Thinking a date likes you makes you like them more—but it won’t win them over

A naturalistic study using speed-dating data found that individuals who believed they were perceived favorably by others expressed greater romantic interest. In contrast, individuals who underestimated how favorably others viewed them reported lower romantic interest. But when it came to attracting a partner, accuracy mattered more than optimism: people who correctly guessed how others saw them received more romantic interest in return. The paper was published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

In the first moments of meeting someone, people form impressions not only of the other person but also of how they themselves are being perceived. These beliefs about how others see us are called metaperceptions, and they can influence confidence, behavior, and romantic interest. Metaperceptions may be accurate, but they can also be shaped by expectations, insecurities, and general assumptions about how people usually evaluate others.

Researchers distinguish between meta-accuracy, or correctly judging another person’s impression of us, and meta-bias, or systematically overestimating or underestimating how positively we are viewed. People often underestimate how positively others see them, possibly because expecting rejection can feel safer than risking disappointment. At the same time, those who believe they are viewed positively may show more romantic interest because people are generally drawn to those whom they think like them in return.

Hasagani Tissera, a researcher at McGill University in Canada, and colleagues conducted a study in which they evaluated two different ways to assess meta-bias and meta-accuracy. They explored how meta-bias and meta-accuracy in assessing how others view them as potential romantic partners (e.g., how others view their warmth, attractiveness, or status) relate to the romantic interest people express.

Data used in this analysis came from 12 different speed-dating events held on a large city-based university campus in New Zealand involving 214 participants. On average, there were 16 participants per speed-dating event. Participants’ average age was 20 years, and 112 of them were women.

In the speed-dating events, participants were asked to rate their impression of each date for eight mate attributes, such as attractiveness, kindness, and ambition. Using the same scale, participants also rated their own metaperceptions of the same traits—meaning how they thought the other person saw them. Participants also indicated their romantic interest toward each date using a 3-item scale.

The study authors calculated metaperception scores using two different approaches. The profile-wise approach assessed metaperceptions across all attributes simultaneously. The trait-wise approach assessed accuracy and bias for each attribute category separately, breaking them down into three categories: attractiveness/vitality, warmth/trustworthiness, and status/resources.

Results from both approaches showed that participants who believed they were seen more favorably by others expressed more romantic interest in them. In contrast, participants who underestimated how positively they were seen expressed lower romantic interest.

However, thinking someone liked them didn’t necessarily mean the partner was actually interested. Instead, more *accurate* metaperceptions—meaning participants correctly guessed how their speed-date partners uniquely viewed their traits—were associated with greater romantic interest *from* the partners.

“Overall, we found consistent evidence supporting that positive metaperceptions might promote metaperceivers’ romantic interest while accurate metaperceptions might promote partners’ romantic interest,” the study authors concluded. “This unique comparison lays the groundwork for understanding how metaperceptions and accuracy shape attraction in initial social interactions, paving the way for future comparisons of the insights gained by different analytic approaches.”

The study contributes to the scientific understanding of the roles metaperceptions play in interpersonal relationships. However, it should be noted that data came from speed-dating events, where people who do not know each other have to quickly make assessments of many partners. This is unlike most real-world romantic interactions, which unfold more gradually. Additionally, the study’s cross-sectional design means it cannot prove that accurate metaperceptions *cause* partners to be more interested; it is also possible that partners who are already more interested give off clearer signals, making it easier for the person to accurately guess how they are perceived.

The paper, “Comparing Trait-Wise and Profile-Wise Approaches to Assess the Links Between Metaperceptions and Romantic Interest During Speed-Dating,” was authored by Hasagani Tissera, Nickola C. Overall, Emily J. Cross, Lauren J. Human, and John E. Lydon.