{
  "name": "Attraction Evidence Ledger",
  "identifier": "YCRH-AEL-1.0",
  "version": "1.0",
  "publisher": "Fieldnote Press",
  "creator": "Duncan Reeve",
  "published": "2026-08-10",
  "checked": "2026-08-10",
  "description": "A source-graded ledger of 15 popular claims about attraction cues, flirting detection, dating tactics and AI prediction. Each record separates what a cited source supports from what it cannot establish about one person.",
  "method_url": "https://youcantreadher.com/research-method",
  "landing_page": "https://youcantreadher.com/attraction-evidence-ledger",
  "sources": [
    {"id":"S1","citation":"Montoya, Kershaw and Prosser (2018), Psychological Bulletin 144(7), 673-709","url":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000148"},
    {"id":"S2","citation":"Hall, Xing and Brooks (2015), Communication Research 42(7), 939-958","url":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534972"},
    {"id":"S3","citation":"Vacharkulksemsuk et al. (2016), PNAS 113(15), 4009-4014","url":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508932113"},
    {"id":"S4","citation":"Farris et al. (2008), Psychological Science 19(4), 348-354","url":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02092.x"},
    {"id":"S5","citation":"Lehmann, Elliot and Calin-Jageman (2018), Evolutionary Psychology 16(4)","url":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918802412"},
    {"id":"S6","citation":"Matz et al. (2026), Scientific Reports 16, 21441","url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-52308-x"},
    {"id":"S7","citation":"Retraction notice for five papers in one field-experiment corpus (2025)","url":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241311636"},
    {"id":"M1","citation":"Fieldnote Press research method and targeted source audit","url":"https://youcantreadher.com/research-method"}
  ],
  "records": [
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-001","claim":"Long eye contact reveals attraction","category":"Nonverbal cue","status":"Associated, not diagnostic","what_the_evidence_supports":"A 2018 meta-analysis found eye-gaze frequency and duration associated with self-reported interpersonal attraction.","what_it_does_not_support":"Eye contact alone cannot distinguish romantic or sexual interest from friendliness, rapport, attention or other positive social states.","evidence_base":"309 effect sizes; N=5,422 across the meta-analysis; overall attraction-behaviour relation z=.20","source_ids":["S1"],"scope_note":"The association held beyond specifically romantic or sexual settings."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-002","claim":"Smiling reveals attraction","category":"Nonverbal cue","status":"Associated, not diagnostic","what_the_evidence_supports":"The 2018 meta-analysis found smiling frequency associated with self-reported interpersonal attraction.","what_it_does_not_support":"Smiling duration was not associated in the same synthesis, and a smile does not uniquely identify romantic interest or consent.","evidence_base":"309 effect sizes; N=5,422 across the meta-analysis","source_ids":["S1"],"scope_note":"Warmth and rapport can produce the same visible behaviour."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-003","claim":"Laughter reveals attraction","category":"Nonverbal cue","status":"Associated, not diagnostic","what_the_evidence_supports":"The 2018 meta-analysis found laughter associated with self-reported interpersonal attraction.","what_it_does_not_support":"Laughter cannot by itself distinguish romantic attraction from enjoyment, friendliness or social ease.","evidence_base":"309 effect sizes; N=5,422 across the meta-analysis","source_ids":["S1"],"scope_note":"The synthesis concerned interpersonal attraction across social contexts."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-004","claim":"Mirroring reveals attraction","category":"Nonverbal cue","status":"Associated, not diagnostic","what_the_evidence_supports":"The 2018 meta-analysis found mimicry associated with self-reported interpersonal attraction.","what_it_does_not_support":"Mimicry is also linked to rapport and does not provide an individual verdict about romantic or sexual intent.","evidence_base":"309 effect sizes; N=5,422 across the meta-analysis","source_ids":["S1"],"scope_note":"The synthesis did not establish a threshold an observer can use as a test."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-005","claim":"Standing or sitting closer proves attraction","category":"Direct behaviour","status":"Associated, not diagnostic","what_the_evidence_supports":"Physical proximity was among the direct behaviours associated with self-reported attraction and direct behaviours were more strongly related than indirect cues.","what_it_does_not_support":"Proximity does not establish why someone is close, what they want next or whether they consent.","evidence_base":"309 effect sizes; N=5,422 across the meta-analysis","source_ids":["S1"],"scope_note":"Evaluative threat reduced the relation between affective attraction and direct behaviour."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-006","claim":"Talking more proves attraction","category":"Direct behaviour","status":"Associated, not diagnostic","what_the_evidence_supports":"Word count and talking duration were associated with self-reported interpersonal attraction in the 2018 synthesis.","what_it_does_not_support":"Talk time alone cannot distinguish attraction from personality, role, context or conversational demands.","evidence_base":"309 effect sizes; N=5,422 across the meta-analysis","source_ids":["S1"],"scope_note":"The association was population-level, not an individual rule."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-007","claim":"Open or expansive posture reveals the actor's attraction","category":"Nonverbal display","status":"Changes desirability, not a lie detector","what_the_evidence_supports":"In one programme, greater expansiveness predicted more yes responses in 144 speed-dates; expansive profile photos also received more yes responses than contracted photos.","what_it_does_not_support":"Those studies tested how posture changed another person's rating. They did not show that an expansive actor desired the observer.","evidence_base":"144 speed-dates; 2,983 potential app responses; odds ratios 1.76 per SD in speed-dating and 1.27 for profile photos","source_ids":["S3"],"scope_note":"Zero-acquaintance heterosexual dating contexts; replication and generalization still matter."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-008","claim":"Hair touching or preening is a reliable sign","category":"Popular checklist cue","status":"Unresolved in this review","what_the_evidence_supports":"Version 1 located descriptive and style-specific work, but no qualifying synthesis or individual-accuracy estimate that validated hair touching as a stand-alone test.","what_it_does_not_support":"This does not establish that hair touching is never associated with attraction; it means the diagnostic claim was not gradeable from the qualifying source set.","evidence_base":"Targeted source audit; no qualifying estimate located","source_ids":["M1"],"scope_note":"Absence of qualifying evidence is not evidence of absence."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-009","claim":"Feet or torso pointing is a reliable sign","category":"Popular checklist cue","status":"Unresolved in this review","what_the_evidence_supports":"Version 1 did not locate a qualifying synthesis or individual-accuracy estimate validating feet or torso orientation as a stand-alone attraction test.","what_it_does_not_support":"Orientation can describe the current interaction, but this review cannot assign it a reliable romantic meaning.","evidence_base":"Targeted source audit; no qualifying estimate located","source_ids":["M1"],"scope_note":"Absence of qualifying evidence is not evidence of absence."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-010","claim":"A cluster of cues becomes proof","category":"Inference rule","status":"No validated threshold located","what_the_evidence_supports":"Several behaviours covary with attraction at group level, so multiple observations may change a hypothesis.","what_it_does_not_support":"The reviewed sources do not provide a cue count or score that converts ambiguous behaviours into certainty, permission or consent.","evidence_base":"2018 meta-analysis plus 2015 flirting-detection studies","source_ids":["S1","S2"],"scope_note":"Population associations and individual classification are different questions."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-011","claim":"People can usually detect flirting when it happens","category":"Detection accuracy","status":"Poor detection in one study programme","what_the_evidence_supports":"Partners recognized 7 of 25 self-reports of flirting, while recognizing 66 of 79 reports of not flirting; outside observers achieved 38% aggregate accuracy on clips whose targets reported flirting.","what_it_does_not_support":"The result is not a universal accuracy rate and did not measure attraction, sexual interest or consent.","evidence_base":"Study 1: 52 pairs, N=104; Study 2: N=261 observers","source_ids":["S2"],"scope_note":"Single heterosexual college sample and brief zero-acquaintance interactions."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-012","claim":"Sexual interest and friendliness are easy to separate from appearance","category":"Perception accuracy","status":"Bias and sensitivity both matter","what_the_evidence_supports":"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.","what_it_does_not_support":"An observer's confidence or a familiar cue does not establish the target's reported intent.","evidence_base":"Laboratory signal-detection studies of judgments of women's sexual intent","source_ids":["S4"],"scope_note":"Judgments of images in a selected heterosexual research context."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-013","claim":"Wearing red creates a meaningful attraction advantage","category":"Appearance claim","status":"Very small and uncertain estimate","what_the_evidence_supports":"A 2018 meta-analysis estimated the red-attractiveness effect for women rating men at d=.13.","what_it_does_not_support":"That estimate is too small and uncertain to support a confident dating strategy; preregistered studies in the synthesis averaged d=-.10.","evidence_base":"Meta-analysis of red and perceived attractiveness","source_ids":["S5"],"scope_note":"Ratings of perceived attractiveness are not the same as one person's romantic choice."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-014","claim":"AI can tell whether a date likes you from the transcript","category":"AI prediction","status":"Weak population signal","what_the_evidence_supports":"In a 2026 study of 964 speed-date transcripts, GPT-4 predicted mutual contact exchange at r=.12; video judges reached r=.31.","what_it_does_not_support":"The model result does not provide a dependable verdict for one date, and correlation is not permission or consent.","evidence_base":"187 undergraduates; 964 matched transcripts; four-minute dates","source_ids":["S6"],"scope_note":"Selected undergraduate speed-dating context; transcript-only models missed nonverbal information."},
    {"record_id":"YCRH-AEL-015","claim":"Light touch reliably increases compliance in courtship","category":"Dating tactic","status":"Specific supporting corpus retracted","what_the_evidence_supports":"Five papers in one field-experiment corpus were retracted online on February 25, 2025, including two concerning touch and compliance.","what_it_does_not_support":"The retractions prevent those papers from supporting the tactic; they do not disprove every study of touch or every broader touch effect.","evidence_base":"Five-paper retraction notice citing unresolved methods, ethics and data-fidelity or analysis concerns","source_ids":["S7"],"scope_note":"Claim applies to the retracted corpus, not the entire touch literature."}
  ]
}