Charm Upgrade

Learn · Attraction without mythology

Whose research is this?

Lesson 6 of 7 in this module · about 7 minutes · Romantic communication

The idea

Every finding in this course came from particular people, in a particular place, doing a particular task.

A broad review across the behavioral sciences looked at samples from Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic societies, called WEIRD for short. Those samples are often outliers. Results differ a lot between populations, so a finding from one group cannot be assumed to hold for all 1. A separate analysis of one leading psychology journal found that almost all its studies used Western samples, and the papers then described the results as true of humans in general 1. Neither source audited courtship research, so applying the point to dating studies is an inference 1. Some mating studies do span dozens of countries 1.

Three limits come up again and again in the studies this course cites.

  • Mostly students and young adults. Many speed-dating, lab and survey studies use university students or young adults 2 3.
  • Mostly Western. Where a source states its samples, they are often Western 4 1.
  • Mostly heterosexual pairs. The flirtatiousness ratings cover heterosexual cross-sex judgments only 5. The surveys of stated preferences concern heterosexual pairings as studied 6.

This course is written for men interested in women, and its examples reflect that. The research behind it may not cover everyone.

Love attitudes. A study of 1,667 young adults in Japan, Russia and the US found many cultural differences in attitudes toward love. Some gender patterns from US college samples did not appear in the Japanese or Russian samples 7. It is one study with college-age samples and 1990s data. It measured questionnaire answers, not courtship behavior 7.

Stated mate preferences. In a survey across 37 cultures in the late 1980s, what people said they wanted in a mate varied most for chastity. Differences between the sexes in how much people valued earning potential and attractiveness were consistent across samples 8. The data are old and come largely from convenience samples. They record stated preferences, not behavior, and the chastity results reflect the norms of the period 8.

Eye contact. In studies comparing Japanese participants with Finnish or British ones, Japanese participants found eye contact less approachable and used gaze more flexibly 9. Only three nationalities were compared, mostly university students, in lab tasks, not courtship settings 9.

You may have heard of “contact” cultures that stand close and “noncontact” cultures that stand apart. That grouping was proposed largely from observation and anecdote 10. A 42-country survey relates preferred distance to age, gender and regional temperature instead. It does not directly test the grouping, and it measured stated preferences, not behavior 10. Treat any cultural pattern as a rough tendency, not a rule. Group averages describe a group, and individuals within a country differ widely 9 11.

Why it matters

Repeating a finding without its sample claims more than the study did 1.

What it looks like

Example

You read that, in a 42-country survey, people on average said they prefer more space with strangers than with close people 11. Then you meet Ayumi, 30, who grew up abroad and stands closer than you expected, and Brett, 41, who steps back when you step in. You ask each, “Is this a good spot to talk?” and follow their answer.

The same moment, handled the other way

Counterexample

Same evening. Because Ayumi grew up abroad, you assume she is comfortable standing close, and you stop checking how she is acting.

A group average describes a group, and nationality is not a reading of her comfort 9 11.

The one thing to remember

The rule

State each finding with who was studied, and when someone’s habits differ from it, ask her instead of assuming.

“In a lab study of mostly US students” is a better start than “people”. “On average, in a survey in 42 countries” is better than “everyone”. Ayumi and Brett are both behaving normally for them. The survey described neither.

Try it now

Item 1 of this lesson’s set: “Research shows people are like this”.

Open the exercise set

In the real world (optional)

If you like, take any finding from the earlier lessons and say it aloud with its sample: who took part, where, and what they were asked to do. Then think about how you might differ from that sample.

What this doesn’t tell you

It does not mean the findings are useless outside the samples that produced them. It means you cannot know in advance whether they apply. It also does not say that any culture is more or less romantic: the studies compared attitudes and preferences, mostly through questionnaires.

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.
  1. Supported with caveatsMuch psychology research draws on Western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic samples whose results often differ from the rest of the world; neither source audited courtship research, so courtship findings should be stated with that limit.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A broad review found WEIRD samples are frequent outliers across many behavioural domains, and an analysis of one top journal found nearly all studies use Western samples. Neither source measured the courtship literature specifically, so applying this to dating research is an inference.

    What it does not show

    • Neither source audits courtship or mate-choice research directly.
    • Rad et al. examined one journal; percentages not read here.
    • Some mating studies cited elsewhere do span dozens of countries.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

  2. Supported with caveatsWhat people say they want in an ideal partner does a poor job of predicting who they actually feel drawn to after meeting someone in person.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Ideals reported before a speed-dating event did not predict real desire at the event, and in lab experiments, matching a written profile to someone's ideals raised interest, but the effect vanished after a live interaction. The traits that are decisive on paper are reinterpreted when you meet the person.

    What it does not show

    • Mainly speed-dating and lab samples (largely students, plus one middle-aged adult longitudinal sample), largely from one research group, so independence is limited.
    • Ideals can predict outcomes in other stages, such as evaluating a current partner, per the review and the longitudinal study.
    • Self-report of preferences and desire; people may lack introspective access, which is the authors' interpretation, not directly tested here.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

  3. Supported with caveatsKnowing someone's traits and stated preferences in advance does not reliably predict whom they will click with: such measures predict general tendencies better than desire for a specific person.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Speed-dating models could not predict desire for specific partners from pre-date self-reports, and a preregistered 7-month study found only modest compatibility effects, with perceived partner attributes, attachment features toward that partner (such as seeking closeness) and perceived interest standing out.

    What it does not show

    • Speed-dating is a 4-minute, mostly heterosexual, student or community setting.
    • Machine-learning null results can reflect measurement limits.
    • The later study was observational and self-reported.
    • Neither abstract tests attachment style as a predictor of whom someone clicks with, and the 2022 study found attachment features felt toward a specific partner among the robust predictors, so the claim says nothing about attachment style.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

  4. Well supportedWhen people evaluate potential partners (photographs, descriptions or first meetings), physical attractiveness raised romantic evaluations about equally for both sexes, and earning prospects had only a small effect for either.

    Why this label

    A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate. A meta-analysis of 97 samples found attractiveness predicted romantic evaluations moderately to strongly and earning prospects weakly, with sex differences in these links small and not significant, even though stated preferences differ by sex.

    What it does not show

    • Mostly evaluations of hypothetical targets, photographs or first meetings; mostly Western samples.
    • Short-term evaluations, not long-run relationship outcomes.
    • Disagreement exists on how best to test preference matching; not assessed here.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Source

  5. Well supportedAcross studies, heterosexual men on average rate people in cross-sex interactions as more flirtatious, seductive and promiscuous than heterosexual women do, a moderate difference with a lot of overlap.

    Why this label

    A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate. Three meta-analyses reported that men rated cross-sex interactions higher on all three dimensions, strongest for female targets with observers of face-to-face interactions and for male targets in face-to-face interactions. This is a difference in ratings, which does not by itself show who is accurate.

    What it does not show

    • Heterosexual cross-sex judgments only
    • The meta-analysis shows that ratings differ, not that either group is correct
    • Averages hide wide overlap; many men rate lower than many women
    • Included observers of interactions and participants in face-to-face interactions; sample details not checked
    • Only the abstract was read

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Source

  6. Well supportedIn surveys across dozens of countries, men on average rate a partner's attractiveness and youth as more important, and women on average rate a partner's financial prospects and older age as more important.

    Why this label

    A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate. A 1989 study of 37 samples and a 2020 replication in 45 countries (N=14,399) found the same direction of average difference. The two sexes overlap heavily and countries vary, so these are tendencies in groups and say nothing about what any one person wants.

    What it does not show

    • Stated preferences in questionnaires, not choices; see the next claims.
    • Samples are volunteers and often students; the 1989 study is decades old.
    • Effect sizes were not read here; averages hide large overlap.
    • Concerns heterosexual pairings as studied; not a claim about what women or men as a group 'want'.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

    • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
    • Walter, K. V., Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Aavik, T., Akello, G., Alhabahba, M. M., Alm, C., Amjad, N., Anjum, A., Atama, C. S., Atamtürk Duyar, D., Ayebare, R., Batres, C., Bendixen, M., Bensafia, A., Bizumic, B., Boussena, M., Butovskaya, M., Can, S., Cantarero, K., Carrier, A., Cetinkaya, H., Croy, I., Cueto, R. M., Czub, M., Dronova, D., Dural, S., Duyar, I., Ertugrul, B., Espinosa, A., Estevan, I., Esteves, C. S., Fang, L., Frackowiak, T., Garduño, J. C., González, K. U., Guemaz, F., Gyuris, P., Halamová, M., Herak, I., Horvat, M., Hromatko, I., Hui, C. M., Jaafar, J. L., Jiang, F., Kafetsios, K., Kavčič, T., Kennair, L. E. O., Kervyn, N., Khanh Ha, T. T., Khilji, I. A., Köbis, N. C., Lan, H. M., Láng, A., Lennard, G. R., León, E., Lindholm, T., Linh, T. T., Lopez, G., Van Luot, N., Mailhos, A., Manesi, Z., Martinez, R., McKerchar, S. L., Meskó, N., Misra, G., Monaghan, C., Mora, E. C., Moya-Garófano, A., Musil, B., Natividade, J. C., Niemczyk, A., Nizharadze, G., Oberzaucher, E., Oleszkiewicz, A., Omar-Fauzee, M. S., Onyishi, I. E., Özener, B., Pagani, A. F., Pakalniskiene, V., Parise, M., Pazhoohi, F., Pisanski, A., Pisanski, K., Ponciano, E., Popa, C., Prokop, P., Rizwan, M., Sainz, M., Salkičević, S., Sargautyte, R., Sarmány-Schuller, I., Schmehl, S., Sharad, S., Siddiqui, R. S., Simonetti, F., Stoyanova, S. Y., Tadinac, M., Varella, M. A. C., Vauclair, C. M., Vega, L. D., Widarini, D. A., Yoo, G., Zat’ková, M., Zupančič, M. (2020). Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication, Psychological Science.
  7. PlausibleAttitudes toward love and romance differ across cultures, and gender patterns found in US college samples did not always appear in Japanese or Russian samples.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. A study of 1,667 young adults in three countries found many cultural differences in love attitudes, not always in the expected direction. Some US gender differences were not found in the Japanese or Russian samples.

    What it does not show

    • One study, three countries, college-age samples, 1990s data.
    • Self-report questionnaires on love, not courtship behaviour.
    • Three nations cannot represent world variation.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Source

  8. PlausibleAcross 37 cultures in the late 1980s, what people say they want in a mate varied most for chastity, while sex differences in valuing earning potential and attractiveness were consistent across samples.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The study found strong effects of both culture and sex: cultures differ in preference ordering, from more traditional to more modern orientations, while some sex differences were consistent. It is a stated-preference questionnaire study.

    What it does not show

    • Data collected in the 1980s, largely from convenience samples.
    • Stated preferences, not behaviour.
    • Chastity findings reflect norms of the period.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Source

    • Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., Bruchon-Schweitzer, M., Ch'U, H. Y., Czapinski, J., Deraad, B., Ekehammar, B., El Lohamy, N., Fioravanti, M., Georgas, J., Gjerde, P., Guttman, R., Hazan, F., Iwawaki, S., Janakiramaiah, N., Khosroshani, F., Kreitler, S., Lachenicht, L., Lee, M., Liik, K., Little, B., Mika, S., Moadel-Shahid, M., Moane, G., Montero, M., Mundy-Castle, A. C., Niit, T., Nsenduluka, E., Pienkowski, R., Pirttilä-Backman, A. M., De Leon, J. P., Rousseau, J., Runco, M. A., Safir, M. P., Samuels, C., Sanitioso, R., Serpell, R., Smid, N., Spencer, C., Tadinac, M., Todorova, E. N., Troland, K., Van Den Brande, L., Van Heck, G., Van Langenhove, L., Yang, K. S. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
  9. Supported with caveatsEye-contact norms and how eye contact is read differ by culture: in studies comparing Japanese participants with Finnish or British ones, Japanese participants found eye contact less approachable and used gaze more flexibly.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Three studies with different methods (live eye contact, eye tracking, gaze-judgment tasks) found cultural differences in how eye contact is experienced and used, alongside shared basic responses such as arousal. Gaze meaning is not universal, so lessons should avoid presenting one norm as correct.

    What it does not show

    • Only Finnish, British and Japanese samples; results do not cover other cultures.
    • Largely university samples with small group sizes.
    • Group averages: individuals within a culture differ widely.
    • Lab tasks, not courtship contexts.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

  10. PlausibleHall's grouping of cultures into 'contact' cultures that stand close and 'noncontact' cultures that stand apart came largely from observation and anecdote, and a 42-country survey relates preferred distance to age, gender and climate instead.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Hall proposed the grouping largely from observation. The 42-country study offers climate and demographic variables as alternatives to a geographic grouping. A literature review in a later paper is said to report mixed support for the grouping, but that review is not a source here. Lessons should treat it as a rough tendency, never as a stereotype to apply to a person.

    What it does not show

    • The 'mixed support' summary comes from the introduction of one study's literature review.
    • Hall's book is observation and anecdote, not systematic data.
    • Many early studies used foreign students in the USA.
    • The sources do not directly test the contact versus noncontact grouping; the survey abstract does not mention it.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

  11. Supported with caveatsAcross 42 countries, people on average preferred more space with a stranger than with an acquaintance, and more with an acquaintance than with a close person.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A large community-sample survey found the same ordering of comfortable distances in the overall data: stranger, then acquaintance, then close person. Lessons can say that comfortable distance generally shrinks as closeness grows, and that it is a default, not a signal of interest.

    What it does not show

    • Stated preference on a drawn scale, not observed behaviour.
    • Sample not nationally representative; recruited by the authors in each country.
    • Average pattern; individuals vary widely.
    • Seen as a conversation distance; says nothing about touch.
    • The stranger, acquaintance, close-person ordering is not stated in the abstract; it was read from an open manuscript copy.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Source

More practice

The rest of the set, Evidence check: who was studied: 4 items, about 4 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.

  • Jean Smith: The Science of Flirting: Being a H.O.T. A.P.E. | Jean Smith | TEDxLSHTM

    Talk · leaves this site for youtube.com

    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.

  • Marni Kinrys: She Keeps Ending Up Near You. That's Not a Coincidence.

    Video · leaves this site for youtube.com

    Kinrys's short presents a woman repeatedly positioning herself nearby as a signal that she is inviting an approach. Relevant to proximity changes, as a claim to test against context.

    Keep in mind. Anecdotal and stated with more certainty than the evidence allows; proximity is often incidental (shared space, crowded venue). An approach invites a response; it does not presume one.

  • Vanessa Van Edwards: Why Women Never Make The First Move!

    Video · leaves this site for youtube.com

    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.