Most attraction content turns a population association into an individual verdict. This ledger keeps those steps apart. It includes positive associations, unresolved checklist claims, weak estimates and retracted support.
It is not a catalogue of every attraction study. It is a versioned audit of recurring public claims, built from primary records and higher-level syntheses where available. “Unresolved” means this review did not find a qualifying estimate. It does not mean the cue has been disproved.
Download the data
Use the ledger without scraping the page
The CSV is ready for a spreadsheet. The JSON includes source metadata and the same 15 records.
Search the 15 claims
Showing all 15 claims.
| Claim | Evidence status | Finding and limit |
|---|---|---|
| Long eye contact reveals attractionYCRH-AEL-001 | Associated, not diagnostic | A 2018 meta-analysis found gaze frequency and duration associated with self-reported interpersonal attraction. The overall attraction-behaviour relation was z = .20 across 309 effect sizes and 5,422 participants. The same behaviours also appear in non-romantic rapport. Source S1 |
| Smiling reveals attractionYCRH-AEL-002 | Associated, not diagnostic | Smiling frequency was associated with attraction in the same synthesis; smiling duration was not. A smile cannot distinguish romantic interest from friendliness, warmth or politeness. Source S1 |
| Laughter reveals attractionYCRH-AEL-003 | Associated, not diagnostic | Laughter was associated with self-reported interpersonal attraction. It can also show enjoyment, friendliness or social ease, so it does not identify romantic intent by itself. Source S1 |
| Mirroring reveals attractionYCRH-AEL-004 | Associated, not diagnostic | Mimicry was associated with attraction across studies. It also occurs with rapport, and the synthesis did not produce an individual threshold an observer can use as a test. Source S1 |
| Standing or sitting closer proves attractionYCRH-AEL-005 | Associated, not diagnostic | Physical proximity was among the direct behaviours associated with attraction, and direct behaviours were more strongly related than indirect cues. Distance does not establish why someone is close, what they want next or whether they consent. Source S1 |
| Talking more proves attractionYCRH-AEL-006 | Associated, not diagnostic | Word count and talking duration were associated with attraction. Talk time can also reflect personality, role, context or conversational demands. Source S1 |
| Open posture reveals the actor’s attractionYCRH-AEL-007 | Changes desirability, not a lie detector | Expansiveness predicted more “yes” responses in 144 speed-dates and increased responses to profile photos among 2,983 potential app responses. Those studies tested how posture changed another person’s rating, not whether the actor desired the observer. Source S3 |
| Hair touching is a reliable signYCRH-AEL-008 | Unresolved in this review | Version 1 located descriptive and style-specific work, but no qualifying synthesis or individual-accuracy estimate validating hair touching as a stand-alone test. That is not proof the cue is never associated with attraction. Method M1 |
| Feet or torso pointing is a reliable signYCRH-AEL-009 | Unresolved in this review | Version 1 did not locate a qualifying synthesis or individual-accuracy estimate validating orientation as a stand-alone attraction test. Orientation describes the interaction; this review cannot assign it a reliable romantic meaning. Method M1 |
| A cluster of cues becomes proofYCRH-AEL-010 | No validated threshold located | Several behaviours can change a hypothesis at group level. The reviewed sources do not supply a cue count or score that converts ambiguous observations into certainty, permission or consent. Source S1 · Source S2 |
| People usually detect flirting when it happensYCRH-AEL-011 | Poor detection in one study programme | Partners recognized 7 of 25 self-reports of flirting, but 66 of 79 reports of not flirting. Outside observers achieved 38% aggregate accuracy on clips whose targets reported flirting. This small study did not measure attraction or consent. Source S2 |
| Sexual interest and friendliness are easy to separateYCRH-AEL-012 | Bias and sensitivity both matter | Signal-detection work found that errors could not be reduced to a simple tendency to overcall sexual interest. Distinguishing sexual interest from friendliness was itself imperfect. Confidence does not settle the target’s reported intent. Source S4 |
| Wearing red creates a meaningful advantageYCRH-AEL-013 | Very small and uncertain estimate | A 2018 meta-analysis estimated the effect for women rating men at d = .13. Preregistered studies in the synthesis averaged d = −.10. That is not a sound dating strategy. Source S5 |
| AI can tell whether a date likes youYCRH-AEL-014 | Weak population signal | GPT-4 predicted mutual contact exchange at r = .12 from 964 speed-date transcripts; video judges reached r = .31. The result does not provide a dependable verdict for one date. Source S6 · Full analysis |
| Light touch reliably increases complianceYCRH-AEL-015 | Specific supporting corpus retracted | Five papers in one field-experiment corpus were retracted online on February 25, 2025, including two on touch and compliance. The notice prevents those papers from supporting the tactic; it does not disprove every touch study. Source S7 · Retraction audit |
No claim matches that search. Try a broader term or reset the category.
How the grades work
- Associated, not diagnostic: a behaviour covaried with attraction across a study set, but did not uniquely identify romantic or sexual intent in one person.
- Unresolved: this review did not locate a qualifying synthesis or accuracy estimate for the popular diagnostic claim.
- Weak or narrow: the measured effect was small, the outcome differed from the public claim or the population was sharply limited.
- Retracted support: the named record cannot support the tactic after retraction. The label is not generalized beyond that corpus.
Primary records outrank summaries. Retractions, preregistration, sample, outcome, effect size and generalization are checked separately. Tested findings stay separate from Duncan Reeve’s practical inference. See the complete research method and corrections record.
Source register
- S1. Montoya, R. M., Kershaw, C., & Prosser, J. L. (2018). “A meta-analytic investigation of the relation between interpersonal attraction and enacted behavior.” Psychological Bulletin, 144(7), 673–709.
- S2. Hall, J. A., Xing, C., & Brooks, S. (2015). “Accurately detecting flirting.” Communication Research, 42(7), 939–958.
- S3. Vacharkulksemsuk, T., et al. (2016). “Dominant, open nonverbal displays are attractive at zero-acquaintance.” PNAS, 113(15), 4009–4014.
- S4. 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, 19(4), 348–354.
- S5. Lehmann, G. K., Elliot, A. J., & Calin-Jageman, R. J. (2018). “Meta-analysis of the effect of red on perceived attractiveness.” Evolutionary Psychology, 16(4).
- S6. Matz, S. C., et al. (2026). “Large language models can detect verbal indicators of romantic attraction.” Scientific Reports, 16, 21441.
- S7. “Retraction Notice” covering five papers in one field-experiment corpus, published online February 25, 2025. Perceptual and Motor Skills.
Cite this ledger
Reeve, Duncan. Attraction Evidence Ledger, version 1.0. Fieldnote Press, August 10, 2026. https://youcantreadher.com/attraction-evidence-ledger
For corrections or a source the ledger may have missed, email duncan@youcantreadher.com. Correction requests are welcome; endorsements are not required.
The method, applied to dating
The first three chapters are free
You Can’t Read Her follows the same rule as the ledger: separate what a study measured from what one person wants, then use a clearer next step.