Signs someone likes you: what research says about reading attraction

“If they keep catching your eye, they like you.” “A fast reply means interest.” “If their body turns toward you, something is there.” You have probably come across lists like these. Is there a way to tell whether someone likes you? Research gives a short answer. On average, some behaviors, such as eye contact, smiling and moving closer, do go with liking. But the links are modest, people show interest in different ways, and people quite often miss or misread someone else’s interest.

This guide sums up which behaviors research has linked with attraction, how accurately people read interest, where misreadings come from, and what research says about beliefs such as playing hard to get, reply times and seeing each other often. These findings are averages across many people, so they cannot settle what one particular person feels. Keep in mind too that many of the studies looked at short first meetings, such as speed dates, mostly between heterosexual students. The studies we found say little about romantic attraction between people of the same sex, so it is unclear whether these results apply there. mind.io has no test that measures whether someone likes you.

So the most reliable way is not to decode signals but to say what you feel, or to ask, clearly and without pressure, and to respect the answer. This is not a guide to techniques for winning someone over. No signal justifies continuing to pursue someone who has made clear they are not interested.

A meta-analysis of studies on how self-reported attraction relates to what people actually do (309 effect sizes, 5,422 people) found a clear association, but not a large one (z = .20). The behaviors that went with attraction, such as eye contact, smiling, laughter and mimicry (echoing the other person’s gestures or way of speaking), were those that research links with building trust and rapport. Direct behaviors, such as moving physically closer or talking to someone, were more strongly linked with attraction than these indirect ones (Montoya et al., 2018). The meta-analysis covered attraction to people in general, not only romantic interest.

One important qualification: when fear of rejection loomed large, the link between direct behaviors and attraction became weaker (Montoya et al., 2018). In other words, liking someone does not always lead people to approach. Not being approached first is therefore weak evidence that someone is not interested.

Research on questions runs the other way. In three studies of live conversations, people who asked more questions, especially follow-up questions that pick up on what the other person said, were liked more by their conversation partners. The researchers saw questions as conveying responsiveness: listening, understanding, validation and care (Huang et al., 2017). The studies did not test whether asking questions shows the asker’s own interest. Word use held another clue. In an analysis of 40 speed-date conversations, pairs whose use of function words (pronouns, articles, conjunctions and the like) was more alike were more likely to want to see each other again: 33.3% of pairs above the median on this language style matching wanted further contact with each other, against 9.1% of the rest (Ireland et al., 2011). That was a small sample of 40, though, and matching arises between two people in a conversation, so it is hard to read as a sign of what one person feels.

In short, frequent eye contact, smiling, moving closer and talking to you go with liking on average. But the same behaviors also come from friendliness and good manners. Each one is a clue that nudges the odds a little, not proof of what someone feels.

In one study, 52 pairs of heterosexual students who had never met talked for 10 to 12 minutes and then reported, separately, whether they had flirted and whether they thought the other person had. They were right more than 80% of the time when the other person had not flirted, but when the other person had flirted, only 36% of the men and 18% of the women noticed it. Observers who watched 1-minute clips of these conversations (261 people) did no better: they were right 66% of the time when there was no flirting and 38% of the time when there was. The researcher explained that people avoid flirting openly for fear of embarrassment, and that flirting looks a lot like being friendly (Hall et al., 2015). The percentages were checked in the university’s press release rather than the paper itself.

In a study where observers watched videos of speed dates and judged how interested each dater was in the other, clips as short as 10 seconds were enough to judge interest, and male and female observers did equally well. Men’s interest, though, was judged fairly well, while judgments of women’s interest were just above chance, and daters differed widely, some very easy to read and others apparently masking what they felt (Place et al., 2009). In the flirting study above, by contrast, observers judged women’s flirting more accurately (Hall et al., 2015). Whose feelings are easier to read, then, varied with the study and the task.

People also tend to underestimate being liked. In studies of strangers meeting in the lab, first-year students getting to know their dorm mates and members of the public meeting at a workshop, people consistently underestimated, after a conversation, how much the other person liked them and enjoyed their company. The researchers called this the liking gap, and it could last for months (Boothby et al., 2018). These were ordinary conversations rather than romantic ones, but the result suggests that the feeling “they are not interested in me” can be gloomier than the reality. This applies to uncertainty, though: if someone says no or avoids you, that is not a signal to read but an answer.

Reading someone’s feelings from one gesture is just as hard with lying. How weak the cues to lying are in research is covered in the guide on spotting lies.

In a speed-meeting study of 199 people, men on average estimated their female partners’ sexual interest higher than the partners themselves reported, and women estimated their male partners’ sexual interest lower. Men who rated themselves as more attractive were more likely to overestimate (Perilloux et al., 2012). The study asked about sexual interest, not liking in general. Findings like this often spread as “men imagine interest and women miss it”, but a larger study is worth a look before taking that at face value.

A study of 3,850 three-minute meetings among 1,226 heterosexual, single students, which also asked about sexual interest, first showed the same gender difference. Yet once the analysis took into account factors such as how interested each person was in that partner and their openness to casual sex (sociosexual orientation), the gender difference became negligible. What most shaped how much sexual interest people saw in the other person was their own sexual interest in that person, which the researchers read as consistent with projection, seeing one’s own feelings in the other (Lee et al., 2020).

People in the same study could pick up the other person’s actual interest to some degree, but that effect was small, and being drawn to someone did not make people read that person more accurately (Lee et al., 2020). Put simply, the feeling “they seem to like me too” may hold more of your own feelings than of the other person’s signals. Rather than deciding which gender misreads more, the research is better summed up as: the more drawn you are to someone, the easier it is to read their behavior as interest.

If a single reply or expression shakes you and you keep wanting to check, the guide to attachment styles in dating, on the anxiety and distance that recur in relationships, and the attachment style test may help you look at your own pattern.

The Flirting Styles Inventory, built from the answers of 5,020 adults, sorts ways of communicating romantic interest into five styles (Hall et al., 2010). In the university’s own descriptions, the physical style expresses sexual interest; the sincere style builds an emotional connection and communicates sincere interest; the playful style flirts for fun and self-esteem with little interest in a long-term romance; and the polite style focuses on proper manners and nonsexual communication, and is less likely to approach first. The traditional style belongs to people who believe men should make the first move and women should not pursue men. That is not a rule the research recommends; it describes how people who hold that belief communicate interest.

Interest also showed differently from style to style. In a study of 51 pairs of heterosexual strangers who talked for 10 to 12 minutes, sincere flirts who were attracted were attentive and less fidgety, while polite flirts leaned back, made more space and kept a more even tone the more attracted they became, behavior that most people would read as a sign of distance (Hall & Xing, 2015). This finding was checked in the university’s press release.

The university’s release sums up that most people flirt very subtly, and each in their own way (Hall & Xing, 2015). That is why rules such as “leaning in means interest, leaning back means none” do not fit everyone. Differences in attitudes toward love are covered in the guide to the six love styles and the love style test.

Some findings run against the idea that playing hard to get makes you more attractive. In two experiments that tested it directly, playing hard to get raised wanting but lowered liking in people already committed to pursuing the other person, and lowered both in everyone else (Dai et al., 2014). In a speed-dating study of 156 students who each had 4-minute dates with 9 to 13 people of the other sex, people who were uniquely drawn to one particular person tended to be desired by that person in return (r = .14). People who were drawn to everyone they met, by contrast, were desired less by the others (r = −.41). These results did not differ by sex (Eastwick et al., 2007). The study did not test playing hard to get itself, but it suggests that interest is more likely to be returned when it says “because it’s you” than when it goes to everyone. In experiments, expressed liking also led the other person to infer good intentions, and that inference helped bring liking in return (Montoya & Insko, 2008).

Can you read feelings from reply times? In the studies we found, none tested directly how well a fast or slow reply shows the sender’s interest. The closest is an experiment on the timing of a text after a first date. When 543 heterosexual adults imagined an ordinary first date and were told the other person’s text came right after they parted, the next morning or two days later, a text the next morning led to the strongest wish to continue. The researchers found that a sense that the other person returned the feeling and seemed reliable played a part in this (Teichmann et al., 2026). But the experiment used an imagined scene and changed only the timing, without any message content, so it shows how recipients react, not that reply speed reveals what the sender feels.

The idea that seeing someone often makes you fonder of them has some support. A meta-analysis of 268 curves from 81 articles on the mere exposure effect, where repeated exposure increases liking, found an inverted U: liking rose at first, then fell again past a certain point. This analysis pooled ratings of stimuli shown or played repeatedly, though, and the inverted U appeared for visual stimuli but not for auditory ones (Montoya et al., 2017). Between people, strangers of the same sex who talked longer in an experiment were more attracted to each other (Reis et al., 2011). Another study reported that learning more about someone made differences stand out and lowered liking (Norton et al., 2007), but a preregistered replication with 801 people found that how many of a person’s traits people knew did not change how much they liked that person (Horsham et al., 2025). The Reis and Norton teams, writing together, concluded that whether familiarity increases or decreases attraction depends on the nature and stage of the relationship (Finkel et al., 2015).

Similarity is much the same. In a meta-analysis of 313 studies (460 effect sizes), actual similarity was linked with attraction when people did not know each other or had met only briefly, but not significantly in existing relationships, whereas perceived similarity, feeling “we are alike”, was linked with attraction in every setting (Montoya et al., 2008). Having a lot in common does not by itself mean the other person is interested.

Taken together, the research shows that signs of attraction exist on average but are too weak and ambiguous to reveal what one person feels. People often miss it when someone flirts with them (Hall et al., 2015), underestimate how much others like them (Boothby et al., 2018) and see their own feelings in the other person (Lee et al., 2020). So rather than decoding signals ever more closely, it is more reliable to say what you feel or to ask.

To keep the pressure low, leave room for the other person to say no easily. For example: “I’ve really enjoyed talking with you. Would you like to get coffee, just the two of us, sometime? If you’d rather not, that’s completely fine.” There is no need for one big confession; you can start with a small step, such as suggesting you meet one-on-one. This example was not itself tested in the studies.

If the other person says no, avoids answering or seems uncomfortable, accept that and stop. A no is not a cue to persuade again. Take extra care if the other person has been drinking heavily, or if the relationship makes saying no hard, as between a manager and someone they supervise. If they have asked you not to contact them or have blocked you, do not try to reach them through other accounts or friends. Repeated unwanted contact or following can become harassment or stalking.

And if you have said no but someone keeps contacting or following you and you feel uneasy or afraid, that is a question of safety, not of attraction. In immediate danger, call your local emergency number. US: National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 · UK: National Domestic Abuse Helpline 0808 2000 247.

Rejection hurts, but it is not a verdict on your worth. It only means that this person’s feelings and yours did not match at that time.

Q. Is frequent eye contact a sign someone likes you? A. On average, eye contact and smiling went with liking, but the link was modest. In a meta-analysis of 309 effect sizes (5,422 people), the association between attraction and behavior was z = .20, and moving closer or talking to someone was more strongly linked with attraction than eye contact (Montoya et al., 2018). Eye contact alone cannot settle what someone feels.

Q. Do men and women show they like someone differently? A. Research does not support a fixed set of signs by gender. In a study of 5,020 adults, ways of communicating interest fell into five styles (Hall et al., 2010), and depending on the style, some people moved closer the more attracted they were while others kept more distance (Hall & Xing, 2015). The gender difference in over- or underestimating sexual interest also became negligible in a study of 1,226 people once factors such as each person’s own interest and openness to casual sex were taken into account (Lee et al., 2020).

Q. Does a late reply mean they are not interested? A. We found no study that tested directly whether reply speed shows interest. In an experiment where 543 people imagined a first date, a text the next morning led to a stronger wish to continue than one right after parting or two days later (Teichmann et al., 2026), but that study looked at how recipients react. If you want to know, asking is more accurate than guessing.

Q. Does playing hard to get make someone like you more? A. In two experiments that tested it directly, playing hard to get raised wanting but lowered liking in people already committed to pursuing the other person, and lowered both in everyone else (Dai et al., 2014). In a speed-dating study of 156 students, being uniquely drawn to one person tended to be returned (r = .14), while people drawn to everyone were desired less (r = −.41; Eastwick et al., 2007). Saying honestly that you like someone “because it’s them” fits these findings better than pretending not to care.

Q. Is there a test to tell whether someone likes you? A. We found no validated test that measures someone’s interest in you, and mind.io has none. In the study of 52 pairs who had just met, only 36% of men and 18% of women noticed when the other person actually flirted (Hall et al., 2015). Asking without pressure is more accurate than scoring a checklist of signs. If you wonder about your own anxiety or distance in relationships, try the attachment style test, and for your attitudes toward love, the love style test.

Q. If I keep trying after a no, could they change their mind? A. A no is not a cue to persuade again. If the other person has said no or asked you not to contact them, stop. Repeated unwanted contact or following can become harassment or stalking. And if someone keeps following you after you said no and you are afraid, safety comes first. In immediate danger, call your local emergency number. US: National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 · UK: National Domestic Abuse Helpline 0808 2000 247.

References: Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2007), Selective versus unselective romantic desire: not all reciprocity is created equal, Psychological Science 18(4), 317-319, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01897.x; Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007), Less is more: the lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(1), 97-105, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.97; Montoya, R. M., & Insko, C. A. (2008), Toward a more complete understanding of the reciprocity of liking effect, European Journal of Social Psychology 38(3), 477-498 (online 2007), https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.431; Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008), Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25(6), 889-922, https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700; Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2009), The ability to judge the romantic interest of others, Psychological Science 20(1), 22-26, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02248.x; Hall, J. A., Carter, S., Cody, M. J., & Albright, J. M. (2010), Individual differences in the communication of romantic interest: development of the Flirting Styles Inventory, Communication Quarterly 58(4), 365-393, https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2010.524874 [style descriptions from the University of Kansas news release, 2010: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101101082901.htm]; Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., Scissors, L. E., Finkel, E. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2011), Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability, Psychological Science 22(1), 39-44 (online 2010), https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392928; Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011), Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(3), 557-570, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022885; Perilloux, C., Easton, J. A., & Buss, D. M. (2012), The misperception of sexual interest, Psychological Science 23(2), 146-151, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611424162; Dai, X., Dong, P., & Jia, J. S. (2014), When does playing hard to get increase romantic attraction?, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143(2), 521-526, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032989; Finkel, E. J., Norton, M. I., Reis, H. T., Ariely, D., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., Frost, J. H., & Maniaci, M. R. (2015), When does familiarity promote versus undermine interpersonal attraction? A proposed integrative model from erstwhile adversaries, Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(1), 3-19, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614561682; Hall, J. A., & Xing, C. (2015), The verbal and nonverbal correlates of the five flirting styles, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 39(1), 41-68 (online 2014), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-014-0199-8 [findings from the University of Kansas news release, 2015: https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2015/02/12/just-time-valentines-day-research-defines-more-behaviors-reveal-romantic-attraction]; Hall, J. A., 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 (online 2014), https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534972 [percentages from the University of Kansas news release, 2014: https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2014/06/03/flirting-hard-detect-study-finds]; Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Minson, J., & Gino, F. (2017), It doesn’t hurt to ask: question-asking increases liking, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 113(3), 430-452, https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000097 [correction after an independent audit, 2025: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000491]; Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., Vevea, J. L., Citkowicz, M., & Lauber, E. A. (2017), A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: the influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking, Psychological Bulletin 143(5), 459-498, https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000085; 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 29(11), 1742-1756, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618783714; 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, https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000148; 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 31(2), 184-192, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619900315; Horsham, Z., Haydock-Symonds, A. N., Imada, H., Tai, H. C., Lau, W. L., Shum, T. L., Zeng, Y., Chow, H. T. K., & Feldman, G. (2025), Does learning more about others impact liking them? Replication and extension Registered Report of Norton et al.’s (2007) lure of ambiguity, Royal Society Open Science 12(4), 250441, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.250441; Teichmann, L., Petrowsky, H. M., Boecker, L., Soliman, M., & Loschelder, D. D. (2026), How the timing of texting triggers romantic interest after the first date: a curvilinear U-shaped effect and its underlying mechanisms, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 43(2), 570-593 (online 2025), https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251377184