Case Study 19.1: Moore's (1985) Ethological Study of Women's Courtship Signals in Bars

Background and Context

Monica Moore's 1985 study, "Nonverbal Courtship Patterns in Women: Context and Consequence," published in Ethology and Sociobiology, is one of the most frequently cited pieces of research on courtship behavior in naturalistic settings. It is also one of the most methodologically ambitious: Moore used an explicitly ethological approach, borrowed from animal behavior research, to study human courtship signals in their natural habitat.

The choice of ethology as a framework was deliberate and theoretically motivated. Ethologists study behavior by first cataloguing the full behavioral repertoire of a species in naturalistic settings — the ethogram — before moving to hypothesis-testing. Moore wanted to first describe what women actually did in courtship contexts before theorizing about why they did it. This is the reverse of much experimental social psychology, which begins with a hypothesis and designs a study to test it.

Methodology

Moore conducted observations in four distinct settings in St. Louis, Missouri: a singles bar, a university snack bar, a university library, and at university women's club parties. The settings were selected to include environments where courtship was normatively expected (bar, party) and environments where it was less expected (library, snack bar), as a control on context effects.

Observations were conducted over approximately 100 hours across multiple sessions. Moore positioned herself in the setting and used time-sampling methodology: she would identify a woman who appeared to be the focus of potential male attention, observe her for fifteen-minute intervals, and code all observable non-contact behaviors.

The behavioral catalog: Through careful observation, Moore identified 52 distinct non-contact behaviors that women performed in these settings. These ranged from:

• Room-encompassing glances: Scanning the room with apparent attention to whether men were watching
• The flirting glance: A short (1–2 second) direct gaze at a specific man, followed by looking away
• Lateral glances: Looking at a target from the corner of the eyes
• Head toss: Rapid movement of the head to swing hair or flip it back
• Neck presentation: Turning or tilting the head to expose the neck
• Giggling directed toward the target
• Touching one's own face or hair in the apparent awareness of being watched
• Primp and preen behaviors: Adjusting clothing, smoothing hair, straightening posture

Moore coded the rate at which these behaviors occurred per hour, and separately coded whether a man approached within the fifteen-minute observation window.

Findings

First and most important finding: The rate of solicitation behaviors — across all four settings — was strongly and significantly predictive of whether a man would approach. Women who performed more solicitation behaviors were more likely to be approached; women who performed few or no solicitation behaviors were rarely approached, regardless of their physical attractiveness (which was separately rated by blind observers).

This finding was striking precisely because it challenged the dominant cultural narrative of male-initiated courtship. In Moore's data, women were the initiators of the early courtship phase — not through approach, but through invitation-making. The man's subsequent approach was a response to signals that the woman had already sent.

Second finding: The rate of solicitation behaviors was significantly higher in the singles bar and party settings (where courtship was normatively expected) than in the library and snack bar (where it was not). This context-sensitivity suggests the behaviors are deliberate, or at least context-responsive, rather than purely involuntary displays.

Third finding: Women who were talking in groups produced fewer solicitation behaviors directed at specific men than women who were alone or in pairs — consistent with the hypothesis that group membership can function as a constraint on courtship solicitation.

Replications and Subsequent Research

Moore's findings were partially replicated in several subsequent studies. Grammer et al. (1990) conducted similar ethological observations in German settings and found comparable solicitation behavior patterns, though with some cultural variation in the specific gesture vocabulary. A 2010 replication in a UK context by Moore herself found that the basic structure of the findings held, though the specific behaviors had evolved somewhat — some behaviors from the 1985 catalog had become less common; new ones (consistent with changes in fashion and social norms) had appeared.

Critical Evaluation

Strengths of the study: - The ethological methodology is genuinely appropriate for the research question — it allowed description without prior theoretical contamination - The context-comparison design is elegant and addresses the alternative hypothesis that the behaviors are simply social rather than courtship-specific - The behavioral coding is operationalized and replicable

Limitations: - The observations were conducted in St. Louis in the early 1980s, in primarily White, middle-class settings. The behaviors catalogued reflect the specific cultural repertoire of that population at that time. - The coding of "solicitation" relied on Moore's judgment about the targeting of the behavior. An observed hair-flip that was coded as directed at a male target was being interpreted, not neutrally observed. - The study is methodologically designed around heterosexual courtship, and the findings do not address LGBTQ+ courtship behaviors. - The study describes what women do, not what they intend. Some behaviors coded as solicitation signals may have been performed for other reasons; some may have been habitual rather than strategic.

Discussion Questions

1. Moore's methodology prioritized naturalistic observation over experimental control. What does this gain? What does it sacrifice?

2. The finding that female solicitation rate predicts male approach is often interpreted as showing that women "really" initiate courtship. What alternative interpretations exist?

3. How might the behavioral catalog in Moore's 1985 study look different if conducted today, in a different cultural context, or with a different demographic sample?

4. What ethical considerations apply to conducting behavioral observation of this kind in naturalistic settings — particularly when the participants do not know they are being observed?