Chapter 19 Exercises

Exercise 19.1 — Mapping a Flirtation Script (Observation)

The Perper-Moore sequence provides a framework for organizing flirtatious interaction into phases: approach/positioning, initial engagement (turn), progressive reduction of distance (close), and touch/escalation. This exercise asks you to apply that framework to a real observed interaction.

Task: Over the next week, observe at least two different social situations where flirtation seems to be occurring — parties, bars, campus social spaces, or similar settings. (Do not observe interactions in which any participant is under 18.)

For each observation: 1. Identify which phase of the Perper-Moore sequence appears to be underway 2. Note who is initiating each phase — does it match the pattern the research describes? 3. Identify at least two specific behaviors that seem to be functioning as flirtatious signals 4. Note whether and how the other party responds — what constitutes "reciprocation" in this interaction?

Write a 400-word reflection on what you observed. How well did the Perper-Moore framework describe what you saw? What did it miss? Did cultural context (the specific setting, the apparent cultural backgrounds of the people involved) seem to affect the interaction?

Exercise 19.2 — The Ambiguity Audit (Analysis Exercise)

The chapter argues that ambiguity is a core structural feature of flirtation, not a bug. This exercise asks you to test that claim against a real case.

Step 1: Recall an interaction from your own life — or identify one from a film, television show, or novel — where flirtatious ambiguity was in play. (The clearer the flirtatious intent, the less useful it is for this exercise. Choose an interaction that genuinely could have been interpreted as either flirtatious or merely friendly.)

Step 2: Identify the specific signals that created the ambiguity. For each signal, describe: - What it could mean if interpreted as flirtation - What it could mean if interpreted as mere friendliness - What contextual factors would push interpretation in each direction

Step 3: Apply the face-protection hypothesis. For each party in the interaction, analyze: what would they have stood to gain from ambiguity? What would they have stood to lose from explicitness in either direction?

Write a 500-word analysis using Goffman's framework (front stage/back stage, frame, face work) to interpret this interaction. Conclude with a reflection: did the ambiguity serve a function? For whom?

Exercise 19.3 — Digital Flirtation Close Reading (Textual Analysis)

Task: Collect a sequence of digital messages (at least 12–15 exchanges) from a flirtatious interaction — either from your own history (with the other person's implicit consent if you are still in contact, or from an old conversation you are comfortable sharing with yourself for analytical purposes) or from a published or publicly shared anonymized example.

Analyze the sequence using the following categories:

  1. Response latency: Does response time change over the sequence? What does this signal?
  2. Message length and elaboration: Does length increase, decrease, or remain stable? What does this indicate about investment?
  3. Paralinguistic substitutes: How are emoji, reactions, punctuation, and capitalization used to convey what tone of voice would convey in speech?
  4. Ambiguity moments: Identify at least two moments where a message is interpretable in multiple ways. What prevented clarification?
  5. Escalation: Does the interaction escalate in any way (more personal content, more explicit interest, more humor)? What signals this?

Write a 400-word analysis of what this sequence reveals about how digital media transforms — but does not eliminate — the structural logic of flirtation.

Exercise 19.4 — Goffman Application (Theoretical Essay)

Prompt: Using Goffman's concepts of front stage/back stage, impression management, framing, and face work, write a 600-word analytical essay explaining why flirtation is best understood as a performance rather than as an expression of a pre-existing internal state.

Your essay should: - Define each Goffman concept you use in your own words - Apply each concept specifically to flirtatious interaction (not just to social interaction generally) - Engage with at least one limitation of the dramaturgical framework — what does it not capture about flirtation? - Conclude with your own position: is the "performance" framing helpful, or does it risk making flirtation seem more calculated and cynical than it actually is?

Exercise 19.5 — The Cross-Cultural Comparison (Research Exercise)

The Okafor-Reyes data suggest that flirtation has a universal deep structure (graduated, deniable, reciprocation-based signaling) but culturally variable surface content.

Task: Find two published sources — they can be academic papers, reputable journalism, or ethnographic accounts — that describe flirtation behaviors in two different cultural contexts. (The Global Attraction Project is fictional, but the underlying cross-cultural research literature is real — try searching for cross-cultural courtship, flirtation across cultures, or cultural variation in mating behavior.)

For each cultural context: 1. Describe the specific behaviors documented as flirtatious 2. Identify what is shared with flirtatious behavior in your own cultural context 3. Identify what differs

Write a 500-word comparative reflection asking: do your findings support the dual-structure model (universal architecture, cultural content variation)? What methodological challenges would a researcher face in trying to establish this cross-culturally?