Your wishes color what you see
Lesson 3 of 5 in this module · about 7 minutes · Emotional skills
The idea
Your own wishes can lean on what you see, most when the evidence is ambiguous, which is the case in most early conversations. In studies using written scenarios and speed dating, people who want more sexual involvement themselves tended to see more sexual interest in others 1. In one paper, the effect was stronger when the other person’s motive was ambiguous 2. These were self-report studies in study settings, and they show an association, not a mechanism 1. They measured desire for sexual involvement and perceived sexual interest, not hope for a relationship. We use them for the direction of the effect only.
An average is not a verdict on you. Across 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 3. Many men rate lower than many women. The finding shows that ratings differ, not which group is more accurate 3. Nothing here says you read cues badly. It says an average gap exists and that your own wishes can add to it. Three points keep the picture honest.
- The error runs both ways. In one lab study, men were more likely than women to read friendliness as sexual interest, and quite likely to read sexual interest as friendliness. The average gap came from lower sensitivity to the cues, not a lenient threshold 4. So this lesson never says “assume she is not interested.”
- The pattern repeats, and the explanation is disputed. In speed-dating studies, men tended to overestimate and women to underestimate a partner’s sexual interest, and the pattern has been reproduced 5. In one study of 1,226 people, the difference became negligible once researchers accounted for how much each person wanted casual sex and how much they projected their own interest 5. Whether it is a built-in bias is still argued over.
- It may come from a subgroup. One review suggests the average tendency may be driven largely by a subgroup of men, including men who are sexually coercive and men who endorse sex-role stereotypes. The same review notes that alcohol and other situational factors raised estimates 6. It is a single narrative review with hedged wording, so treat it as a possibility. When she or you have been drinking, a read can justify less, not more.
Tone and confidence do not settle it. On recorded speed dates, people were poor at telling whether a partner meant to flirt, and often projected their own intentions onto the partner 7. That is one corpus from one setting. The practical point is to check instead of inferring.
Why it matters
A wish can turn friendliness into a list of proof. Acting on the list asks her to answer for something she has not said.
What it looks like
Example
After pottery class you talked with Dani, 32, for half an hour. On the train home you list five things that all point one way: her smile, her question about your weekend, the way she said your name. You ask which a friendly person would have done anyway, say to yourself “I hope this is mutual”, keep only what she did, and at the next class ask, “How did your glaze turn out?”
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same train ride. The list feels like proof. You replay the evening until you are sure, then act at the next class as if she had already agreed to something.
She has said nothing of the kind. Replaying the evening adds no new observations, and a feeling of certainty is not agreement.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Name what you hope, state only what she did, and when unsure, ask or leave it.
In this course, a tendency to misread is never a reason to act on a read. Silence and ambiguity are never agreement. If she says no or pulls back, that is the information: accept it and return to ordinary conversation or leave.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: The list on the train.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, after any ordinary conversation, ask yourself “What did I hope?” and “What happened?”, answering the second with only what you saw and heard. Write nothing down about the other person.
What this doesn’t tell you
These studies used heterosexual cross-sex judgments, written scenarios, speed dating and student samples 3 1. They are about sexual interest, not romantic interest in general. None of them measured your reads or Dani’s feelings. They tell you which way to be careful, not what is true in this conversation.
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: Supported with caveatsPeople who want more sexual involvement themselves tend to see more sexual interest in others, so one's own wishes can colour how friendliness is read.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Lenton and colleagues found projection of one's own casual-sex desire onto others, stronger when the target's motive was ambiguous. Lee and colleagues found that sex differences in misperception shrank once such projection and sociosexual orientation were accounted for.
What it does not show
- Two papers using study-setting ratings (scenario or speed dating)
- Self-report measures
- Associations, not proof of a causal mechanism
- Does not say who is right in a particular encounter; checking directly and kindly is what resolves it
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Lenton, A. P., Bryan, A., Hastie, R., Fischer, O. (2007). We Want the Same Thing: Projection in Judgments of Sexual Intent, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
- Lee, A. J., Sidari, M. J., Murphy, S. C., Sherlock, J. M., Zietsch, B. P. (2020). Sex Differences in Misperceptions of Sexual Interest Can Be Explained by Sociosexual Orientation and Men Projecting Their Own Interest Onto Women, Psychological Science.
Evidence: PlausiblePeople who want casual sex more themselves tend to see more sexual intent in other people, particularly when the other person's motive is ambiguous.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Lenton and colleagues showed that assumed similarity shapes judgments of sexual intent: greater own desire for casual sex predicted perceiving more of it in others, for both sexes, and the effect was stronger for similar and ambiguous targets.
What it does not show
- Two studies from one paper
- Judgments made in study settings; real encounters not tracked (details not checked)
- Effect size not checked
- Shows that your own wishes can colour what you see in others
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Lenton, A. P., Bryan, A., Hastie, R., Fischer, O. (2007). We Want the Same Thing: Projection in Judgments of Sexual Intent, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Evidence: 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
- La France, B. H., Henningsen, D. D., Oates, A., Shaw, C. M. (2009). Social–Sexual Interactions? Meta-Analyses of Sex Differences in Perceptions of Flirtatiousness, Seductiveness, and Promiscuousness, Communication Monographs.
Evidence: PlausibleIn one lab study the average gap between men and women in reading women's cues came from men being less sensitive, not from lenient thresholds, and men also often mistook sexual interest for friendliness.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Farris and colleagues applied a sensitivity-versus-bias model. Men were more likely than women to read friendliness as sexual interest, but were also quite likely to read sexual interest as friendliness, so the error runs both ways.
What it does not show
- Single study
- Stimuli and sample details not checked (abstract only)
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., McFall, R. M. (2008). Perceptual Mechanisms That Characterize Gender Differences in Decoding Women's Sexual Intent, Psychological Science.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsThe speed-dating pattern that men overestimate and women underestimate a partner's sexual interest is reproducible, but whether it is a built-in sex-specific bias is disputed.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Perilloux, Easton and Buss found men overperceived and women underestimated interest. Lee and colleagues replicated this in 1,226 people, then found the difference became negligible after accounting for sociosexual orientation and projection. Perilloux and Kurzban showed women may understate their own interest, which blurs what counts as an error.
What it does not show
- Self-reported interest is the benchmark and may itself be understated
- Speed dating: short, structured interactions with many partners
- The sources disagree on the explanation
- Findings are group averages and do not predict any individual's error
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Perilloux, C., Easton, J. A., Buss, D. M. (2012). The Misperception of Sexual Interest, Psychological Science.
- Lee, A. J., Sidari, M. J., Murphy, S. C., Sherlock, J. M., Zietsch, B. P. (2020). Sex Differences in Misperceptions of Sexual Interest Can Be Explained by Sociosexual Orientation and Men Projecting Their Own Interest Onto Women, Psychological Science.
- Perilloux, C., Kurzban, R. (2015). Do Men Overperceive Women's Sexual Interest?, Psychological Science.
Evidence: PlausibleThe average tendency of men to perceive more sexual intent in women's behaviour may be driven largely by a sub-group of men, not by men generally.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Farris and colleagues' review notes the sub-group includes sexually coercive men and men endorsing sex-role stereotypes, and that alcohol and other situational factors raise estimates. A tendency to misread never makes it acceptable to act on a misreading or on silence or ambiguity.
What it does not show
- Review summarised from the abstract only
- Sample details not checked (abstract only)
- Correlational; it does not identify causes
- Does not explain individual cases
- A single narrative review whose own wording is hedged ('evidence to suggest', 'may be driven'); it is not a meta-analysis or a direct test.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., McFall, R. M. (2008). Sexual coercion and the misperception of sexual intent, Clinical Psychology Review.
Evidence: PlausibleOn real speed dates, people were poor at detecting whether their partner intended to flirt and often projected their own intentions onto the other person.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. A computer model using prosody and other features outperformed the human partners at identifying intended flirtatiousness, which shows that tone alone is an unreliable guide to what someone means. The right lesson is to check, not infer.
What it does not show
- One speed-dating corpus from a single setting; computational study.
- Accuracy figures are for the model, not a claim that any particular vocal cue marks flirting.
- Findings do not show that women or men differ in detection.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Ranganath, R., Jurafsky, D., McFarland, D. (2009). It's Not You, It's Me: Detecting Flirting and its Misperception in Speed-Dates, Proceedings of EMNLP 2009, 334-342.
More practice
The rest of the set, Your wishes color what you see: four moments and two checks: 6 items, about 12 minutes. Say what you saw and heard, then what it supports, then the smallest sensible next step. 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: Why Women Never Make The First Move!
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.
Jeffrey Hall (University of Kansas): Flirting hard to detect, researcher says
University summary of Hall's study of first conversations: partners were far less accurate at detecting flirting than at noticing its absence, and observers were no better.
Keep in mind. News release; student samples and one lab setting.
Vanessa Van Edwards: 28 Science-Backed Body Language Signs of Attraction
Catalogue of cues said to signal attraction (leaning in, mirroring, proximity, eye contact), with the useful advice to look for clusters of signals rather than one gesture.
Keep in mind. Mixes research with popular lists; the gendered framing and some involuntary-signal claims (pupils, blushing) are weakly sourced. Cues never authorise touch.