Judge interest by actions, not ambiguous signals: who initiates, makes plans and follows up?
After 52 pairs of unfamiliar men and women talked for about ten minutes, they judged whether the other person had flirted. They were better at identifying the absence of flirting than its presence. A further 261 people watching video clips produced the same pattern. Rather than guess from expressions or tone, notice who initiates contact, plans the next meeting and follows up when you do not.
What it takes
Free and quick. Replace analyzing facial expressions and tone with observing facts.
What you may gain
Two studies measured flirting detection. In the first, 52 pairs of opposite-sex strangers talked for 10–12 minutes, then reported whether they themselves had flirted and whether they thought the other person had. Non-flirting interactions were identified more accurately than flirting interactions. In the second, 261 observers judged 26 one-minute video clips, with the same result. People were relatively good at recognizing that someone was not flirting, but had difficulty recognizing when someone was.
Context & considerations
Disputed. Other research argues that women underreport their own sexual interest rather than men overestimating it. Which assessment is more accurate remains unresolved. Both sides nevertheless suggest that inferring intentions from subtle expressions and tone is unreliable. Observable behavior is more useful: whether the person initiates, arranges another meeting and follows up without you driving everything.
Research & references
Hall JA, Xing C, Brooks S (2015). Accurately detecting flirting: error management theory, the traditional sexual script, and flirting base rate. Communication Research, 42(7), 939-958. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534972; Perilloux C, Kurzban R (2015). Do men overperceive women's sexual interest? Psychological Science, 26(1), 70-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614555727 (a competing interpretation).