Popular claims, checked: posture, mirroring and the cycle
Lesson 5 of 7 in this module · about 7 minutes · Romantic communication
The idea
Power posing, mirroring and cycle timing are weaker, narrower or more disputed than the popular advice sounds, and none gives you a technique 1 2 3. Two more popular claims, on voices and on humor, are checked in lesson M01-L7.
Power posing. The claim is that holding an expansive pose for two minutes raises testosterone, lowers cortisol and makes you bolder. A larger replication reports no effect on hormones or risk-taking, and the risk-taking effects failed to replicate in a second study too 1. A failed replication does not rule out a smaller effect, but advice that leans on hormones has nothing solid under it 1. A smaller claim survives. In a meta-analysis of 73 studies, effects on how people felt and acted appeared when slumped postures were compared with neutral ones. Almost none appeared for expansive poses against neutral 4. Felt power is self-reported, and people may answer the way they think the study expects 4. So the evidence leans toward avoiding a slump, not striking a pose. Researchers disagree about how much evidence the literature holds. Effects on how you feel do not show effects on how others judge you 4.
Mirroring. The claim is that copying her posture and gestures makes her like you. In an early lab experiment, a researcher’s helper who had been told to subtly mimic participants was liked more, and the interaction ran more smoothly 5. The record is mixed. In a preregistered virtual-reality study, mimicry had no effect on rapport or trust, although an earlier study in the same paper had found higher rapport 2. In three studies from one paper, people reported feeling physically colder when the amount of mimicry did not fit the setting 6. These studies used instructed mimicking in labs, and one used avatars. The felt-temperature result was self-reported. None describes dating 2 6. Mirroring is a tendency at best, not a technique that works on demand 2.
The ovulatory cycle. The claim is that attraction to “masculine” men rises around ovulation, so timing matters. Whether it shifts across the cycle is disputed. Two meta-analyses published in 2014 reached opposite conclusions. One found robust shifts specific to short-term attractiveness. The other, with 58 reports, found the evidence largely nonsupportive 3. Two large recent studies measured hormones. They found no link between hormone levels and preferences for masculine faces. They found no effect of cycle phase, conception risk or hormones on preferences for masculine voices 7. Only faces and voices were tested, and participants rated images and recordings, not real people 7. These are statements about a research literature. They do not say whether any shift exists, and they say nothing about any one person 3.
Why it matters
Each popular version is bigger than what the studies found. Several mean you can stop doing something: planning around her cycle, or copying her posture.
What it looks like
Example
Before a date with Noor, 30, you read that two minutes in a power pose raises testosterone. You look for the source and ask who was studied and whether it was repeated. A larger replication reports no hormone effect 1. You stand comfortably in your hallway instead, and leave for the cafe.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same evening. You hold the pose because it will raise your testosterone, then copy Noor’s posture all night so she bonds with you without knowing why.
A larger replication reports no hormone effect 1, and in one preregistered study mimicry had no effect on rapport 2.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Before acting on popular advice, ask what was found and in whom; never guess where she is in her cycle.
Do not try to work out where someone is in her cycle, and do not plan around it. If a routine helps you feel steady before a date, keep it, but do not count on it to change how she sees you. Copying her on purpose is not something the evidence supports as a method.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: The two-minute power pose.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, take a piece of confident-sounding dating advice you have heard and ask who says so, who was studied, and whether it claims more than the evidence.
What this doesn’t tell you
It does not say that body language never matters. Several of the findings are Plausible, which usually means one study, and later work may change them.
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: PlausibleThe famous claim that holding a power pose raises testosterone and lowers cortisol did not replicate in a larger study, and risk-taking effects failed to replicate in two.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The original study reported hormone and risk effects. A larger replication, whose title reports no effect on hormones or risk tolerance, did not find them, and a preregistered sample of 305 found no effect on a gambling decision. Popular 'power pose before a date' advice should not cite hormones.
What it does not show
- Hormone non-replication rests on one large replication in the sources used here.
- A null replication does not rule out smaller effects.
- Original authors disputed some replication details.
- The hormone clause rests on a source whose abstract was not seen (title only); the level is capped at plausible until the abstract is checked, though the title states the null result.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J., Yap, A. J. (2010). Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance, Psychological Science.
- Ranehill, E., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., Leiberg, S., Sul, S., Weber, R. A. (2015). Assessing the Robustness of Power Posing: No Effect on Hormones and Risk Tolerance in a Large Sample of Men and Women, Psychological Science.
- Garrison, K. E., Tang, D., Schmeichel, B. J. (2016). Embodying Power: A Preregistered Replication and Extension of the Power Pose Effect, Social Psychological and Personality Science.
Evidence: PlausibleMirroring someone is not a dependable way to build rapport: a preregistered virtual-reality study found no effect of avatar mimicry on rapport or trust, although an earlier study in the same paper had found higher rapport.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The first study (n=50) found higher rapport towards mimicking avatars, but the preregistered replication (n=40) found no effects on rapport, trust or trust behaviour. This is a single research group's pair of small studies, so the safest wording is that the effect is not dependable.
What it does not show
- Small samples; avatars in virtual reality, not live human conversation.
- Second study also tested cultural ingroup versus outgroup avatars, which may have diluted power.
- One failed replication does not show the effect is zero.
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Sources
- Hale, J., Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2016). Testing the relationship between mimicry, trust and rapport in virtual reality conversations, Scientific Reports 6, 35295.
- Chartrand, T. L., Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(6), 893-910.
Evidence: Well supportedWhether women's attraction to 'masculine' men shifts across the ovulatory cycle is disputed: two 2014 meta-analyses of this literature reached opposite conclusions.
Why this label
A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate. Gildersleeve and colleagues found robust shifts, specific to short-term attractiveness and cues of ancestral genetic quality. Wood and colleagues, with 58 reports, found the evidence largely nonsupportive and the few significant shifts looked like artefacts that shrank over time and appeared only in published work.
What it does not show
- Claim concerns the state of the literature, not whether any shift exists.
- Meta-analyses differ in which studies and fertile-window definitions they counted.
- Both rely on studies whose designs and sample sizes varied.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., Fales, M. R. (2014). Do women's mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review, Psychological Bulletin.
- Wood, W., Kressel, L., Joshi, P. D., Louie, B. (2014). Meta-analysis of menstrual cycle effects on women's mate preferences, Emotion Review.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsAny mood or felt-power benefit of body posture seems to come from avoiding slumped, contractive postures, not from adding expansive poses, and it is self-reported.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A meta-analysis of 73 studies found effects when contractive postures were compared with neutral ones but almost none for expansive versus neutral. A Bayesian analysis of six preregistered studies found very strong evidence for an effect on felt power (only moderate among participants unfamiliar with the effect), and one replication found the opposite sign.
What it does not show
- Self-reported felt power may reflect demand characteristics.
- Heterogeneous studies; researchers still disagree on how much evidential value the literature holds.
- Effects on feelings do not show effects on how others judge you.
- The meta-analysis covers affective and behavioural responses broadly, not felt power alone; the Bayesian analysis compares expansive with constrictive postures, so it cannot separate the two.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Elkjær, E., Mikkelsen, M. B., Michalak, J., Mennin, D. S., O’Toole, M. S. (2020). Expansive and Contractive Postures and Movement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Motor Displays on Affective and Behavioral Responses, Perspectives on Psychological Science.
- Gronau, Q. F., Van Erp, S., Heck, D. W., Cesario, J., Jonas, K. J., Wagenmakers, E. J. (2017). A Bayesian Model-Averaged Meta-Analysis of the Power Pose Effect with Informed and Default Priors: The Case of Felt Power, Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- Garrison, K. E., Tang, D., Schmeichel, B. J. (2016). Embodying Power: A Preregistered Replication and Extension of the Power Pose Effect, Social Psychological and Personality Science.
- Ranehill, E., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., Leiberg, S., Sul, S., Weber, R. A. (2015). Assessing the Robustness of Power Posing: No Effect on Hormones and Risk Tolerance in a Large Sample of Men and Women, Psychological Science.
Evidence: PlausibleIn one early lab experiment, being subtly mimicked by a partner increased liking and smoothed the interaction; a review from the same lab reports that how much people mimic depends on motivational and social factors.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The original chameleon-effect experiments and a later review describe unconscious matching of partners' postures and mannerisms and increased liking when a confederate mimicked the participant. Treat as a tendency, not a technique that works on demand.
What it does not show
- The key 1999 liking result comes from one experiment with a confederate who was instructed to mimic.
- Review is by the originating lab; effect sizes are not summarised in the abstract.
- See synchrony-mimicry-c3 for a preregistered null result.
- Mixed replication record: a preregistered virtual-reality study found no effect of mimicry on rapport or trust (see synchrony-mimicry-c3).
- The liking result rests on one experiment; the same-lab review abstract names prosociality, not liking, as a downstream effect of being mimicked. Against a preregistered null (synchrony-mimicry-c3), that is plausible, not supported with caveats (level lowered in the S7.1 remediation).
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Chartrand, T. L., Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(6), 893-910.
- Chartrand, T. L., Lakin, J. L. (2013). The Antecedents and Consequences of Human Behavioral Mimicry, Annual Review of Psychology 64, 285-308.
Evidence: PlausibleMimicry that does not fit the setting can feel off: people reported feeling physically colder when the amount of mimicry was inappropriate to the context.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. In three studies the mimicking experimenter was an inappropriate fit for the setting, for example a task-focused partner who mimicked, or an affiliative one who did not, and participants rated themselves colder. This is evidence for context-sensitivity of mimicry, not for a rule about dating.
What it does not show
- Single paper from the same lab that proposed the chameleon effect.
- Outcome is self-reported felt temperature, not liking or attraction.
- Experimenters mimicked by instruction; whether the partner noticed was not the focus.
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Source
- Leander, N. P., Chartrand, T. L., Bargh, J. A. (2012). You Give Me the Chills: Embodied Reactions to Inappropriate Amounts of Behavioral Mimicry, Psychological Science 23(7), 772-779.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsTwo large recent studies that measured hormones found no link between women's hormone levels and their preferences for masculine faces, and no effect of cycle phase, conception risk or hormones on preferences for masculine voices, so popular claims that attraction reliably tracks fertility are not well supported.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A longitudinal study of 584 women found preferences for facial masculinity unrelated to salivary hormone changes or contraceptive use. Two studies of 202 and 157 women found no cycle, risk or hormone effect on voice preferences. These are two cues from two research groups, not a full replication of every earlier result.
What it does not show
- Only faces and voices tested; other cues and behaviours not covered here.
- Tested preferences for images or recordings, not real-life attraction.
- Earlier meta-analytic evidence (Gildersleeve) found shifts; the literature is still contested.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Jones, B. C., Hahn, A. C., Fisher, C. I., Wang, H., Kandrik, M., Han, C., Fasolt, V., Morrison, D., Lee, A. J., Holzleitner, I. J., O’Shea, K. J., Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M. (2018). No compelling evidence that preferences for facial masculinity track changes in women's hormonal status, Psychological Science.
- Jünger, J., Motta-Mena, N. V., Cardenas, R., Bailey, D., Rosenfield, K. A., Schild, C., Penke, L., Puts, D. A. (2018). Do women's preferences for masculine voices shift across the ovulatory cycle?, Hormones and Behavior.
More practice
The rest of the set, Evidence check: five popular claims: 5 items, about 5 minutes. Decide what the evidence supports, and how well. 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.
Vanessa Van Edwards: You are contagious | Vanessa Van Edwards | TEDxLondon
Shows how hand visibility, openness and expressive gesture change how a speaker is perceived, demonstrated on stage; a model of open versus closed presentation.
Keep in mind. Lab findings are partly from the creator's own non-peer-reviewed studies; perception of a speaker is not romantic interest.
Vanessa Van Edwards: Cues by Vanessa Van Edwards: 9780593332191 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books
Book on reading and sending nonverbal cues for warmth and competence; the publisher page gives the official description and edition details.
Keep in mind. Self-help book; evidence quality varies by chapter. Link to the publisher only.
Joe Navarro: The power of nonverbal communication | Joe Navarro | TEDxManchester
A former FBI counterintelligence agent explains baseline behaviour, comfort versus discomfort displays and why single cues mislead; emphasises context over isolated gestures.
Keep in mind. Law-enforcement and security context, not dating; lie-detection style claims are poorly supported by research.