The researchers then introduced the familiarity variable. This time, it was a close friend who made the first move. Result: even if the pre-existing relationship played a role, it was not enough to compensate for the unsuitability of a location. Some participants even seemed to blame their loved ones for the lack of discernment in choosing the moment. This phenomenon was particularly marked among women, who seemed more sensitive to the notion of a socially acceptable framework.
Finally, the last experiment focused on the content of the proposal: an invitation to dinner or a more explicit proposal. Here again, the location heavily influenced perception. Even a subtle romantic message did not go well in unsuitable places. And more direct proposals saw their chances collapse in inappropriate settings.
Flirt yes, but not anywhere or anyhow
One of the most surprising lessons from this research is that the framework often trumps everything else. A location deemed favorable is enough to considerably improve the reception of an approach, regardless of appearance or the connection between people.
This hierarchy of social places seems dictated by principles: certain behaviors are expected in certain places, and their discrepancy with these expectations can cause discomfort or rejection. Flirting in a bar is often seen as natural. In a gym or supermarket, this can get trickier. And in places marked by intimacy, pain or formality (such as a doctor’s office or a funeral), the attempt becomes embarrassing, even inappropriate.
The researchers nevertheless recognize the limits of their work. The scenarios were hypothetical, the profiles often standardized, and the participants mainly American. But their conclusions open the way to new explorations, in simulated or real environments.