Why do people cling to hope when signals of romantic interest are mixed? Our new research suggests that sexual arousal may make signs of disinterest harder to recognize.
“You’re attractive and smart, but I’m looking for something else.”
I used to think this was a clear, kind way to reject someone. I was wrong.
In one pilot study, I tested different rejection messages to see which ones would make people clearly understand that a potential partner was not interested. At first, I softened the rejection with compliments because I did not want participants to feel unnecessarily hurt.
But after several rounds of testing, I realized something important: when rejection is mixed with warmth or flattery, people often do not fully register it as rejection. They ignore the “no” and cling to the part they want to hear. By trying to be “nice,” I was actually providing the fuel for their fantasies.
That pattern will feel familiar to anyone who has watched He’s Just Not That Into You or spent time in the modern dating world. One person is interested; the other doesn’t reciprocate but avoids saying so directly. The hopeful partner then fixates on the one “nice” text message while ignoring a mountain of evidence that the feeling isn’t mutual.
The Science Behind the Self-Deception
In our recent research1, we asked: When are people most likely to mistake mixed signals for real interest? We know from earlier work that sexual arousal can make romantic or sexual fulfillment feel more important than other considerations.2,3 In doing so, it narrows attention into a kind of “tunnel vision.” We wanted to see whether that tunnel vision leads people to focus on the signs they want to see while overlooking the ones they don’t.
What we did
We conducted four studies. In each study, unpartnered participants first watched either sexual or nonsexual videos and then interacted online with an attractive potential partner who was actually part of the research team (a confederate). Participants then rated how desirable the partner seemed and whether they believed that person would want to date them.
To see how deep this bias goes, we varied the timing and clarity of rejection across the studies:
- The mixed signal:In the first three studies, the partner was warm but sent ambiguous cues; sometimes at the start, sometimes at the end, and sometimes woven throughout the entire conversation.
- The clear “no”:In the final study, we replaced the ambiguity with a blunt, clear rejection to see whether desire could overcome even the most obvious “no.”
Study 1 examined what happens when an interaction starts off positively and the ambiguity appears only afterward. Participants first had a warm online chat with a potential partner and then read that partner’s fantasized date scenario featuring them both, which hinted at interest but also introduced uncertainty.
Study 2 moved the ambiguity to the very end of the interaction. After watching either sexual or nonsexual videos, participants chatted online with a confederate who seemed engaged and warm but ended the exchange with an ambiguous message: “The truth is I really enjoyed talking with you, and I would have been happy to get to know you better. I’ll share that I’m in a really busy period, and I’m not sure how much free time I have. Haha, sorry, I got a bit carried away… I think we finished discussing everything they asked of us, so I’ll call the experimenter.”
Study 3 made the mixed signals harder to dismiss by weaving them throughout the interaction. The confederate alternated between warmth, compliments, and subtle signs of mismatch or hesitation, making the ambiguity persistent rather than momentary.
Study 4 tested the limit of that effect by replacing mixed signals with a clear rejection. Instead of asking whether sexual arousal biases perception under mixed signals, we asked whether that same bias survives when the other person’s lack of interest is unmistakable.
What We Found
Across the first three studies, sexual arousal made participants significantly more likely to interpret ambiguous interactions optimistically. They saw interest where there was only uncertainty. Part of the reason seems to be that arousal increased the partner’s desirability, further fueling the tendency to see what people wanted to see.
However, Study 4 showed where this effect broke down: when rejection was clear and unmistakable, arousal no longer distorted perception. In fact, under clear rejection, arousal actually made the partner seem less desirable.
The takeaway? Sexual arousal distorts perception only when the situation leaves room for hope. It can help us push past the fear of rejection by tilting perception in a more hopeful direction. That may be useful in the early stages of dating, when uncertainty is everywhere. But it also comes with a risk: desire can overshadow sensitivity to another person’s actual wishes. In those moments, we may not see the interaction as it is; we see it as we hope it to be—missing the signs that the door is not actually open.
References:
- Birnbaum, G. E., & Zholtack, K. (2026). They are just not that into you: Does sexual arousal impair perception of rejection cues? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672261439417
- Birnbaum, G. E., Iluz, M., Plotkin, E., Tibi, L., Hematian, R., Mizrahi, M., & Reis, H. T. (2020). Seeing what you want to see: Sexual activation makes potential partners seem more appealing and romantically interested. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(12), 3051–3069. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520952162
- Birnbaum, G. E., Iluz, M., & Reis, H. T. (2020). Making the right first impression: Sexual priming encourages attitude change and self-presentation lies during encounters with potential partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, 103904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103904
