Step gently, then watch for change
Lesson 4 of 5 in this module · about 7 minutes · Emotional skills
The idea
A small step in this course is one low-pressure increase in engagement, one notch up, in conversation only. It is a personal observation, a small share of your own, or a question about what she cares about. It is not touch, closeness, a long look or an invitation.
Real flirting may be hard to see. In two studies, people judged flirting more accurately when it was absent than when it was present, which suggests real flirting is easier to miss than its absence 1. Both studies came from one lab, and flirting was defined by self-report 1. A static picture may stay unclear however long you look. This course treats a change after your input as more informative than a snapshot, because if you change one thing and her engagement moves, you know what she is responding to. We know of no study showing that change after your input is more informative than static cues. It is a course principle, not a finding.
Being vague on purpose does not seem to help. In online experiments with confederates, vagueness about romantic intent lowered someone’s appeal when the person seemed uninterested, and explicit expressions of interest raised it 2. Those studies concern clear romantic interest, which is more than the small step here. They come from one research programme, measured appeal ratings and not later behavior, and used online chats unlike meeting in person 2. We cite them only because they give no support to staying vague on purpose.
How she takes your step also depends on what she thinks you mean by it. In two lab studies, people tended to return warm feelings toward someone who expressed attraction, but returned the behavior only when what the admirer said he intended fit what his expression implied 3. These were lab manipulations of an admirer, with samples of 52 and 173 people, not live encounters 3. So keep the step light and plain. A warm response never means more than a warm response.
Watch her next two or three turns. One reply can be noise, since a buzzing phone or an arriving friend can explain a single change. Then classify.
- Increased. She added something of her own. Hold, and let her add. An increase does not entitle you to the next step; each step needs fresh evidence.
- Stable. Courteous, no more. Nothing has gone wrong. Return to ordinary conversation at the same warmth, and do not try a stronger version.
- Decreased. Shorter, further away. Lower the intensity at once, and do not repeat the step or compliment her to make up for it. If the drop continues, end warmly.
- Insufficient information. Mixed or unclear is a result too. Carry on at the same level.
A decrease is not a rejection of you as a person. If a friend is waving her over, let her go. If she comes back herself, that is new information; waiting for her to be free is not.
Why it matters
Waiting for a picture that never sharpens leaves you guessing. One small step gives you a return signal to read.
What it looks like
Example
At a friend’s housewarming you have talked with Anneke, 36, about her balcony plants for fifteen minutes. She answers fully and laughs. You say, “I used to think I couldn’t keep anything alive. Then my sister gave me a pothos and now I talk to it. Is that how it started for you?” and stop. She tells you about her grandmother’s windowsill and asks if you named it. That is an increase, and you hold at that level.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same party. She says “That’s a good start” and returns to her earlier topic in the same tone. You treat it as not enough, and add a second, more personal share and a compliment on her looks to get a bigger response.
A stable return signal is not a failure, and a second change means you cannot tell what she is answering.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Change one thing by one notch, stop, and read her next turns as information, never permission.
A good return signal is information about this conversation, never permission.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: The patient volunteer.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, in a talk with a friend that you were having anyway, share one small personal thing and ask a question that hands the topic back. Notice how it feels to stop and leave room.
What this doesn’t tell you
The step collects one more small piece of evidence about her engagement in this conversation, not about what she feels. The research above concerns clear expressions of interest and perceived intent, not this kind of small step, and none of it shows that taking one makes anyone more accurate. She is free to respond however she likes, including by ending the 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: PlausibleIn two studies, flirting was judged more accurately in interactions where it did not occur than where it did, which suggests real flirting is easier to miss than its absence.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Hall and colleagues found that people judged no-flirting interactions more accurately than flirting ones, and that the base rate of flirting in what observers saw shifted their accuracy. Flirting by women was judged more accurately than flirting by men.
What it does not show
- Two studies in one paper from one lab
- Study 1 used stranger pairs and Study 2 observers of 1-minute clips; sample details not checked
- Flirting defined by self-report
- Not a basis for assuming that any specific person is or is not flirting
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Hall, J. A., Xing, C., Brooks, S. (2015). Accurately Detecting Flirting: Error Management Theory, the Traditional Sexual Script, and Flirting Base Rate, Communication Research.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsBeing unclear about romantic interest does not reliably make someone more appealing: in online-interaction experiments, vagueness lowered appeal when the person seemed uninterested, and explicit expressions of interest raised it.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Birnbaum and colleagues ran six studies, four with online confederates who were clear or vague about romantic intent and two surveys and diaries in established couples. Partner regard predicted less uncertainty, which predicted greater perceived desirability. The authors read reduced desire under uncertainty as self-protection.
What it does not show
- All six studies come from one research programme; findings were read from the abstract only.
- Online confederate interactions and established-couple self-report differ from in-person early dating.
- Measured appeal and desire ratings, not later behaviour.
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Source
- Birnbaum, G. E., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Mizrahi, M., Barniv, A., Nagar, S., Govinden, J., Reis, H. T. (2018). Are you into me? Uncertainty and sexual desire in online encounters and established relationships, Computers in Human Behavior.
Evidence: PlausiblePeople tend to return warm feelings toward someone who expresses attraction, but whether they act on it depends on what they think the admirer intends.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Two studies found that expressed attraction implies benevolent intentions and that those perceived intentions help explain both reciprocated feelings and reciprocated behaviour. Feelings were returned in all cases; behaviour was returned only when stated behavioural intentions fit what the expression implied.
What it does not show
- Two studies (N = 52 and 173), likely student samples; only the abstract was checked.
- Lab manipulations of an admirer, not live romantic encounters.
- Attraction here does not authorise any behaviour: a return of feelings is never consent to touch.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Montoya, R. M., Insko, C. A. (2008). Toward a more complete understanding of the reciprocity of liking effect, European Journal of Social Psychology.
More practice
The rest of the set, Step gently, then watch for change: three moments: 3 moments, about 6 minutes. See what you did and how she responded, then say whether her engagement went up, held or went down, and what you would do. 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.
Vanessa Van Edwards: The 5 Flirting Styles: Which One Do You Speak?
Summary of the five flirting styles from Jeffrey Hall's research (physical, traditional, sincere, polite, playful) and how style mismatch can cause missed or misread signals.
Keep in mind. Secondary summary of academic work; the app should cite Hall's research directly.
Jeffrey Hall (University of Kansas): New book outlines five types of flirting styles
University summary of Hall's research identifying five flirting styles, useful for showing that people signal interest differently and that styles can mismatch.
Keep in mind. News release; cite the underlying Communication Quarterly study for claims.