Reading the return signal
Lesson 4 of 10 in this module · about 7 minutes · Romantic communication
The idea
The return signal is what she does after your step. Compare it with her baseline: how she behaved just before, and how she behaves with other people. Ask four questions about the moment after. Attention: where do her eyes and body face now? Words: are her replies longer, shorter or the same, and does she ask you something? Distance: did she move toward or away by choice? Direction: who steers the topic, and does she open anything new? These are the areas HOT APE points to; use them as sensors, not proof. Change after your input counts for more than a static picture.
If she builds on it, with a tease back, a held look, something personal or a new playful thread, hold. Stay at this level and let her add. Raise one notch later only after she has done something new that was her own idea.
If she accepts it and moves on, with “Ha, thanks” and back to the topic in the same tone, return to friendly. Keep the same warmth, take nothing back, and keep gathering information. It is neither yes nor no, so do not send a stronger signal.
If she pulls back, with shorter answers, a step or turn away, an abrupt change of subject or a tightening face, lower at once. Return to light talk, give her space and do not refer to what you said. If it continues, or she says no or that she would like to go, end the conversation warmly: “I’ll let you get on. Good to talk.” Do not follow her or try again.
When the signals disagree, the honest read of her engagement is Uncertain, and the honest answer about what she feels is Insufficient information. Raise nothing. Treat any part of the mix that pulls back as a pull-back: ease off, keep the talk light, and give her room. If a cue is ambiguous, ask a light question about how she is. Leaving warmly is always open.
Four reading errors: Seeing what you hope for: in two studies from one paper, people who wanted casual sex more themselves tended to see more sexual intent in others, especially when the motive was ambiguous 1. Describe before you interpret. Missing what is there: in two studies, people judged flirting more accurately when it was absent than when it was present 2. That is an average and cannot tell you that a quiet reply hid interest. If her engagement stays the same, one quiet reply is not a no to the conversation; if she pulls back, lower or leave. Treating a neutral reply as a verdict: after a first conversation, people tend to underestimate how much their partner liked them 3. That is about general liking, not romantic interest, and says nothing about her. One flat reply is not a verdict on you, and never a reason to keep going after she pulls back. Treating a warm reply as a decision: in one speed-dating study, observers rated flirting as strongly reciprocal within pairs, yet the choices about whom to meet again were not 4.
Why it matters
In two studies from one paper, people’s own wishes colored what they saw 1, and a quiet reply can be misread either way.
What it looks like
Example
Chopping onions beside Nia, 29, at a community-kitchen shift, you say, “You make this look like a sport. I’m learning a lot standing next to you.” Then you stop. Nia says, “Thanks. Pass me the knife?” in the same tone as before. You pass the knife and keep the same warmth.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same moment. After her short thanks, you send a stronger line so the first one lands, and say you would love to cook for her.
A reply with no change is neither a no nor a yes, and a bigger line leaves her less room.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Compare her reply with her baseline, then hold, return to friendly or lower; never raise on a warm reply.
A warm reply is about this moment. It never entitles you to the next step, and every next step needs fresh evidence. A no, or a clear pull back, ends that line.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: “I take the next song very seriously”.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, think of a film scene where one character says something warm to another, and describe in plain sentences what was said, what the other did next, and what changed from before.
What this doesn’t tell you
It does not tell you what any one person feels. A return signal shows how she responded to one step in one conversation, and the three groups are a course way of sorting responses, not a tested scale. None of the studies above ranks which responses matter most.
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: 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: 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 caveatsAfter a first conversation, people tend to underestimate how much their partner liked them.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. The 'liking gap' appeared in several settings: strangers in a lab, first-year dorm mates, and members of the public at a workshop. It lasted across conversation lengths and for months in new dorm relationships. Being liked more than you think is a common situation, not a sign of rejection.
What it does not show
- Samples were lab strangers, college students and workshop attendees, not dating contexts; it measures general liking, not romantic interest.
- Reported mainly from one research programme; independent replication was not checked here.
- A population-level tendency: it does not mean a particular partner is secretly interested.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Boothby, E. J., Cooney, G., Sandstrom, G. M., Clark, M. S. (2018). The Liking Gap in Conversations: Do People Like Us More Than We Think?, Psychological Science.
Evidence: PlausibleIn a speed-dating study, flirting that outside observers rated was strongly reciprocal within pairs, yet the choices to meet again were not, so flirtatious behaviour was a poor guide to who would choose whom.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Back and colleagues separated what people do in the moment from what they decide afterwards. People who flirted back often did not choose each other, while people strongly expected their own choices to be returned.
What it does not show
- Single speed-dating study (N = 382), a structured setting with many partners
- Flirting rated by observers, not by the partner
- Choices were recorded right after each date, not later behaviour
- Cannot show any individual's intent; use direct, kind communication to find out
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Back, M. D., Penke, L., Schmukle, S. C., Sachse, K., Borkenau, P., Asendorpf, J. B. (2011). Why Mate Choices are not as Reciprocal as we Assume: The Role of Personality, Flirting and Physical Attractiveness, European Journal of Personality.
More practice
The rest of the set, Return-signal exercises: builds, pulls back, mixed: 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.