"Secretly want": the burden of proof
Lesson 5 of 6 in this module · about 7 minutes · Romantic communication
The idea
A claim that people hold wishes they keep hidden is harder to check than an ordinary claim, so it needs more evidence, not less. Here is an invented headline, written for this lesson.
Invented example, written for this lesson
“The wish no date will admit to, finally decoded.” (invented)
No list follows, here or anywhere in this course. This lesson audits the shape of the claim, not its contents. The claim page for this kind of headline does the same.
This is a course principle, not a research finding: a claim about what people allegedly hide is unusually hard to disprove, so it requires more evidence, not less. Ask what evidence would tell the claim apart from something the writer made up. Nine questions help.
- Who says they want it?
- What population was studied?
- Is the evidence self-report, behavior, fantasy, relationship outcomes, anecdote or marketing?
- Is it an average, or does it vary a lot between people?
- Does it depend on context?
- Is there contradictory evidence?
- Would it need explicit agreement?
- Does it confuse arousal, attention, anxiety, rumination and attraction?
- How would someone find out whether this particular person likes it?
Sort the evidence behind a claim into seven kinds: fiction or fantasy pattern, self-report, behavior, relationship or sexology research, anecdote, dating-framework claim and marketing claim. They answer different questions, and they often disagree.
Research gives some reasons. Self-report and behavior differ. Several studies find that what people say they want in an ideal partner does a poor job of predicting who they feel drawn to once they meet someone 1. In two studies, people overrated how well they read others, and the least accurate overestimated most 2. Several studies find that people who want more sexual involvement themselves tend to see more sexual interest in others. So one’s own wishes can color the reading 3.
Fantasy is a different kind of evidence again. Several surveys of adults find that fantasies many people assume are unusual are common 4. One study, of a single fantasy theme, found that most people in monogamous relationships who had it as their favorite said they wanted to act on it, which suggests the link between a fantasy and a wish to act depends on the fantasy 5. In this course, a fantasy is never a prescription and never agreement. Fiction is material to analyze, not a model. In one experiment, a film that showed persistent pursuit as romantic raised stalking-supportive beliefs, but only among viewers high in perceived realism. A film that showed it as frightening reduced them 6.
People also differ. In one sample of heterosexual US women, following a traditional passive script in sex went with more dissatisfaction only for the women who did not enjoy that script. That suggests the women differed in what they prefer 7.
Question nine has one answer, and it is the course’s position. The only reliable source of what one person wants is that person, through what they say and what they choose to suggest.
Why it matters
A claim that cannot be checked feels like insider knowledge. Acting on it treats a person as a type and can cross a line they never agreed to. Their own words are the evidence.
What it looks like
Example
Marek, 36, sees an invented headline before meeting Chloé, 34, for a gallery visit. He runs three questions: who says so, what kind of evidence, and how he would find out about Chloé. None has an answer. At the gallery he asks, “Which room would you like to start with?” and follows her lead.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Marek reads a “hidden wishes” list and decides to act on one at the gallery without asking Chloé.
The list rests on no evidence anyone could check. Acting on a guess about someone’s hidden wish treats her as a type, and it skips the only evidence there is, which is what Chloé says and chooses.
The one thing to remember
The rule
When a claim says people hide what they want, ask for more evidence, then ask the person.
Ask an open question. Listen to what she suggests herself. Accept her answer, including “not that”.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: What kind of evidence? (1).
In the real world (optional)
If you like, think of one claim about what people want that you have believed, and ask yourself what kind of evidence it rested on.
What this doesn’t tell you
The audit does not prove any particular claim false. It shows what it would take to support one. Fantasy research here is surveys of adults 4, and nothing in this lesson describes what any group wants.
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 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
- Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Eagly, A. H. (2011). When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the process of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin.
Evidence: PlausiblePeople overrate how well they read others, and the least accurate overestimate most; self-rated mind-reading ability tracked actual accuracy only weakly or not at all.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Supports calibration drills with feedback instead of trusting a feeling of insight. Plausible rather than supported because it rests on one paper (two studies); the authors state that earlier work also found a weak or non-existent link, which was not checked here.
What it does not show
- Two studies: a video-based accuracy test and a negotiation exercise with MBA students (Study 2: 164).
- Self-estimates were relative-ability (percentile) judgments; not tested in dating or flirting.
- Narcissism result is correlational.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Ames, D. R., Kammrath, L. K. (2004). Mind-Reading and Metacognition: Narcissism, not Actual Competence, Predicts Self-Estimated Ability, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior.
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: Supported with caveatsSexual fantasies that many people assume are unusual, including fantasies of submission or domination, are common in survey samples of adults.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A 1,516-person survey found only two of 55 fantasies statistically rare, and a review reports that roughly a third to over half of women in studies report fantasies about being forced, so presence of a fantasy is a weak sign of anything unusual.
What it does not show
- Joyal et al. is one internet survey of adults; Critelli et al. reviews studies of forced-sex fantasy in women only, and the abstract does not say why the range is wide (31-57%).
- Shows what people report fantasising about, not what they want to do or would accept.
- Fantasy prevalence differs by gender and by how it is measured.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Joyal, C. C., Cossette, A., Lapierre, V. (2015). What Exactly Is an Unusual Sexual Fantasy?, The Journal of Sexual Medicine.
- Critelli, J. W., Bivona, J. M. (2008). Women's Erotic Rape Fantasies: An Evaluation of Theory and Research, Journal of Sex Research.
Evidence: PlausibleWhether a fantasy is also a wish to act on it depends on the fantasy: among people in monogamous relationships whose favourite fantasy involved an open relationship, most said they wanted to act on it.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. This shows that some fantasies are experienced as wishes and others are not, which is why a partner's fantasy cannot be assumed to be either, and why the only way to find out is to talk about it.
What it does not show
- One large online sample of 822 people already in monogamous relationships.
- Concerns one fantasy theme (consensual non-monogamy) and says nothing about fantasies of dominance or being pursued.
- Intentions ('want to act') are not behaviour.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Lehmiller, J. J. (2020). Fantasies About Consensual Nonmonogamy Among Persons in Monogamous Romantic Relationships, Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Evidence: PlausibleIn one experiment, a film that portrayed persistent pursuit as scary reduced stalking-supportive beliefs, while a film that portrayed it as romantic raised them only among viewers high in perceived realism or transportation.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. A single media-effects study suggests that how a story frames persistent pursuit can shape beliefs about stalking, and that romanticised portrayals did not raise such beliefs for every viewer. The author interprets this as showing that romanticised pursuit in media can increase stalking-supportive beliefs.
What it does not show
- One experiment, seen as an abstract only: sample size, population and film details were not confirmed.
- Measures beliefs about stalking, not behaviour; says nothing about whether any viewer or reader would act on them.
- Concerns film portrayals, not romance novels, so it is adjacent evidence for the literary pattern.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Lippman, J. R. (2015). I Did It Because I Never Stopped Loving You: The Effects of Media Portrayals of Persistent Pursuit on Beliefs About Stalking, Communication Research.
Evidence: PlausibleAmong a sample of heterosexual US women, following the traditional passive or submissive sexual script was linked to more sexual dissatisfaction only for women who did not enjoy submissiveness, which suggests that women differ in what they prefer.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The study found no effect of benevolent sexism on dissatisfaction, and a script-by-preference interaction instead, so a lesson should avoid describing one preference as typical of women.
What it does not show
- Single study of 308 women (mean age about 38).
- Correlational, self-report; did not test partner behaviour or men's preferences.
- Heterosexual women with past sex with a man; US only.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Bonell, S., Lee, H., Pearson, S., Harris, E., Barlow, F. K. (2022). Benevolent Sexism and the Traditional Sexual Script as Predictors of Sexual Dissatisfaction in Heterosexual Women from the U.S., Archives of Sexual Behavior.
More practice
The rest of the set, "Secretly want": the burden of proof: exercises: 7 items, about 9 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: 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.
Marni Kinrys: She's Playing With Her Hair. Here's What Her Body Is Actually Saying.
Kinrys's short presents touching hair, clothes or jewellery as an unconscious sign that a woman wants to look attractive to the viewer specifically. Useful as a case study of reading certainty into one ambiguous cue.
Keep in mind. Commercial coach; the video treats a single self-grooming cue as a definite signal, which the evidence on cue inference does not support (nonverbal-inference-limits). Cues are never consent and never authorise touch.
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.