Psychological Bulletin

© 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 144, No. 7, 673–709

0033-2909/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000148

A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Relation Between Interpersonal

Attraction and Enacted Behavior

R. Matthew Montoya and Christine Kershaw Julie L. Prosser

University of Dayton Colorado State University

We present a meta-analysis that investigated the relation between self-reported interpersonal attraction and
enacted behavior. Our synthesis focused on (a) identifying the behaviors related to attraction; (b) evaluating
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

the efficacy of models of the relation between attraction and behavior; (c) testing the impact of several
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

moderators, including evaluative threat salience, cognitive appraisal salience, and the sex composition of the
social interaction; and (d) investigating the degree of agreement between the meta-analytic findings and an
ethnographic analysis. Using a multilevel modeling approach, an analysis of 309 effect sizes (N ⫽ 5,422)
revealed a significant association (z ⫽ .20) between self-reported attraction and enacted behavior. Key
findings include: (a) that the specific behaviors associated with attraction (e.g., eye contact, smiling, laughter,
mimicry) are those behaviors research has linked to the development of trust/rapport; (b) direct behaviors (e.g.,
physical proximity, talking to), compared with indirect behaviors (e.g., eye contact, smiling, mimicry), were
more strongly related to self-reported attraction; and (c) evaluative threat salience (e.g., fear of rejection)
reduced the magnitude of the relation between direct behavior and affective attraction. Moreover, an
ethnographic analysis revealed consistency between the behaviors identified by the meta-analysis and those
behaviors identified by ethnographers as predictive of attraction. We discuss the implications of our findings
for models of the relation between attraction and behavior, for the behavioral expressions of emotions, and for
how attraction is measured and conceptualized.

Public Significance Statement

An analysis of 309 effect sizes revealed that the experience of attraction covaries with the
expression of a subset of behaviors associated with the development of interpersonal trust (e.g.,
eye contact, smiling, laughter, mimicry). Based on these findings, we present a model of
attraction in which attraction is expressed instrumentally to develop and regulate interpersonal
interactions.

Keywords: interpersonal attraction, nonverbal behavior, attitude-behavior consistency, flirting, emotion

coherence

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000148.supp

In popular culture, there is an assumed or expected relation
between the experience and expression of interpersonal attraction.
For instance, a motif of dating advice columns (e.g., Arneson,
2011; Behrendt & Tuccillo, 2004; Williams, 2014) and romantic
comedies (e.g., Hitch, Sex and the City; Lassiter & Tennant, 2005;
Zuritsky, Bushnell, Rottenberg, & Frankel, 2003) is that daters can
This article was published Online First May 7, 2018.
R. Matthew Montoya and Christine Kershaw, Department of Psychol-
ogy, University of Dayton; Julie L. Prosser, Applied Social and Health
Psychology, Colorado State University.
Christine Kershaw is now at the Department of Psychology, University
of Alberta.
We thank the primary authors who provided additional information.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to R. Matthew
Montoya, Department of Psychology, University of Dayton, 300 College Park,
Dayton, Ohio 45469. E-mail: matt.montoya@udayton.edu
determine whether their date is “interested” in them by observing
their behavior toward them. The empirical literature is less clear on
the presence and reason of a connection, with some research
claiming that the affective experience associated with interper-
sonal attraction does not directly motivate the expression of en-
acted behavior (e.g., Baumeister, Vohs, Dewall, & Zhang, 2007),
that such positive experiences are related to behavior, but heavily
contingent on situational and normative forces (Ekman & Friesen,
1969; Gross, 2015), or that such behavior is indeed a consequence
of the subjective experience of attraction (Byrne & Griffitt, 1973;
Huston & Levinger, 1978). The purpose of this research is to
investigate: (a) which specific behaviors (e.g., reducing physical
proximity, smiling at, requesting a date from) are associated with
self-reported interpersonal attraction (e.g., “I like him/her”); (b)
the veracity of the various theoretical explanations for the relation;
(c) the processes that moderate the relation; and (d) the evidence
regarding whether such a relation is evident in different cultures.

673
 674 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
Definition of Attraction and Enacted Behavior
The first step is to define interpersonal attraction and to identify
the set of behaviors potentially associated with it. In the attraction
literature, attraction tends to be defined as an attitude that includes
the person’s affective, cognitive, and behavioral evaluation of the
target person (e.g., Berscheid, 1985; Finkel & Baumeister, 2010;
Graziano & Bruce, 2008; Huston & Levinger, 1978; Orbuch &
Sprecher, 2006). Recent literature, however, has maintained its
focus on the definition as an attitude, but narrowed the definition
to one’s immediate and positive emotional and/or behavioral re-
sponse to a specific person (Montoya & Horton, 2014). From this
updated perspective, the cognitive component is not considered
part of the attraction construct per se, but rather it is a process that
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
predicts the attraction response (see also Kaplan & Anderson,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1973). This updated version describes attraction as comprised of
two components, an affective component that reflects the quality
of one’s subjective response (affective attraction; often measured
using items such as “I feel favorably toward him/her”) and a
behavioral component that reflects one’s preference for a particu-
lar behavioral response toward the target person (behavioral at-
traction; measured using self-reported items such as “I would like
to meet him/her”).1 Previous definitions of behavioral attraction
(e.g., Montoya & Horton, 2014) have defined it as either the
preferred or enacted behavioral response. In this meta-analysis, we
use behavioral attraction to refer exclusively to a self-reported
preference for a particular behavioral response. We use liking and
interpersonal attraction to refer to an undifferentiated positive
evaluation that includes both affective and behavioral attraction.
Behavior Associated With Interpersonal Attraction
The next step is to identify those behaviors associated with
attraction. Table 1 presents seven taxonomies of the behavioral
manifestations of attraction. On the one hand, researchers tend to
agree on a small number of behaviors, including self-touch, body
orientation, eye contact, and smiling as associated with attraction.
On the other hand, the table also indicates little agreement for a
number of behaviors, with 13 of the 21 behaviors mentioned by
fewer than half the researchers.
These taxonomies make the methodological distinction between
direct and indirect behaviors. Direct behaviors have been defined
as acts that function to directly establish/maintain contact or re-
duce the physical space between two people. Direct behaviors
represent an operationalization most consistent with attraction’s
literal definition (i.e., reducing the interpersonal space between
two people). Direct behaviors have been commonly assessed using
seating proximity (Argyle & Dean, 1965; Russo, 1967), decisions
to sit with the target person (Schachter, 1959), talking to the person
(Grammer, Honda, Juette, & Schmitt, 1999), or asking a person on
a date (Deyo & Deyo, 2003). Alternatively, indirect behaviors
(referred to as “solicitation cues” by Moore, 1985; see also Sy-
monds, 1972) have been defined as acts designed to trigger affili-
ative attempts from, and/or attraction in, the target person. In
Western society, researchers have labeled many nonverbal behav-
iors as indirect, including smiling (Palmer & Simmons, 1995), eye
contact (Cappella & Palmer, 1990; Hall, 1963), self-touch (Ren-
ninger, Wade, & Grammer, 2004), head cant (Krumhuber, Man-
stead, & Kappas, 2007), head nodding (Muehlenhard, Koralewski,
Andrews, & Burdick, 1986), forward lean (Burgoon, 1991; Galton,
1884; James, 1932), mimetic behavior (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999),
open posture (McCormick & Jones, 1989; Mehrabian, 1969),
head/body orientation (Hall, 1963; James, 1932; Mehrabian &
Friar, 1969), and laughter (Moore, 1985).
As is discussed in the following section, different theoretical
perspectives produce different expectations not only for why at-
traction is associated with an enacted behavior, but which specific
behaviors are associated with interpersonal attraction.
Models of the Relation Between
Attraction and Behavior
Few theoretical models specifically outline the impact that an
affective/emotional state has on enacted behavior. At one extreme,
some models submit that affective/emotional processes function
primarily to inform the person of his or her relation with the
environment, and that there is no relation between affect/emotion
and enacted behavior. James (1890), for instance, famously stated
that emotions “terminate in the subject’s own body,” a position
consistent with other researchers (Kagan, 1978; McCall & McGee,
1977).
This article outlines three approaches that do submit that
there is a relation between the self-reported affective/emotional
experience and a behavioral expression: subjective experience,
generate approach, and develop/restore degree of interdepen-
dence. Although there are other models (e.g., DeWall, Baumeis-
ter, Chester, & Bushman, 2016) and permutations of these
general approaches, we speak specifically to these three models
because they have been articulated sufficiently well to allow
specific predictions to be made. For each approach, we discuss
(a) the logic for a relation between the experience of attraction
and enacted behavior and (b) what form the enacted behavior is
proposed to take.
Subjective Experience
The relation between self-reported attraction and enacted behav-
ior begins with the positive affective state. In general, the success-
ful navigation of one’s environment results in a positive subjective
experience (for discussions, see Buck, 1985; Campos, Campos, &
Barrett, 1989); and more specifically, the degree to which the
person evaluates the environment positively/negatively dictates the
valence of their internal state. This affective experience is largely
responsible for changes in the “downstream” cognitive and behav-
ioral responses (Niedenthal, 1990). Models of dissonance and
1
Behavioral attraction should not be confused with behavioral inten-
tions, which are “self-instructions to perform particular behaviors or to
obtain certain outcomes” (Triandis, 1980). Indeed, the attitude-behavior
consistency literature indicates that behavioral intentions are the proximate
determinant of behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Triandis, 1980) and is the strongest
predictor of behavior (Abraham, Sheeran, & Johnston, 1998; Eagly &
Chaiken, 1993; Maddux, 1999). However, behavioral intentions are rarely
assessed or investigated in the attraction literature. For example, it is
uncommon for investigations into dating behaviors to include questions
such as “I plan to ask out Person X” or “How likely is it that you will smile
at him/her?” The assessments commonly employed in the attraction liter-
ature (and most theories of interpersonal attraction) investigate partici-
pants’ preference for a particular course of action (i.e., behavioral attrac-
tion; e.g., “I would like to see this person again”) rather than their intent to
act in a particular way (e.g., “I will ask out this person;” Ajzen, 1991).
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR 675

Table 1
Enacted Behavior Associated With the Expression of Attraction/Liking

Tickle-Degnen,
Mehrabian Patterson Moore McCormick & Rosenthal, Grammer, Kruck, Juette,
Behavior (1969) Givens (1978) (1982) (1985) Jones (1989) and Harrigan (1989) and Fink (2000)

Body lean (forward) X X X

Body orientation
Brow raise
Eye contact (duration)
Eye contact (frequency)
Flexing/Protruding chest
Gesticulations
Hair flip
Head down
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
X X X X X
X X
X X X X
X X
X X X
X X X
X X
X

Head nod X X X
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Head tilt X
Head toss X X
Laughing X X X
Mimicry X
Open posture X X (legs, arms) X (legs, arms) X (legs)
Neck presentation X
Proximity X X X
Shoulder shrug X
Smile, genuine X X X X X
Smile, other X (ambivalent, smile X (coy) X (coy, smile followed
with “pouting, by turning away and
compressed lips, looking down)
showing tongue,”
p. 349)
Stretching X X
Touch (self) X X X X
Touch (other person) X X X X
Note. An X indicates that the behavior was mentioned by the author(s). No author(s) distinguished between smile duration and frequency. Mehrabian
(1969), Patterson (1982), and Tickle-Degnen et al. (1989) referred to nonverbal behaviors used to communicate liking/involvement. Givens (1978)
described behaviors that were “courting displays.” Moore (1985) included the “solicitation cues” used by women (only the most common behaviors and
those behaviors that were mentioned by another researcher were included in this table). McCormick and Jones (1989) referred to “nonverbal flirting
behaviors.” Grammer et al. (2000) described “courtship signals.”

cognitive consistency, for example, submit that a diffuse (aversive)
affective state motivates one’s behavior to align with one’s attitude
(Abelson & Rosenberg, 1958; Heider, 1958). Alternatively, mis-
attributional models (e.g., Zillman, 1978) submit that behavior
may result from an affective state when it is (mis)attributed to a
specific process (e.g., interest, happiness/enjoyment).
From this perspective, behavior that covaries with self-reported
attraction results from an emotion that was generated by the
positive interpersonal experience. Three emotions, and their asso-
ciated behavioral responses, are most likely responsible for any
observed link between self-reported attraction and enacted behav-
ior: happiness/enjoyment, which is characterized by smiling and
head tilt, among other behaviors (e.g., Dael, Mortillaro, & Scherer,
2012); sexual desire, which is associated with lip biting, lip lick-
ing, and lip touching (Gonzaga, Turner, Keltner, Campos, &
Altemus, 2006); and interest, which has been associated with a
directed head orientation, wide open eyes, and sustained eye
contact (Reeve, 1993).
In summary, from this approach, enacted behaviors should align
with specific emotions hypothesized to covary with a positive
affective state (e.g., happiness and smiling, interest and eye con-
tact, sexual interest and lip biting) that may result from the positive
interpersonal interaction. We call the set of behaviors predicted by
this approach emotion-specific behavior.
Generate Approach
Behaviorist models of attraction from the 1960’s and 1970’s
proposed that the affective/emotional response (acquired via either
classical or operant conditioning) was responsible for approach-
oriented behavior (e.g., Byrne & Clore, 1967; Lott & Lott, 1969;
Mehrabian, 1970). These models largely agreed that the positive
emotional state mediates approach-oriented behavior (Staats,
1994; Staats & Eifert, 1990; although Skinner, 1979 suggested that
emotions are simply “collateral” processes). From this perspective,
attraction is a diffuse positive affective experience associated with
a specific person, and it is this positive state that facilitates
approach-oriented behavior. More specifically, Byrne and col-
leagues (Byrne & Clore, 1967; Byrne, Nelson, & Reeves, 1966)
proposed that a reinforcing stimulus (e.g., a physically attractive
person or a person who is attitudinally similar) produces an im-
plicit affective response. The implicit affective response then pro-
duces an evaluative response (i.e., affective attraction), and impor-
tantly, a behavioral response (i.e., overt behavior). Lott and
colleagues (Lott, Aponte, Lott, & McGinley, 1969; Lott & Lott,
1969) similarly proposed that “a liked person should evoke an
anticipation of reward and arouse approach tendencies” (Lott et al.,
1969, p. 102). Relatedly, Mehrabian (1970, 1971) proposed the
immediacy principle, in which “[p]eople are drawn toward people
 676 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
and things they like” (1971, p. 1). Mehrabian submits that if the
perceiver expects an interaction to be reinforcing, the perceiver
engages in approach-oriented behavior. Furthermore, Zajonc
(2000) proposed that the anticipation of a reward may not be
necessary; that simply being exposed to a stimulus without a
negative consequence is sufficient to produce an “approach ten-
dency” (p. 225) via classical conditioning. And finally, outside the
realm specific to attraction, a multitude of other models of human
behavior similarly posit that a positive affective/emotional process
produces approach-oriented behavior (e.g., Baron-Cohen, 1995;
Carver & White, 1994; Lazarus, 1991; Smith, 1991; Watson &
Tellegen, 1985).
In summary, the experience of attraction produces behavior to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
reduce the physical distance between the two persons (e.g., seating
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
distance, standing distance) and secure the acquisition of rewards
(talking/conversing with the person, setting up future meetings).
We label this set of actions approach behaviors.
Develop/Restore Interdependence
Some theorists view interpersonal attraction as an emotion (e.g.,
Lamy, 2016; Smith, Tong, & Ellsworth, 2016), in which the
subjective experience is not only associated with enacted behavior,
but that the facilitation of a behavioral response is a component of
the emotional experience. From this functionalistic approach to
emotion (e.g., Campos et al., 1989; Ekman, 1992; Izard, 1977;
Nesse, 1990; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990), emotions are adaptive
responses to specific environmental problems faced in our evolu-
tionary history. Critically, given the social milieu of our evolu-
tionary past, emotions are associated with behavioral adaptations
with an interpersonal communicative function.
A fundamental tenet of this approach is response coherence, in
which each emotion is associated with a specific pattern of behav-
ioral and physiological responses suited for the demands of the
situation (Leary, Landel, & Patton, 1996; Rosenberg & Ekman,
1994; Tracy & Robins, 2004; for a review, see Keltner, Tracy,
Sauter, Cordano, & McNeil, 2016). Ekman (1992), for instance,
proposed that changes in facial morphology (e.g., the Duchenne
smile) expresses information to other people regarding the expres-
sor’s emotional state to change the recipient’s behavioral response.
Fear, for example, is not only associated with dilated pupils and
heavier breathing, but also with an avoidant behavioral motivation
to appease potential aggressors and warn friends of potential
danger (e.g., Adolphs, Russell, & Tranel, 1999; Bavelas, Black,
Chovil, Lemery, & Mullett, 1988; Bavelas, Black, Lemery, &
Mullett, 1986).
From this perspective, attraction motivates behavior not to sim-
ply approach, but it motivates the expression of trust-producing
behavior to maintain or deepen the degree of interdependence. As
an example, consider one’s attitude toward chocolate and how one
will act toward a piece of chocolate. In such a nonsocial context,
if one evaluates chocolate favorably, one can simply approach and
eat the chocolate—there is no need to negotiate with the chocolate
to arrive at an understanding that eating the chocolate is a mutually
acceptable course of action. However, interactions with other
people can often be considered as social exchanges, which involve
a distribution of resources conditional on the other person’s com-
pliance with the social contract (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981; Triv-
ers, 1971). If an interdependent relationship is desired with a
stranger (because the stranger has, say, excellent basketball skills
for a teammate, expertise for a collaboration, or physical attrac-
tiveness for a dating partner), a social interaction is necessary to
negotiate the conditions of the exchange. Importantly, both per-
sons need to have an expectation that the other person will uphold
their side of the exchange (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; Molm, 2006;
Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Expressions of behavior that generate
trust is one method to communicate one’s conditional cooperative-
ness during the social exchange.
Investigations into the nonverbal behaviors associated with the
development of trust/rapport have most consistently identified the
following four behaviors: smiling, eye contact, mimicry, and phys-
ical proximity (e.g., Andersen, Andersen, & Jensen, 1979; Berni-
eri, Gillis, Davis, & Grahe, 1996; Tickle-Degnen, Rosenthal, &
Harrigan, 1989).
Smiling. The relation between smiling and the production of
trust has received considerable attention. The developmental psy-
chology literature, for instance, has proposed that the smiles ex-
changed between caregiver and infant are instrumental for
strengthening the bond between them (Messinger, Fogel, & Dick-
son, 2001; Messinger & Fogel, 2007). From the social psychology
literature, research notes that smiles are detected, perceived, and
used as a cue to develop trust (Cashdan, 2004; Fridlund, 1994;
Godoy et al., 2005; Krumhuber, Kappas, & Manstead, 2013;
Mehu, Little, & Dunbar, 2007; Scharlemann, Eckel, Kacelnik, &
Wilson, 2001). Several researchers have gone farther to propose
that smiles are reliable cues to cooperation and trustworthiness,
such that they are “costly signals” during a social exchange, as
they increase the chance of being taken advantage (Centorrino,
Djemai, Hopfensitz, Milinski, & Seabright, 2011; Mehu & N=Di-
aye, 2010).
Eye contact. Substantial research points to the importance of
eye contact to the development of rapport and trust. Specifically,
eye contact operates by focusing attention (Cappella, 1981; Ken-
don, 1967; Posner, 1980). Via this “focusing” mechanism, eye
contact can be used to strengthen interpersonal trust and develop
deeper levels of intimacy (e.g., Jones, DeBruine, Little, Conway,
& Feinberg, 2006; King, Rowe, & Leonards, 2011; Mason, Tat-
kow, & Macrae, 2005; Vuilleumier, George, Lister, Armony, &
Driver, 2005; Wyland & Forgas, 2010). Specific research has
concluded that individuals initiate and maintain more eye contact
with people they know well compared with people they do not
know well (Coutts & Schneider, 1976; Russo, 1975), and use eye
contact instrumentally to increase/decrease social distance (Ander-
sen et al., 1979; Mehrabian, 1971).
Mimicry. Multiple research domains advance the claim that
mimicry of facial expressions, vocalizations, and posture is em-
ployed functionally to enhance rapport and trust. For example, the
developmental psychology literature not only proposes that mim-
icry occurs between infants and mothers (via matching vocaliza-
tions, eye gaze, and head turns; e.g., Cappella, 1981; Condon &
Sander, 1974; Gewirtz & Boyd, 1977; Matarazzo & Wiens, 1972;
Simner, 1971; Trevarthen, 1979), but that such mimetic behavior
is important for strengthening the bond between them (e.g., Beebe
et al., 1982; Bernieri, Reznik, & Rosenthal, 1988; Fogel, Toda, &
Kawai, 1988). From the social psychology literature, mimicry is
hypothesized to be expressed instrumentally to generate liking
and/or rapport between persons (e.g., Ashton-James, van Baaren,
Chartrand, Decety, & Karremans, 2007; Farley, 2014; Giles, 1977;
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR
Guéguen, 2009; Street & Giles, 1982; Wang, 2012). Moreover,
both the developmental and social psychological research domains
have emphasized the importance of social goals to the expression
of mimetic behavior. Tiedens and Fragale (2003) and Stel et al.
(2010), for example, both concluded that mimicry results only
when affiliation goals are salient (see also Bavelas et al., 1986;
Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri, Davis, Rosenthal, & Knee, 1994; Bernieri
& Rosenthal, 1991; Kendon, 1970; LaFrance & Broadbent, 1976).
Proximity. Although proximity is commonly considered to be
attraction’s antecedent (i.e., proximity breeds liking; e.g., Fest-
inger, Schachter, & Back, 1950; Segal, 1974) or consequence (i.e.,
we are drawn to people we like; Allgeier & Byrne, 1973; Byrne,
Ervin, & Lamberth, 1970), from a functionalistic perspective,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
proximity is used instrumentally to develop trust. Numerous stud-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ies have identified a link between attraction and physical proximity
(e.g., Argyle & Dean, 1965; Golding, 1967; Hayduk, 1978; Kleck,
1969; Little, 1965; Lott & Sommer, 1967; Mehrabian, 1968a;
Mehrabian, 1968b; Patterson, 1968), and laboratory investigations
have noted that proximity itself acts to communicate interest
(Rosenfeld, 1965) and is associated with more cooperation (Sally,
1995). In the dating realm, a manifestation of “functional proxim-
ity” is when women stand/sit near those people who interest them
and thus “put themselves in a position” to be met (Perper, 1989;
Perper & Weis, 1987).
Summary. The behaviors associated with self-reported attrac-
tion are those behaviors associated with the development of trust/
rapport. In addition to the behaviors that involve direct involve-
ment (e.g., talking to, meeting with), behaviors associated with
attraction should include those behaviors linked to the production
of trust: smiling, eye contact, mimicry, and proximity (called
affiliative behaviors).
Summary of the Models
The three approaches each provide a different explanation for
the relation between self-reported attraction and enacted behavior.
From the subjective experience approach, the positive affective
state does not, in and of itself, produce behavior, but rather,
attraction covaries with, or is misattributed to, another process
(e.g., cognitive consistency, interest, happiness/enjoyment) that
then produces the behavior. The result of which are behaviors that
are associated with specific emotional/cognitive states (emotion-
specific behaviors for happiness/enjoyment, interest, sexual de-
sire). For the generate approach perspective, the positive affective
state produces approach behavior (e.g., proximity, talking/conver-
sation) to acquire the benefits/rewards associated with the target
person. And third, for the develop/restore interdependence ap-
proach, the expression of attraction is reserved for those behaviors
that communicate trust through affiliative behavior (e.g., smiles,
eye contact).
Moderators of the Relation Between
Attraction and Behavior
Whereas the aforementioned literature contends that the expe-
rience of attraction may be associated with a constellation of
enacted behavior, it is easy to identify a number of reasons for the
absence of a relation. Attitude-behavior consistency theorists, for
instance, noted early on that affective/emotional responses were
677
insufficient to predict behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1973). Early
studies into the relation between interpersonal attraction and be-
havior consistently revealed little to no relation between the two,
further supporting the conclusion that affective responses are in-
sufficient to predict behavioral expressions of attraction (e.g.,
Byrne, Baskett, & Hodges, 1971; Latta, 1976; Snyder & Endel-
man, 1979). However, later research into attitude-behavior consis-
tency (e.g., Ajzen, 1988; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010) and emotion
coherence (e.g., Mauss, Levenson, McCarter, Wilhelm, & Gross,
2005) not only revealed a significant relation between attitudes/
emotions and enacted behavior, but also identified important mod-
erators and measurement issues that must be considered. In this
section, we discuss moderators that may affect the magnitude of
the relation between self-reported attraction and enacted behavior.
Evaluative Threat Salience
A key consideration that marks interpersonal interactions cen-
ters on concerns over acceptance/rejection. Threats to one’s self-
concept that accompany actual or expected rejection arouse the
need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Reis, Collins, &
Berscheid, 2000) and the need to evaluate oneself favorably (Leary
& Baumeister, 2000). This threat activates self-protective systems
to shield the person from harm.
First, protective motives are particularly responsible for reduc-
ing attraction to people who are seen as likely to harm them (via
rejection, undesirable social comparisons, etc.). Such a proposition
is consistent with multiple models of self-evaluation and self-
esteem. The self-evaluation maintenance model (Tesser, 1988,
2000), for example, posits that one way to reduce threat is to
distance oneself from a close other who surpasses the self on a
relevant dimension. Similarly, terror management theory (Pyszc-
zynski et al., 1995; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Sideris, &
Stubing, 1993) posits that distancing oneself from other people
reduces the vulnerability from a feared fate. In addition, other
researchers and models each propose that reducing attraction in
threatening situations protects one’s self-esteem (Cialdini et al.,
1976; Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986; Vangelisti, 2001).
Second, multiple theorists have proposed a relation between the
salience of evaluative concerns and the prevalence of indirect
behavior. Most famously, Goffman (1971) observed that daters are
prone to play the “relationship game,” in which they express
behavior that could be construed as mere friendliness or romantic
interest, depending on how romantic overtures may be perceived.
The indirect behavioral expression of attraction “protects” the
actor from the possibility that the recipient does not share the same
level of romantic interest (Whitty, 2004; see also Grammer, 1990;
Symonds, 1972). In one study, the majority of participants reported
that the fear of rejection prevented them from pursuing a romantic
relationship with a desired person (Vorauer & Ratner, 1996), with
later research submitting that daters engaged in “self-protective
ambiguity” to help save face while on a date (Vorauer, Cameron,
Holmes, & Pearce, 2003).
In summary, there are two proposed consequences of this self-
protection motive on attraction-related processes. Specifically,
when evaluative concerns are salient, there should be (a) a weaker
link between attraction and direct behavior to help protect the
person from rejection and/or negative evaluations and (b) a greater
relation between attraction and indirect behavior.
 678 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
Attraction Measurement
Because attraction has long been considered an attitude (e.g.,
Berscheid, 1985) and thus modeled using the tripartite model, it is
most commonly measured using scales that assess the affective
component (affective attraction) and/or the behavioral component
(behavioral attraction). In general, affective attraction aligns
closely with behavioral attraction (e.g., Byrne, 1971; Luther, Ben-
kenstein, & Rummelhagen, 2016; Michinov & Monteil, 2002;
Montoya & Horton, 2014). Enacted behavior’s relation to affective
versus behavioral attraction, however, may wax and wane as a
result of the same processes that regulate the relation between
self-reported attraction and enacted behavior.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Behavioral attraction may respond differently than affective
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
attraction when any one of many evaluative threats are salient. In
nonthreatening contexts (e.g., anonymous ratings of persons on a
computer screen) both affective and behavioral attraction should
align similarly with enacted behavior. However, in threatening
contexts (e.g., during a romantic date with a highly attractive
partner), affective attraction should be a poorer predictor of direct
behavior (i.e., behavior that is less ambiguous) due to self-
protection motives (e.g., fear of rejection, fear of negative social
comparisons; for a discussion, see Montoya & Horton, 2014).
Cognitive Appraisal Salience
The salience of information regarding the target person may
moderate the strength of the relation between self-reported attrac-
tion and enacted behavior. On the one hand, the elaboration-
consistency hypothesis (Petty, Haugtvedt, & Smith, 1995; Petty &
Wegener, 2010) submits that attitudes that result from deliberative
processing produce greater attitude-behavior consistency than at-
titudes formed via automatic/peripheral processing. This suggests
that effortful thinking about the target person strengthens the link
between attraction and behavior. Moreover, attitude-behavior con-
sistency is stronger when attitudes are made salient (i.e., asking
participants to think about their attitude; e.g., Brown, 1974; Prislin,
1988; Shavitt & Fazio, 1991; Snyder & Swann, 1976) and acces-
sible (i.e., asking participants to think about the stimulus object;
e.g., Cacioppo, Petty, Kao, & Rodriguez, 1986; Fazio, 1989; Fazio
& Williams, 1986). In addition, from the cognitive appraisal ap-
proach to emotions (e.g., Smith & Lazarus, 1993), a cognitive
assessment is fundamental to the subjective experience and the
behavioral response. Thus, making salient one’s cognitive ap-
praisal of the target person (e.g., rating or thinking about the target
person’s attributes) should produce more polarized subjective ex-
periences, and thus enhance the relation with enacted behavior.
On the other hand, research has also found that asking partici-
pants the reasons for why they feel as they do produces lower
attitude-behavior consistency (Wilson & Dunn, 1986; Wilson,
Dunn, Kraft, & Lisle, 1989; Wilson, Kraft, & Dunn, 1989). One
explanation for this finding is that attitudes are determined primar-
ily by emotional processes, but the act of generating reasons
changes the foundation of the attitude from an emotional one to a
cognitive one. A cognitively driven attitude, compared with an
emotionally driven attitude, would then be hypothesized to be less
predictive of enacted behavior (Millar & Tesser, 1986).
Romantic/Sexual Salience
Some conceptualizations of attraction consider it to be reserved
for romantic/sexual contexts. From this view, behaviors such as
smiling and eye contact are expressed because they communicate
romantic attraction (e.g., Guéguen, Fischer-Lokou, Lefebvre, &
Lamy, 2008; Hazan & Zeifman, 1999), and thus the relation
between attraction and enacted behavior should be evident only
when romantic/sexual motivations are present.
Alternatively, other researchers (e.g., Mehrabian, 1969; Tickle-
Degnen et al., 1989) present taxonomies of behaviors in which the
various behaviors may be expressed across social contexts (e.g., at
work, doctor-patient interactions). From this perspective, the rela-
tion between attraction and enacted behavior should be present
even in nondating interactions and in platonic relationships (e.g.,
friendships, coworkers).
Purpose of the Meta-Analysis
The goal of this research was to explore the magnitude and
moderators of the relation between self-reported attraction and
enacted behavior. This research focused on (a) identifying which
specific behaviors are related to self-reported attraction; (b) testing
the impact of several moderators, including evaluative threat sa-
lience, type of attraction assessment, cognitive appraisal salience;
and (c) investigating the degree of agreement between meta-
analytic findings and an ethnographic analysis. To do so, we
collected data from studies that assessed participant’s self-reported
affective and/or behavioral attraction toward a specific person and
the participant’s enacted behavior toward that same person (e.g.,
number of smiles, amount of eye contact).
The first step was to investigate which specific behaviors were
associated with self-reported attraction. This analysis will provide
a typology of behaviors associated with the experience of attrac-
tion and may provide insight as to which theoretical explanation
for the relation between attraction and behavior is best supported.
Specifically, the subjective experience approach submits that en-
acted behaviors should align with the specific emotional responses
(e.g., smiling from happiness/enjoyment, lip biting from sexual
interest; emotion-specific behavior). The generate approach per-
spective submits that, given its theoretical foundation of movement
toward reinforcing/rewarding stimuli, attraction is associated with
direct behaviors (e.g., sitting near, talking to; approach behavior).
Finally, the develop/restore interdependence perspective submits
that behaviors associated with producing trust are related to attrac-
tion (e.g., smiling, mimicry; affiliative behavior).
We also examined the degree to which the findings from the
meta-analysis align across different cultures. Given that the ma-
jority of published research is conducted in Western countries, we
examined whether the subset of enacted behaviors associated with
self-reported attraction in this meta-analysis were similar to the
behaviors reported to be related to attraction in cultures from
around the world.
Finally, although not directly related to the hypotheses, this
research allowed for the testing of various sex differences associ-
ated with the relation between attraction and behavior. In Western
societies, for instance, norms dictate that men are to overtly initiate
dating relationships (Rose & Frieze, 1989; Symonds, 1972; see
also Laner & Ventrone, 1998; Rose & Frieze, 1993). Consistent
with these norms, men, compared with women, use more direct
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR
relationship initiation strategies (Greer & Buss, 1994; Smythe,
1991), are more likely to ask someone out for a date (Kelley &
Rolker-Dolinsky, 1987), are more active and direct at the begin-
ning of the relationship, and are the “relationship initiators” (Clark,
Shaver, & Abrahams, 1999). Alternatively, norms dictate that
women are to communicate romantic interest to their partner to
reduce uncertainty regarding her partner’s motives and to grow her
partner’s interest, but they are also to be coy and discreet when
expressing their relational interest (Simon, Eder, & Evans, 1992).
These findings indicate that in interactions when romantic/sexual
norms are salient (e.g., men interacting with women during a speed
dating session), there should be a strong relation between attraction
and direct behavior for men, but for women, there should be a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
strong relation between attraction and indirect behavior.2
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Method
Literature Search
We searched the literature using the PsycINFO, Sociological
Abstracts, Google Scholar, and Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional databases until the end of August 2017. Our search strategy
included a combination of the following keywords: attraction,
dating, social distance, immediacy cues, ingratiation, propinquity,
proximity, mimicry, proxemics, liking, behavioral confirmation,
standing/sitting distance, smiling, eye contact/gaze, flattery, and
flirting. We conducted a backward search of reference sections of
the retrieved articles until we found no new entries. We sent
requests for relevant studies to Internet discussion forums used by
social psychologists (e.g., Society for Personality and Social Psy-
chology Connect [SPSP Connect]) and communication researchers
(e.g., Communication Research and Theory Network [CRTNET]).
We then contacted investigators whom had frequently published
research in the area.
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
We included studies that satisfied four criteria. First, partici-
pants’ attraction to a target person must have been assessed using
a self-report measure (e.g., Interpersonal Judgment Scale [IJS];
Byrne, 1971) that was comprised primarily of affective or behav-
ioral attraction items. Assessments of so-called “cognitive attrac-
tion,” which may include an assessment of physical attractiveness,
honesty, or intelligence, are not attraction studies per se (Montoya
& Horton, 2014), and were excluded.
Second, studies must have included an enacted (vs. “preferred”
or “desired”) behavior. The difference between the measurement
of actual versus preferred behavior is far from trivial. For example,
in a review of the literature on personal space, Hayduk (1983)
concluded that the relation between enacted behavior (as measured
by indices such as chair placement or stop distance) and “projec-
tive” measures of personal distance (e.g., self-report indices of
distance, such as a paper and pencil task that asked participants to
place a line where they would be comfortable standing) was
“unacceptably low,” and that such “projective” measures were
“unacceptable measures of personal space” (p. 296).
Third, we only included studies in which the behavior was freely
chosen. We thus excluded research that experimentally manipu-
lated a behavior (e.g., placing the participant either one foot or four
679
feet from an interviewer) and then assessed the resultant attraction
(e.g., O’Connor & Gifford, 1988; Williams & Kleinke, 1993).
Finally, we did not include studies that investigated the link
between disliking (or prejudice) and avoidance behavior (or dis-
crimination). Although conceptually appealing, attraction should
not be considered the “opposite” of negatively valenced constructs
like repulsion or prejudice. Attraction is likely to be correlated
with such constructs (e.g., Dermer & Pyszczynski, 1978; Rubin,
1974) but the underlying physiological, cognitive, and neurochem-
ical processes that regulate these “negative” processes differ from
those that regulate attraction (e.g., Carter, 1998; Kelley, 1983;
Sternberg, 1987; Swensen, 1972). For example, prejudice, com-
pared with attraction, is associated with different neural structures
(Harmon-Jones & Allen, 2001; Winkielman & Cacioppo, 2001), is
better at predicting discrimination than is attraction (Pittinsky,
Rosenthal, & Montoya, 2011), and is associated with different
interpersonal motives (e.g., Bower, 1981; Fredrickson & Branigan,
2001).
Selected Studies
An initial search of the literature resulted in a sample of
1,037 articles. Given the aforementioned exclusion criteria, the
reasons for exclusion were primarily (a) the absence of an index
of self-reported attraction, which resulted in the removal of 226
articles (21.79%); and (b) not including an enacted behavior
(360 articles were excluded, 34.71%). Other reasons (e.g.,
failing to report sufficient statistical information, participants’
behavior manipulated by the experimenter) resulted in the re-
moval of 397 articles.
The search strategy and selection criteria resulted in 54 articles,
of which 43 (79.63%) were published journal articles, three
(5.56%) were unpublished theses or dissertations, three (5.56%)
were book chapters, and five (9.26%) were unpublished databases
provided by the original researchers. The sample included 309
effect sizes (M ⫽ 5.72 per article, SD ⫽ 9.81) and included 5,422
participants. Sample sizes ranged from six to 382 (M ⫽ 60.65,
SD ⫽ 58.49).
Coder Reliability
Two graduate students coded the articles after being trained by
R. Matthew Montoya. Reliability was assessed by comparing the
coders’ ratings with each other and with those of the first author.
Reliabilities were examined using Krippendorff’s alpha (Krippen-
dorff, 2004). The mean reliability indices between the two raters
was strong, .97 (SD ⫽ 0.08; range ⫽ .61 to 1.00), with agreement
rates for 21 of 23 category codes exceeding .90. The mean alphas
between the first author and the raters was also strong across the
2
Research indicates that women, compared with men, are more effective
at expressing and interpreting nonverbal cues (for a review, see DePaulo,
1992) and that they engage in these nonverbal behaviors more frequently.
For example, women and adolescent girls smiling more frequently than
men and adolescent boys (LaFrance, Hecht, & Paluck, 2003), and women
sit closer to other women than men sit with other men (Baxter, 1970). We
do not investigate whether men or women engage in more behavioral
expressions of attraction or experience more/less attraction, but rather,
whether there is a greater/lesser concomitance between attraction and
behavioral expressions as a function of the participant’s sex.
 680 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
various ratings, .95 (SD ⫽ 0.06; range ⫽ .72 to 1.00), with
agreement exceeding .90 for 21 of 23 codes. When a disagreement
was present, the issue was discussed between the raters and then
with the first author until agreement was reached. The consensus
code was used in the analyses.
Data Coding
Enacted behavior. Our list of enacted behaviors was deter-
mined by theoretical predictions and practical considerations. To
be as inclusive as possible, we began by including all behaviors
identified in the retrieved articles and the behaviors mentioned in
Table 1.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This method resulted in the identification of 42 behaviors: eye
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
gaze duration and frequency (look to the face/head of the target
person; Cappella, 1981), seating distance (measured as the dis-
tance between a chair the participant places and a chair in which
the confederate is to sit), standing distance (measured via [a] a task
in which participants walked toward the target person until they
stopped [stop distance] or [b] an unobtrusive measurement of an
interaction with a confederate), body lean (torso bend beyond
vertical toward the target person), body orientation (degree to
which the participant’s body is facing the target person), open
posture (positioning the arms and legs away from the body; Meh-
rabian & Friar, 1969), laughter (a smile accompanied by an acous-
tically detectable exhaustion of air; Bryant et al., 2016), head cant
(a lateral head tilt toward the shoulder axis; Krumhuber et al.,
2007), talking (word count/duration of a person’s vocalizations;
Cuperman & Ickes, 2009), gesticulation (signaling with the hands
and arms when talking; Özyürek, 2002), primp (smoothing clothes
with hands; Grammer et al., 1999), hair flip (tipping the head
forward followed by throwing hair back; Grammer et al., 1999),
head akimbo (arching one’s back and putting one’s hands behind
the neck with elbows pointed up and out; Grammer et al., 1999),
mimicry (imitating another person’s behavior; Lakin & Chartrand,
2003), and head nod (continuous movement of the head up and
down; Woodall, Burgoon, & Markel, 1980).
We also included behaviors from a small subset of articles (e.g.,
Grammer et al., 1999; Grammer, Kruck, Juette, & Fink, 2000):
adaptor, arm flex, arms parallel, breast presentation, cover face,
deictograph, eyebrow flash, flirtatious glance, folding hands, head
down, head toss, knees toward body, look around, look down, look
through, move legs, move shoulders, palm, roll up sleeves, and
shoulder shrug.
We included the duration and frequency of smiles. Some studies
used facial action coding (FACS; Ekman & Friesen, 1976) to
identify “genuine” smiles (i.e., smiles that recruit both the zygo-
matic major muscle and the orbicularis oculi), whereas other
studies did not. Because research has proposed that only “genuine”
smiles are related to positive emotions (Ekman, Davidson, &
Friesen, 1990), we distinguished between those studies that did,
versus did not, code for “genuine” smiles.
Finally, we included two behaviors inspired by speed dating
studies: “yessing” and “actual contact.” “Yessing” refers to the
participant’s expressed interest in communicating with other per-
son again, and “actual contact” refers to whether the participant
actually contacted the other person after the initial session. Al-
though these codes apply to the speed dating studies in our data-
base, they also apply to nonspeed dating studies (e.g., Danyluck &
Page-Gould, 2017 investigated whether participants were inter-
ested in becoming friends).
Enacted behavior type. We divided the behaviors into one of
three categories based on the traditional methods of categorizing
enacted behaviors: direct, indirect, and speed dating. Several be-
haviors were coded as direct: sitting, stop, and standing distance,
and two talking assessments (duration and word count). The indi-
rect behavior category included smiles (duration and frequency),
eye contact (duration and frequency), body lean, body orientation,
mimicry, head tilt, and the other behaviors not considered direct or
speed dating.
The two effects common to speed dating studies, “actual con-
tact” and “yessing,” were included in their own category because
they do not align clearly with either the direct or indirect catego-
ries. Specifically, although these behaviors may appear to align
with “direct behavior,” they have critical differences that necessi-
tate their own category. In contrast to all direct behaviors, “yes-
sing” is not expressed directly to the other person, but anony-
mously to the experimenter, and would be communicated to the
other person if there was a mutual “yes.” Alternatively, “actual
contact” refers to whether a speed dater contacts another dater (via
e-mail, phone call) after the initial speed dating session. Actual
contact is distinct from the direct behaviors because it is contingent
on the other person’s mutual consent to contact (i.e., the participant
can contact another person only if mutual “yessing” occurred).
Evaluative threat salience. We coded evaluative threat sa-
lience as a categorical variable with two levels: high salience, low
salience. Salience was coded as “high” when it was experimenter-
defined or when concerns regarding acceptance/rejection or rela-
tive performance were considered to be salient. For example, “high
salience” studies included procedures in which participants went
on a blind date or when participants were asked to interview (or be
interviewed by) a physically attractive confederate. Alternatively,
“low salience” studies were those in which evaluative threat was
assumed to be unaroused. For example, we coded studies as “low
salience” when experimenters investigated students’ seating prox-
imity to the instructor in a lecture class or interactions with a
confederate while completing a noninterdependent task.
Cognitive appraisal salience. We used a two-level variable to
assess whether participants considered the attributes of the target
person before making their attraction assessment. We coded as
“cognitive appraisal salient” those studies in which participants
assessed the characteristics/traits of the target person before indi-
cating their attraction to the target. The IJS (Byrne, 1971), for
example, includes four “filler” questions that precede the two
attraction items and ask participants about the attributes of the
target person. Montoya and Horton (2004) argued that such ques-
tions that ask participants to rate the target person’s intelligence,
adjustment, morality, and competence on a given task make salient
their evaluation of the target person. We coded as “cognitive
appraisal not salient” those studies that did not include question-
naires that asked participants to consider the attributes of the target
person.
Type of self-reported attraction assessment. We coded the
type of attraction measure as a categorical variable with four
levels: affective attraction, behavioral attraction, behavioral attrac-
tion (dating), and mixed. Only assessments in which the partici-
pants had the implicit or explicit expectation that their responses
would not be seen by the target person were considered as assess-
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR
ments of self-reported attraction. We coded indices as “affective
attraction” those measures that assessed attraction using only af-
fective items (e.g., “I feel warmly toward the target person”; “I like
the target person”). We coded indices as “behavioral attraction”
those measures that described participants’ preference or desire to
act in a particular way toward the target person (e.g., “I would like
to talk to this person again”). We also coded indices as behavioral
attraction (dating) those behavioral attraction assessments that
were specific to questions focused on dating (e.g., “I would like to
ask the person out on a date”). Finally, we coded as “mixed” those
indices that included both affective and behavioral attraction as-
sessments. For example, Byrne’s (1971) popular IJS questionnaire
was coded as “mixed” because it includes one affective item
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(“How much do think you will like this person?”) and one behav-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ioral item (“How much would you want to work with this per-
son?”).
Sex composition. In addition to coding for the sex of the par-
ticipant and the sex of the target person, we also created a six-level
factor that considered the sex composition of the interaction: female
participant–female target person, female participant–male target per-
son, male participant–male target person, male participant–female
target person, unspecified participant (participants whose sex was not
mentioned by the researchers)–matched sex target, and mixed (re-
searchers collapsed across different sex compositions).
Romantic/sexual context salience. We coded the salience of
a romantic/sexual context using a two-level variable: salient and
not salient. Salience was coded as present when it was
experimenter-defined or when the situation was designed to allow
for people to meet and possibly date (e.g., speed dating session).
Salience was coded as low when such considerations were con-
sidered to be unaroused (e.g., a laboratory session involving a
same-sexed confederate or a teacher–student interaction).
Other variables. We coded several additional aspects of the
design for exploratory and sensitivity analyses, of which several
are noteworthy. First, in addition to coding the participant’s and
target person’s age, we also coded the age composition of the
sample using a four-level variable: both children, both college-
aged, and two codes to represent children and adults in an inter-
action that were heterogeneous with respect to age. Second, we
coded into a three-level variable the amount of knowledge persons
had about one another before the assessment period: none (e.g.,
minimal interaction [i.e., an experiment using unacquainted per-
sons]), preexisting relationships (e.g., relationship partners, close
friends), and other (e.g., classmates). Third, the time interval
between the assessment of attraction and the assessment of behav-
ior was coded as a three-level variable: under 1 hr, same day, and
longer than 1 day. Fourth, we coded the target person’s behavior
during the interaction using a four-level variable: naïve participant
(fellow participant whose responses were not dictated by the
experimenter), confederate who was instructed to act in a neutral/
nondescript manner toward the participant, confederate who was
instructed to act in an accepting/positive manner toward the par-
ticipant, and confederate who was instructed to act in a rejecting/
negative manner toward the participant. Fifth, we coded the order
in which attraction and behavior were assessed using a two-level
categorical variable: attraction first, behavior first. Studies that
measured behavior before asking participants to complete the
attraction questionnaire were coded as “behavior first.” Alterna-
681
tively, studies that assessed participants’ attraction before assess-
ing behavior were coded as “attraction first.”
Finally, we coded each effect for basic descriptive information.
These variables included: author and full citation, source (journal,
edited volume, thesis or dissertation, and unpublished article), year of
publication, country in which data were collected, reliability of attrac-
tion assessment and the interrater reliability of the behavior. All
coding decisions for each effect size are presented in Appendix A.
Statistical Methods
Effect size. The effect size of interest was the reported corre-
lation between self-reported assessments of interpersonal attrac-
tion and the index of enacted behavior. Effect size estimates were
converted to z using Fisher’s r to z transformation (Fisher, 1928)
because the sampling distribution of z(r) is assumed to approach
normality (Rosenthal, 1984).
Effect sizes were calculated such that greater positive values
indicate a stronger theoretically consistent relation between the
self-reported attraction and enacted behavior (e.g., we reversed the
sign of effect sizes that assessed seating/standing distance’s rela-
tion to attraction so that the effect size measured “proximity”). If
the relation between attraction and behavior was described as not
significant and no additional information in the article was pro-
vided, the effect size was conservatively set to zero (Pigott, 2012).
Of the 309 effect sizes in the database, 57 (18.44%) were estimated
using this technique. Furthermore, in a small number of cases, the
behavior was dichotomous (e.g., amount of attraction experienced
by those participants who opted to sit “close” vs. “far” from a
target person, “yessing”). In these cases, we used logistic regres-
sion to generate B’s. To convert B to z, we first converted B to d
(using the equation provided by Haddock, Rindskopf, & Shadish,
1998), and then converted d to r. The variance of these effects was
estimated using the formula, (1 ⫺ r2)2/(N ⫺ 2).
Random-effects model. We selected a random-effects model
because we were interested in making unconditional inferences
that generalized to the hypothetical population of all studies that
could exist, rather than simply to the studies included in the present
sample (Hedges & Vevea, 1998).
Moreover, a majority of articles contributed more than one
effect size (specifically, 39 of 54 articles). To model the depen-
dence inherent in such data, we used a three-level random-effects
meta-analytic approach (multilevel modeling [MLM]; Cheung,
2014; Konstantopoulos, 2011; van den Noortgate, Lopez-Lopez,
Marin-Martinez, & Sanchez-Meca, 2013). MLM addresses con-
cerns produced by dependent data (e.g., estimation of artificially
narrow confidence intervals) by modeling both the dependence
between and within articles. Specifically, MLM modeled three
sources of variance: variance between articles, variance between
effect sizes from the same article, and the sampling variance. In
this case, we estimated effect sizes (level 1, k ⫽ 309) that were
nested within article (level 2; k ⫽ 54). The sampling variance was
computed with maximum likelihood using a computer program
developed for that purpose (Vevea & Woods, 2005). Analyses
were conducted using PROC MIXED (van den Noortgate et al.,
2013) and meta3 in R (Cheung, 2014) using maximum likelihood
estimation.
 682 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
Results
Reliability information was reported for 252 of the 309 effect
sizes (81.55%). As noted in Table 2, reliability for the indices of
self-reported attraction and enacted behaviors was generally ac-
ceptable. Inspection of the reliability estimates for the various
direct and indirect behaviors did not provide evidence that some
behaviors were measured more reliably than other behaviors.
The presence of outliers in our database was investigated using the
metaplus package in R (Beath, 2016). Two effect sizes were
identified as potential outliers. We followed the procedure for
handling outliers described by Lipsey and Wilson (2001) and
Windsorized the effects. This did not affect the pattern or statistical
significance of any reported result.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
We began by estimating an unconditional random intercept
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
model to determine the amount of variation in effect size estimates
at each level of analysis. There was heterogeneity in the effects
across each level. At Level 1, the heterogeneity estimate (I2) was
.56, indicating that 56% of the variance could be explained by
between-study variance. The Q statistic for the homogeneity of
effect sizes was significant, ␹2(308) ⫽ 782.62, p ⬍ .001. When
Level 2 was added to the model, it produced a heterogeneity
estimate of .49, which reflects medium heterogeneity (Higgins,
Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003). A significance test for im-
portance of the level two variability was also significant, ␹2(1) ⫽
70.31, p ⬍ .001. Because significant variation in effect sizes is
present at each level of the data, we proceeded by estimating a
multilevel model. As presented in Table 3, the random effects
model revealed that the overall relation between self-reported
attraction and enacted behavior was significant, z ⫽ .205 (SE ⫽
.026), z-score ⫽ 7.65, p ⬍ .001.
Which Behaviors are Related to
Self-Reported Attraction?
An initial inspection of the behavior data revealed that several
categories may be collapsed given the similar means and the
consistent patterns across levels of different moderators. First, we
combined the three physical distance measures (seating distance,
standing distance, stop distance) into a single category (sit/stand
distance). Second, consistent with research that failed to find
different meanings between “types” of smiles (e.g., Schneider &
Josephs, 1991; Schneider & Unzer, 1992), we collapsed the effect
sizes for studies that mentioned the Duchenne coding for smiles
and those that did not.
There was a main effect for behavior, ␹2(41) ⫽ 176.71, p ⬍
.001, such that behavior moderated the relation between attraction
and enacted behavior. Fourteen behaviors were significantly re-
lated to attraction and 28 were not, suggesting that academics may
have been incorrect to conclude that such behaviors were associ-
ated with attraction. Moreover, for many of those nonsignificant
behaviors, the attraction-behavior relation was reported (a) selec-
tively (e.g., only the most positive or negative correlations were
reported); and/or (b) as a result of exploratory/atheoretical analy-
ses. For example, Grammer et al. (2000) reported several behav-
iors for which there was no theoretical rationale and were reported
selectively due to their negative relation with attraction.
The inclusion of such behaviors may adversely affect the ability
of the various analyses to detect the impact of the different mod-
erators. As a result, we excluded 22 behaviors from the following
analyses. A list of the behaviors retained in the main analyses is
presented in Table 3, and a list of the excluded behaviors is
presented in Appendix B. A replication of all key analyses with the
full database is reported in the online supplement.
Removing the behaviors reported in Appendix B did not mean-
ingfully affect the overall effect, z ⫽ .204 (z score ⫽ 7.69, p ⬍
.001).
Behavior Type
The means for behavior type are presented in Table 3. The main
effect for behavior type was significant, ␹2(2) ⫽ 34.94, p ⬍ .001.
We explored this main effect using orthogonal contrasts. The first
contrast revealed that the attraction-behavior relation was greater
for speed dating effect sizes compared to the combination of direct
and indirect effects, ␹2(1) ⫽ 23.09, p ⬍ .001. The second contrast,
which compared direct with indirect behaviors, was also signifi-
cant, ␹2(1) ⫽ 20.52, p ⬍ .001, indicating that direct behaviors
were more strongly associated with self-reported attraction than
were indirect behaviors.
Speed dating studies were removed from the following moder-
ator analyses because the speed dating behaviors (i.e., “yessing”
and “actual contact”) were considered as neither direct nor indirect
behaviors. Speed dating effects were analyzed separately.
Evaluative Threat
The means for evaluative threat are presented in Table 3. The
main effect for evaluative threat was not significant, ␹2(1) ⫽ 1.14,
p ⫽ .29. We investigated two interactions involving evaluative
threat. However, neither the Evaluative Threat ⫻ Behavior Type
interaction, ␹2(1) ⫽ 1.26, p ⫽ .26, nor the Evaluative Threat ⫻
Cognitive Appraisal interaction, ␹2(1) ⫽ 1.56, p ⫽ .22, reached
significance.
Self-Reported Attraction Type
The main effect for attraction type was not significant, ␹2(2) ⫽
0.96, p ⫽ .61. Orthogonal contrasts revealed that affective attrac-
tion was not greater than behavioral attraction, ␹2(1) ⫽ 0.23, p ⫽
.63, and that a combination of affective and behavioral attraction
did not differ from mixed, ␹2(1) ⫽ 0.70, p ⫽ .40.
We next explored the expected moderators of attraction type.
Neither the predicted Evaluative Threat ⫻ Attraction Type inter-
action, ␹2(2) ⫽ 2.90, p ⫽ .24, nor the Attraction Type ⫻ Behavior
Type interaction, ␹2(1) ⫽ 0.40, p ⫽ .53, were significant. How-
ever, of interest was the Evaluative Threat ⫻ Attraction Type ⫻
Behavior Type interaction, in which the different attraction mea-
sures respond differently as a function of evaluative threat and
behavior type. This three-way interaction was significant, ␹2(2) ⫽
8.13, p ⬍ .05.
We tested the predicted effects specific to behavioral attraction
and affective attraction as a function of the Evaluative Threat ⫻
Behavior Type interaction. For affective attraction, the Evaluative
Threat ⫻ Behavior Type interaction was significant, ␹2(1) ⫽ 5.11,
p ⬍ .05. Simple effects revealed that the effect for direct behavior
was lower when threat was salient (no threat: z ⫽ .33, SE ⫽ 07;
threat: z ⫽ .13, se ⫽ .05), t ⫽ 2.16, p ⬍ .05, but threat salience did
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR 683

Table 2
Study Characteristic Summary

Number of Number of
Category/code effects Category/code effects

Publication year, by decade Country

1960’s 2 United States 168
1970’s 38 Germany 42
1980’s 24 Netherlands 18
1990’s 90 Ireland 1
2000’s 59 France 2
2010’s 96 Austria 24
New Zealand 5
Publication type Canada 18
Published article/chapter 251 Belgium 1
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Thesis/dissertation 9 Japan 30
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Unpublished data 44
Book chapter 5 Target person age
Child/adolescent 9
Participant sex Undergraduate 277
Always men 106 Older than undergraduate 23
Always women 163
Mixed 40 Target person behavior
Fellow participant 183
Participant age Neutral acting confederate 87
Child/adolescent 9 Positive acting confederate 17
Undergraduate 284 Negative acting confederate 11
Older than undergraduate 16
Romantic/sexual salience
Sex composition (person-target) High 195
Man–man interaction 15 Low 114
Man–woman interaction 96
Woman–woman interaction 36 Pre-existing familiarity
Woman–man interaction 132 None 305
Always same sex interaction 97 Friends 1
Always other sex interaction 9 Large group (e.g., in class) 3
Mixed 14
Delay between assessments
Attraction measure type Under one hour 298
Affective attraction 65 Same day 4
Behavioral attraction 69 Longer than one day 7
Mix of affective and behavioral items 54 Assessment order
Attraction first 55
Evaluative threat salient Behavior first 263
Yes, implied or explicit 218 Both before and after 1
No 91
Reliability of attraction measure Cognitive appraisal salience
Single item 54 Yes, present 59
Unacceptable/low 0 No 250
Moderate 25
Strong 136 Reliability of behavior index
Almost perfect 21 Single item 51
Did not report 73 Unacceptable/low 14
Moderate 48
Behavior type Strong 73
Direct behavior 59 Almost perfect 80
Indirect behavior 227 Did not report 42
Speed dating 23
Note. Values may not sum to 309 due to missing values. Interobserver/interrater reliability and internal
consistency were assessed using a number of metrics, and summarized thusly: moderate (for Cohen’s Kappa,
.60 –.79; McHugh, 2012; for correlations, .70 –.79, LeBreton, Burgess, Kaiser, Atchley, & James, 2003; for
Cronbach’s alpha, .70 –.79, Streiner, 2003; for Krippendorff’s alpha, .66 –.80, Krippendorff, 2004; for Kendall’s
W, .40 –.60, Cain et al., 2005), strong (for Cohen’s Kappa, .80 –.90; for correlations, .80 –.89; for Cronbach’s
alpha, .80 –.89; for Krippendorff’s alpha, ⬎ .80; for Kendall’s W, .60 –.80), and almost perfect (for Cohen’s
Kappa, ⬎ .90; for correlations, ⬎ .90; for Cronbach’s alpha, ⬎ .90; for Kendall’s W, ⬎ .80).
 684 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER

Table 3
Mean Effect Sizes for Each Level of the Moderators

Behavior
Category type Model prediction k z SE Lower CI Upper CI z score

Empty model
Overall effect 309 .205 .026 .152 .257 7.65ⴱⴱⴱ
Overall, w/o excluded behaviors 267 .204 .026 .152 .256 7.69ⴱⴱⴱ
Behaviors
“Yessing” speed dating se ga d/r 16 .494 .052 .393 .595 9.57ⴱⴱⴱ
Talk (word count) direct ga d/r 9 .298 .061 .178 .418 4.87ⴱⴱⴱ
Mimicry indirect d/r 11 .253 .075 .106 .400 3.37ⴱⴱⴱ
Future contact speed dating se ga d/r 13 .216 .071 .077 .355 3.03ⴱⴱ
Sit/stand distance direct ga d/r 30 .207 .036 .136 .278 5.70ⴱⴱⴱ
Talk (duration) direct ga d/r 18 .191 .045 .102 .279 4.20ⴱⴱⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Eye gaze (frequency) indirect se d/r 20 .189 .047 .097 .281 4.01ⴱⴱⴱ
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Head nod indirect 8 .162 .069 .027 .298 2.34ⴱ

Eye gaze (duration) indirect se d/r 38 .145 .035 .077 .214 4.13ⴱⴱⴱ
Smile (frequency) indirect se d/r 21 .131 .051 .032 .230 2.58ⴱⴱ
Laughter indirect se d/r 18 .130 .046 .039 .221 2.79ⴱⴱ
Gesticulation indirect 5 .108 .064 ⫺.017 .233 1.68
Primp indirect 5 .103 .082 ⫺.057 .263 1.26
Head cant indirect 7 .066 .060 ⫺.053 .184 1.08
Smile (duration) indirect se d/r 10 .063 .054 ⫺.042 .169 1.17
Forward lean indirect se 10 .006 .057 ⫺.105 .116 .10
Body orientation indirect se 10 .005 .060 ⫺.113 .124 .08
Open posture indirect se 14 .004 .048 ⫺.090 .098 .07
Head akimbo indirect 5 ⫺.051 .082 ⫺.211 .109 ⫺.62
Hair flip indirect 5 ⫺.120 .082 ⫺.280 .040 ⫺1.47
Behavior type
Indirect 187 .110 .023 .064 .156 4.72ⴱⴱⴱ
Direct 59 .225 .028 .170 .280 8.04ⴱⴱⴱ
Speed dating 23 .436 .047 .343 .530 9.13ⴱⴱⴱ
Evaluative threat
High 160 .130 .034 .061 .198 3.72ⴱⴱⴱ
Low 84 .183 .034 .116 .251 5.31ⴱⴱⴱ
Self-reported attraction type
Affective attraction 57 .162 .039 .084 .240 4.06ⴱⴱⴱ
Behavioral attraction 140 .154 .044 .067 .240 3.50ⴱⴱⴱ
Mix of affective and behavioral 47 .187 .046 .095 .279 4.00ⴱⴱⴱ
Cognitive appraisal
Present 54 .225 .047 .132 .319 4.72ⴱⴱⴱ
Absent 190 .133 .028 .077 .188 4.73ⴱⴱⴱ
Sex composition (participant–target)
Man–man interaction 12 .164 .061 .044 .284 2.68ⴱⴱ
Man–woman interaction 73 .130 .032 .066 .195 3.98ⴱⴱⴱ
Woman–man interaction 106 .122 .031 .060 .185 3.85ⴱⴱⴱ
Woman–woman interaction 32 .099 .052 ⫺.003 .203 1.89
Always same sex interaction 7 .196 .084 .030 .362 2.32ⴱ
Mixed 14 .297 .055 .165 .383 4.93ⴱⴱⴱ
Target person behavior
Naïve participant 126 .152 .043 .067 .237 3.50ⴱⴱⴱ
Neutral-acting confederate 79 .133 .040 .054 .213 3.29ⴱⴱⴱ
Positive-acting confederate 17 .175 .085 .008 .342 2.06ⴱ
Negative-acting confederate 11 .138 .097 ⫺.053 .329 1.41
Assessment order
Behavior assessed first 218 .145 .025 .094 .195 5.63ⴱⴱⴱ
Attraction assessed first 21 .228 .050 .129 .328 4.49ⴱⴱⴱ
Romantic/sexual salience
High 138 .133 .039 .055 .210 3.37ⴱⴱⴱ
Low 106 .173 .032 .110 .236 5.41ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. CI ⫽ confidence interval. Positive values indicate stronger relation between behavior and attraction. k’s for the various moderator analyses may
not total to 244 due to missing values. The Model Prediction column indicates the behaviors predicted to be related to attraction by the various theoretical
approaches (se ⫽ subjective experience; ga ⫽ generate approach; d/r ⫽ develop/restore interdependence).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR
not affect the effect for indirect behavior, t ⫽ 0.46, p ⫽ .63. For
behavioral attraction, the Evaluative Threat ⫻ Behavior Type
interaction was not significant, ␹2(1) ⫽ 1.84, p ⫽ .17. A test of the
simple effects revealed that the relation between behavioral attrac-
tion and direct behavior under evaluative threat (z ⫽ .21, SE ⫽ 04)
was not significantly lower than when threat was not salient (z ⫽
.18, SE ⫽ 09), t ⫽ 0.33, p ⫽ .74.
The relation of behavioral attraction and enacted behavior was
also investigated by dividing behavioral attraction by those assess-
ments that referred specifically to dating-related questions (behav-
ioral attraction-dating) from those that did not. This subset of
behavioral attraction questions (k ⫽ 78) was not different than
zero, z ⫽ .09 (SE ⫽ .06), t-value ⫽ 1.48, p ⫽ .13. The behavioral
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
attraction questions not specific to dating (k ⫽ 62) continued to be
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
significantly different than zero, z ⫽ .15 (SE ⫽ .04), t ⫽ 3.58, p ⬍
.001.
Cognitive Appraisal Salience
The means for cognitive appraisal are presented in Table 3. The
main effect for cognitive appraisal salience was marginal, ␹2(1) ⫽
3.44, p ⫽ .07, with the relation between attraction and enacted
behavior descriptively greater when preceded by a cognitive ap-
praisal. We investigated whether cognitive appraisal salience mod-
erated the influence of another moderator. Neither the Cognitive
Appraisal ⫻ Behavior Type, ␹2(1) ⫽ 0.01, p ⫽ .93, nor the
Cognitive Appraisal ⫻ Evaluative Threat ⫻ Behavior Type inter-
action was significant, ␹2(1) ⫽ 0.85, p ⫽ .35.
Romantic/Sexual Context Salience
The main effect for romantic/sexual salience was not significant,
␹2(1) ⫽ 0.63, p ⫽ .42. Moreover, neither the Romantic/Sexual
Salience ⫻ Behavior Type interaction, ␹2(1) ⫽ 0.02, p ⫽ .89, nor
the Romantic/Sexual Salience ⫻ Attraction Type interactions,
␹2(2) ⫽ 1.34, p ⫽ .51, was significant.
Sex Composition Analyses
We conducted analyses to evaluate the impact of the sex of the
participant and target person on the magnitude of the relation
between attraction and behavior. The means are presented in Table
3. First, we tested the six-level factor that accounted for the sex of
the participant and the sex of the target person. The main effect for
sex composition was not significant, ␹2(5) ⫽ 6.55, p ⫽ .26.
Second, we investigated the impact of dyad composition by in-
specting same- versus other-sex dyads. The magnitude of the
difference between self-reported attraction and enacted behavior
for same (z ⫽ .14, SE ⫽ .04) versus other-sex (z ⫽ .12, SE ⫽ .03)
dyads was not significant, ␹2(1) ⫽ 0.11, p ⫽ .74.
Next, we investigated two specific predictions regarding sex
composition as it relates to behavior type. First, in women’s
interactions with men, direct behaviors better aligned with self-
reported attraction (z ⫽ .22, SE ⫽ .04) than did indirect behaviors
(z ⫽ .09, SE ⫽ .03), ␹2(1) ⫽ 6.72, p ⬍ .01. However, the same
difference was not evident in men’s interactions with women, in
which direct behaviors (z ⫽ .17, SE ⫽ .04) and indirect behaviors
(z ⫽ .11, SE ⫽ .03) did not differ, ␹2(1) ⫽ 1.82, p ⫽ .17.
Second, to test the prediction that men are more likely to “act on
their feelings directly” than women when the romantic/sexual
685
context is salient, we compared male-to-female interactions with
male-to-male interactions, and female-to-male with female-to-
female interactions. For men, romantic/sexual salience did not
affect the relation between attraction and behavior for either indi-
rect, ␹2(1) ⫽ 0.09, p ⫽ .76; or direct, ␹2(1) ⫽ 0.004, p ⫽ .95,
behavior. The same held for women, such that dating salience did
not affect the relation between attraction and behavior for either
indirect, ␹2(1) ⫽ 0.04, p ⫽ .83; or direct, ␹2(1) ⫽ 0.40, p ⫽ .52,
behavior.
Speed Dating
The means for the two behaviors associated with speed dating
studies are reported in Table 3. Yessing was more strongly related
to self-reported attraction than was “actual contact”, ␹2(1) ⫽ 8.85,
p ⬍ .01. We tested whether these effects were moderated by the (a)
cognitive appraisal salience and (b) participant’s sex. With respect
to cognitive appraisals, when the cognitive appraisal was salient,
the relation between attraction and “yessing” was not stronger (z ⫽
.56, SE ⫽ .08) than when it was not salient (z ⫽ .47, SE ⫽ .03),
␹2(1) ⫽ 0.87, p ⫽ .36. With respect to participant sex, there were
no sex differences for the relation between attraction and “yessing”
(zmen ⫽ .46, zwomen ⫽ .42), t ⫽ 0.67, p ⫽ .52, or for the relation
between attraction and initiating contact (zmen ⫽ .44, zwomen ⫽
.28), t ⫽ 1.33, p ⫽ .22.
Sensitivity Analyses
We conducted additional analyses to determine if a poten-
tially important moderator was excluded from the analyses.
Specifically, our interests were to determine: (a) whether other
moderators of the relation between attraction and behavior
would emerge; and (b) whether these findings would produce a
significant interaction with another moderator (i.e., type of
attraction assessment).
Assessment order. We tested whether the relation between
attraction and behavior differed as a function of the order in which
attraction and behavior were assessed. The test of assessment order
indicates that the relation between attraction and behavior was not
significantly greater when attraction was assessed first, ␹2(1) ⫽
1.57, p ⫽ .21. We also tested whether the impact of assessment
order was moderated by attraction type and behavior type. The
Assessment Order ⫻ Attraction Type interaction was not signifi-
cant, ␹2(2) ⫽ 1.60, p ⫽ .45. However, the Assessment Order ⫻
Behavior Type interaction was significant, ␹2(1) ⫽ 5.15, p ⬍ .05.
Attraction was a better predictor of direct behavior when attraction
was assessed before behavior (z ⫽ .32, SE ⫽ .05) than when
behavior was assessed before attraction (z ⫽ .19, SE ⫽ .03),
␹2(1) ⫽ 4.79, p ⬍ .05. In addition, a post hoc, but theoretically
important analysis revealed that when attraction was assessed
before behavior, attraction was a better predictor of direct behavior
than indirect behavior (z ⫽ .05, SE ⫽ .07), ␹2(1) ⫽ 12.18, p ⬍
.001.
Target person behavior. We investigated the impact of the
other person’s behavior during the interaction. The main effect for
target person’s behavior was not significant, ␹2(3) ⫽ 0.72, p ⫽ .86.
Moreover, the potentially informative Target Person Behavior ⫻
Assessment Order interaction (which investigated whether inter-
acting with a “rude”/“nice” person would affect the subsequently
 686 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
assessed attitude-behavior consistency) was not significant,
␹2(1) ⫽ 0.28, p ⫽ .59.
Assessing the Impact of Imputed Zeroes
These analyses included 57 effect sizes (18% of the total sam-
ple) that were “imputed zeroes” because the original article simply
reported the finding as “not significant” and did not provide
sufficient information to estimate an exact effect size. Estimating
and including effect sizes based off sample means or regression
estimates was not an option because such data were not MCAR/
MAR (i.e., only nonsignificant small effects were “missing”). On
the one hand, estimating an effect as zero is a conservative esti-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
mate for a value that could be any positive or negative nonsignif-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
icant value. On the other hand, the inclusion of zero may have an
adverse consequence of affecting the amount of between-study
variance because the variance of all of the imputed effects is the
same (Little & Rubin, 1986; Pigott, 2012).
Consistent with the recommendations of Pigott (2012), we con-
ducted a sensitivity analysis to examine whether the (potentially)
under/overestimated variance component affected the findings. We
first estimated the variance component from the random-effects
model without the imputed zeroes. We then generated effect size
estimates for the imputed zeroes by creating a normal distribution
of values with a mean of zero and a standard deviation equal to that
of the random-effects model.
As expected, this technique did not affect the overall mean of
the sample, z ⫽ .206 (SE ⫽ .025), z-score ⫽ 8.15, p ⬍ .001.
However, including a normal distribution in place of the zeroes
reduced the standard error for the random-effects model by 5%
(from .0265 to .0253).
An inspection of the partitioning of variance across levels as a
function of the two samples revealed that including a normal
distribution of effects produced lower standard errors because it
reduced the variance at Level 3 (from 51% to 34%) and increased
the variance at Level 2 (from 12% to 26%).
We reconducted several main effects to determine whether the
different standard error affected the findings. The change in the
variance did not change the interpretation or significance of any
effects (e.g., cognitive appraisal, ␹2(1) ⫽ 2.70, p ⫽ .11; evaluation
threat, ␹2(1) ⫽ 1.18, p ⫽ .28; attraction measure type, ␹2(2) ⫽
0.64, p ⫽ .72).
Excluding Nonsignificant Behaviors
An aim of this article was to identify the specific behaviors
associated with attraction. From a data-driven perspective, the
analyses revealed that only those 11 behaviors reported in Table 3
are those behaviors associated with attraction. If so, all of the
nonsignificant behaviors in the preceding analyses produced
“noise” that potentially reduced the ability to detect the impact of
the various moderators. To address this concern, we replicated all
analyses with only the significant behaviors included.
A summary of those analyses is included in Table 4. A com-
parison of the analyses with and without the nonsignificant behav-
iors revealed two key differences. First, when only the significant
behaviors were included in the analyses, the main effect for cog-
nitive appraisal was significant, ␹2(1) ⫽ 3.96, p ⬍ .05, indicating
that the relation between attraction and behavior was stronger
Table 4
Estimates for Moderators of the Relation Between Attraction
and Behavior, Only Significant Behaviors
Moderator ␹2 df p
Attraction measure type 1.70 2 .43
Behavior type 2.04 1 .15
Cognitive appraisal salience 3.96 1 ⬍.05
Evaluative threat 1.40 1 .24
Assessment order 1.37 1 .24
Sex composition 5.05 5 .40
Romantic/sexual context 1.23 1 .26
Target person behavior 1.44 3 .69
when the person first considered the qualities of the target person
before completing their assessment of attraction. Second, the dif-
ference between direct and indirect behavior was no longer sig-
nificant when nonsignificant behaviors were excluded from the
analyses, ␹2(1) ⫽ 1.70, p ⫽ .19.
Selection Bias
Four methods were used to assess selection bias: funnel plot,
Egger’s regression, Kendall’s tau, and the Vevea and Woods’s
(2005) weight-function method (Coburn & Vevea, 2015). Selec-
tion bias was assessed on (a) the full sample of 309 effect sizes, (b)
the subsample of 267 effect sizes included in the main analyses,
and (c) the samples of direct and indirect behaviors.
We first visually examined a funnel plot of all analyzed effect
sizes to investigate the symmetry of the distribution plot of the
relation between effect size and a measure of precision (Light &
Pillemer, 1984). Figure 1 illustrates the magnitude of the effect
size on the x-axis by the standard error on the y-axis for the full
sample. Inspection of the plot indicates slight asymmetry as a
result of the relative absence of small negative effect sizes with
small sample sizes, suggesting a systematic tendency for effects
from studies with larger standard errors to be positive rather than
negative (a pattern consistent with the “small sample bias”; Sterne,
Egger, & Smith, 2001). This possibility was supported by a sig-
nificant test of funnel asymmetry using Egger’s test (Egger, Davey
Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997) and Kendall’s tau.
Next, we examined the Vevea and Woods’s (2005) weight-
function model that estimates the likelihood of observing effect
sizes using a predefined set of p value intervals. The model
produces (a) means and variances adjusted for selection bias and
(b) weights that reflect the likelihood of observing an effect in a
given p value interval.
In the full sample, 239 of the 309 effect sizes (77%) did not
reach traditional levels of significance, and as presented in Table
5, the estimated weights revealed that nonsignificant p values were
more likely to be included than significant p values, with p values
greater than .50 being 3.36 times more likely to be included than
significant effects.
Inspection of the subsamples produced similar patterns for
asymmetric distributions and weights, with the weights for non-
significant effects routinely exceeding 1. The distribution of ef-
fects suggest that the asymmetry was not an indicator of selection
bias in the sample.
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR 687

iors in their account of courtship and marriage. We utilized the

eHRAF (electronic Human Relations Files; Ember, 1997), which
provides detailed descriptions of 306 distinct cultures from around
the world and is considered the “gold standard” for cross-cultural
comparative research (van Holt, Johnson, Carley, Brinkley, &
Diesner, 2013; Young & Benyshek, 2010). Although 306 cultures
are described in the eHRAF, not all of the ethnographies included
a description, or anything more than a trivial mention, of courtship
and marriage behaviors, which resulted in a smaller sample from
which data may be extracted. Eighty-three cultural descriptions
included at least one behavior associated with liking. As is detailed
below, this search provided sufficient data to inform the analyses.
Table 6 presents the cultures for which ethnographers—with
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

their Western biases regarding what constitutes flirtatious and

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

amorous behavior—mentioned a specific behavior. Twenty-two

Figure 1. Plot of effect size (in z) by standard error.
Ethnographic Analyses
Our sample was drawn nearly exclusively from Western cul-
tures (see Table 2). However, the subjective experience and de-
velop/restore interdependence approaches indicate that there
should be cross-cultural consistency in the subset of behaviors
related to emotional expression, such that the behaviors associated
with an emotional expression in one culture should align with
behaviors in other cultures (e.g., Ekman & Friesen, 1971). Meta-
analyses provide the opportunity to investigate whether the behav-
iors associated with attraction in Western cultures are similar to
those behaviors related to attraction in other cultures.
However, given the dearth of data from around the world, we
used a descriptive method to investigate qualitatively whether the
behaviors identified here (e.g., smiling, proximity, eye contact, but
not body lean or head tilt) were also those behaviors used to
communicate liking in non-Western cultures. To investigate this,
we evaluated cross-cultural consistency by assessing whether eth-
nographic descriptions of various cultures mentioned these behav-
cultural descriptions mentioned “smile” as an indicator of liking.
For the Western Apache of Arizona, for instance, girls were
described as smiling at passing boys to gain their attention (Good-
win & Goodwin, 1942). Parents of daughters of the Lur of south-
western Iran warn them to not “ever smile or laugh” at a boy to
reduce the likelihood of a sexual assault, as such acts are inter-
preted as signs of interest (Friedl, 1997, p. 269; also Joffe, 1963,
who found similar parental warnings regarding smiling among the
Fox Indians of Iowa). Eye contact was specifically mentioned in
54 cultural descriptions. The Igbo of southeastern Nigeria, for
example, do not have a word for “courtship” or “love,” but the
closest approximation is “ifu nanya,” which means to “’look in the
eye’ in a favorable manner” (Basden, 1966, p. 68), and Wagley’s
(1949) ethnographic description of the Mam Maya of Cuchuma-
tanes Highlands of Guatemala mentioned that parents explicitly
warned their daughters to walk through the streets without even
looking at men. Thirty-four cultural descriptions mentioned talking
as an indicator of liking. For the Havasupai of Cataract Canyon
Region in Arizona, if a boy and girl are seen merely talking to one
another, it was “assumed” that they were dating in secret (Smith-
son, 1959, p. 76). Alternatively, we found two or fewer ethno-
graphic descriptions that mentioned body lean, head tilt, or body
orientation as indicators of attraction; and no instance in which
parents explicitly warned their children to not engage in such an
act (e.g., “Young lady, do not tilt your head when talking to the
boy, lest he will know you like him”).

Table 5
Selection Bias Analyses

Selection analysis
Random-effect estimates Egger Kendall Weight-function model
Model k z SE t tau B0 SE W2 W3 W4 ␹2(3)

Full sample 309 .14 .013 ⫺2.41ⴱ .11ⴱ .24 .028 1.59 1.57 3.36 19.42ⴱⴱ
Without excluded 267 .17 .013 ⫺2.16ⴱ .13ⴱ .27 .030 1.86 1.71 3.74 18.46ⴱⴱ
Type of behavior
Indirect 209 .14 .013 1.64 .18ⴱ .20 .032 1.52 1.23 2.38 9.21
Direct 58 .23 .028 ⫺.20 .13 .24 .059 1.32 .49 1.18 3.24
Note. k ⫽ number of effect sizes. Values estimated using these selection bias techniques (which do not consider multilevel modeling) produce estimates
that differ from those reported in the main analyses. Intervals for the weight-function model were: p ⬍ .05 (weight 1, which is set to 1), .05 ⬍ p ⬍ .20
(weight 2), .20 ⬍ p ⬍ .50 (weight 3), .50 ⬍ p ⬍ 1.00 (weight 4), all two-tailed.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
 688 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER

Table 6
Cultures in Which Various Behaviors Were Mentioned as Cues to Liking/Attraction

Smiling Eye contact Physical proximity Head tilt Body lean Talking Body/head orientation Laughing

Aymara (SF05) Abkhazians (RI03) Abkhazians (RI03) Aranda (OI18) Hopi (NT09) Abkhazians (RI03) Lur (MA12) Burmans (AP04)
Blackfoot (NF06) Aranda (OI18) Aranda (OI18) Samoans (OU08) Libyan Bedouin Aranda (OI18) Copper Inuit
(negative, (ND08)
MT09)
Copper Inuit Assiniboine (NF04) Azande (FO07) Bahia Brazilians Dogon (FA16)
(ND08) (SO11)
Fox (NP05) Azande (FO07) Bahia Brazilians Belau (OR15) Fox (NP05)
(SO11)
Garo (AR05) Bahia Brazilians Balinese (OF07) Dogon (FA16) Garo (AR05)
(SO11)
Hawaiians (OV05) Blackfoot (NF06) Belau (OR15) Eastern Apache Gusii (FL08)
(NT08)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Javanese (OE05) Bosnian Muslims Cajuns (NO12) Fox (NP05) Lau Fijians
(EF09) (OQ06)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Lur (MA12) Burmans (AP04) Central Thai (AO07) Havasupai (NT14) Lur (MA12)
Mundurucu Copper Inuit Dogon (FA16) Hopi (NT09) Mi’kmaq (NJ05)
(SQ13) (ND08)
Nahua (NU46) Dogon (FA16) Fox (NP05) Innu (NH06) Mundurucu
(SQ13)
Navajo (NT13) Fox (NP05) Ganda (FK07) Italian Americans Ona (SH04)
(NO10)
Ojibwa (NG06) Garo (AR05) Garo (AR05) Kapauku (OJ29) Otavalo Quichua
(SD16)
Otavalo Quichua Hawaiians (OV05) Gusii (FL08) Kwoma (OJ13) Saraguro Quichua
(SD16) (SD17)
Palestinians Highland Scots Highland Scots Lau Fijians (OQ06) Turks (MB01)
(MO13) (ES10) (ES10)
Puerto Ricans Hopi (NT09) Hopi (NT09) Mam Maya (NW08) Zulu (FX20)
(SU01)
Saraguro Quichua Igbo (FF26) Italian Americans Mapuche (SG04)
(SD17) (NO10)
Sea Islanders Imperial Romans Kapauku (OJ29) Marquesas (OX06)
(NN23) (EI09)
Semai (AN06) Iran (MA01) Khasi (AR07) Marshallese (OR11)
Tlingit (NA12) Italian Americans Kurds (MA11) Northeastern Massim
(NO10) (OL07)
Turks (MB01) Javanese (OE05) Lau Fijians (OQ06) Ojibwa (NG06)
Warao (SS18) Jivaro (SD09) Libyan Bedouin Okinawans (AC07)
(MT09)
Western Apache Kapauku (OJ29) Marquesas (OX06) Omaha (NQ21)
(NT21)
Kurds (MA11) Northeastern Massim Otavalo Quichua
(OL07) (SD16)
Kwoma (OJ13) Okinawans (AC07) Palestinians (M013)
Lur (MA12) Omaha (NQ21) Puerto Ricans
(SU01)
Mam Maya Ona (SH04) Rwala Bedouin
(NW08) (MD04)
Maori (OZ04) Otavalo Quichua Saami (EP04)
(SD16)
Marquesas (OX06) Palestinians (MO13) Samoans (OU08)
Mataco (SI07) Puerto Ricans San (FX10)
(SU01)
Mi’kmaq (NJ05) Saami (EP04) Semai (AN06)
Miskito (SA15) Samoans (OU08) Tikopia (OT11)
Mundurucu (SQ13) Santal (AW42) Warao (SS18)
Nahua (NU46) Serbs (EF06) Western Apache
(NT21)
Omaha (NF04) Taiwan Hokkien Zulu (FX20)
(AD05)
Ona (SH04) Tamil (AW16)
Otavalo Quichua Tapirapé (SP22)
(SD16)
Puerto Ricans Tikopia (OT11)
(SU01)
Samoans (OU08) Tinputz (ON26)
Santal (AW42) Tongans (OU09)
Sea Islanders Trobriands (OL06)
(NN23)
Semai (AN06) Turks (MB01)
Serbs (EF06) Warao (SS18)
Tamil (AW16) Western Apache
(NT21)
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR
Table 6 (continued)
Smiling Eye contact Physical proximity Head tilt
Tarahumara Yahgan (SH06)
(NU33)
Tikopia (OT11) Zapotec (NU44)
Tongans (OU09) Zulu (FX20)
Trobriands (OL06)
Turks (MB01)
Vietnamese
(AM11)
Warao (SS18)
Western Apache
(NT21)
Yahgan (SH06)
Zulu (negative,
FX20)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Note. The alphanumeric value in parentheses represents the culture codes in the eHRAF database. “Negative” indicates that the opposite behavior was
associated with liking (e.g., “leaning back,” rather than a forward lean, was indicative of liking). The database was searched using the following
keywords/stems: smile (smilⴱ, grinⴱ), eye gaze (e.g., eye gazⴱ, glancⴱ, lookⴱ, gazⴱ), proximity (get close, nearⴱ, run away together, huddle, approachⴱ),
body/head orientation (facing, faceⴱ, directⴱ), head tilt (bentⴱ, tiltⴱ, cantⴱ), body lean (lean, anglⴱ), and laughing (e.g., laughⴱ, gigglⴱ, snickerⴱ).
Moreover, several ethnographic descriptions mentioned the ex-
pression of “lewd” versions of the behavior. Specifically, there
were incidents of “indecent” expressions of smiling (e.g., via a
“lascivious” or “creepy” smile), eye contact (e.g., gawk, leer), and
body lean (e.g., leaning back to explicitly expose one’s genitalia).
However, no ethnography described a “lewd” head tilt or an
“inappropriate” body orientation. Except for body lean, there was
consistency in the behaviors identified by the meta-analysis as
associated with attraction and the behaviors that could be ex-
pressed and interpreted as “lewd” or “indecent.”
Discussion
We investigated the relation between self-reported attraction
and enacted behavior. The meta-analysis revealed several key
findings. First, there was a significant relation between self-
reported attraction and enacted behavior (z ⫽ .20). Eleven of the
20 behaviors investigated in our main analyses were associated
with self-reported attraction, including eye gaze (frequency and
duration), sitting/standing distance, smiling (frequency, but not
duration), mimicry, laughing, and talking (word count and dura-
tion). Second, we identified the predicted Evaluative Threat ⫻
Behavior Type interaction for affective attraction, such that affec-
tive attraction was less strongly related to direct behavior when
evaluative threat was salient. Third, the relation between self-
reported attraction and enacted behavior was significant regardless
of romantic/sexual salience, supporting the contention that attrac-
tion operates to regulate more than romantic relationships. Finally,
the results of the ethnographic analysis were in agreement with the
meta-analytic findings, providing evidence for the cross-cultural
consistency in the behavioral expressions of attraction.
Models of the Relation Between
Attraction and Behavior
We investigated three explanations for the relation between
self-reported attraction and enacted behavior, specifically: (a) be-
havior results from emotional/cognitive processes that covary with
the positive subjective state (subjective experience); (b) the posi-
tive affective state facilitates direct approach behaviors (generate
689
Body lean Talking Body/head orientation Laughing
approach); and (c) behavior is expressed as part of the emotional
experience of attraction (develop/restore interdependence). As is
discussed below, based on the subset of behaviors associated with
attraction and the moderators that affected the magnitude of the
relation, we identified little support for the subjective experience
approach, but support for the generate and develop/restore inter-
dependence approaches, with develop/restore interdependence ex-
plaining the data more completely than generate approach.
Subjective experience. From this perspective, enacted behav-
ior does not result from attraction per se, but from phenomena that
covary with the positive subjective state. The three most likely
candidates are interest, happiness/enjoyment, and sexual desire.
Interest. Work that categorizes interest as an emotion indi-
cates that its function is to facilitate learning and exploration
(Silvia, 2005, 2008; Tomkins, 1995). Nonverbal behaviors asso-
ciated with interest in a nonsocial context (e.g., watching a film or
solving a puzzle) include eye contact frequency and duration, head
stillness, directed head orientation, lips apart, and eyes open wide
(Reeve, 1993; Reeve & Nix, 1997; although Mortillaro, Mehu, &
Scherer, 2011 found that interest covaried with eye closure). Other
research in which participants were asked to generate expressions
consistent with interest identified a similar set of behaviors, in-
cluding a forward body lean and a tilted and forwarded head
orientation (Campos, Shiota, Keltner, Gonzaga, & Goetz, 2013;
Dael et al., 2012; de Meijer, 1989), arms stretched out to the front,
illustrative arm movements (Wallbott, 1998), among other behav-
iors (e.g., knee movements, etc.). Importantly, smiling is not
theoretically associated with interest (Silvia, 2008), and research
has found that when interested, the mouth is either open (Mortil-
laro et al., 2011) or closed with lips pressed together (Campos et
al., 2013).
Support for the proposition that interest can account for the
pattern of results is low, as the meta-analyses revealed descrip-
tively low and statistically nonsignificant relations between self-
reported attraction and the nonverbal cues associated with interest
(e.g., forward lean, head tilt). Moreover, we identified a significant
relation for smiles (frequency), an effect specifically mentioned as
unrelated to interest.
 690 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
Happiness/enjoyment. Following from Darwin (1872/1965)
and Ekman (1999), happiness/enjoyment functions as a positive
emotion that communicates that the interaction should continue
and that the current situation is safe (see also Buss, 2000; Grinde,
2002). Other researchers have gone farther to propose that happi-
ness/enjoyment is the emotion fundamental to the development of
affiliations and alliances (e.g., Beall & Tracy, 2017; van Kleef, De
Dreu, & Manstead, 2004). Happiness/enjoyment has been linked
with various facial responses, including smiling (Ekman, 1992;
Ekman et al., 1990), head bounce, and head tilt (e.g., Campos et
al., 2013; Scherer & Ellgring, 2007). Research into the bodily
movements associated with happiness/enjoyment is less prevalent,
but the research does identify several behaviors, including in-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
creased stride length, swinging one’s arms, taking lighter steps
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(Montepare, Goldstein, & Clausen, 1987), fast upward movements
with arms raised (de Meijer, 1989), and standing with an upright
body posture (Feng & O’Halloran, 2012). A comparison of these
behaviors with those identified in this meta-analysis indicates little
overlap, however, it is clear that many of these happiness/enjoy-
ment behaviors have not been assessed with respect to self-
reported attraction, so definitive statements regarding whether
happiness/enjoyment was assessed in our sample is not known.
Sexual desire. Some research has labeled the behaviors iden-
tified by this meta-analysis (e.g., smiling, eye contact) as indica-
tors of sexual desire (e.g., Hazan & Zeifman, 1999). From this
perspective, the observed effects resulted from the drive to engage
in sexual activities rather than nonsexual attraction. However,
several findings do not support sexual desire as responsible for the
meta-analytic findings.
First, neither the effects for participant sex, composition of the
interaction by sex, nor salience of romantic/sexual context was
significant, indicating that the effects did not change as a function
of the presence or absence of a presumed sexual motivation. With
respect to participant sex, although men, compared with women,
are more affected by and have less restricted sociosexual orienta-
tion (Simpson & Gangestad, 1992; Simpson, Gangestad, Chris-
tensen, & Leck, 1999), the relation between the various nonverbal
behaviors and attraction was not larger for men. The absence of an
effect for sex composition further fails to support sexual desire as
the active process, such that interactions with other-sexed persons
were not associated with higher correlations than interactions with
same-sexed persons. And most important, the strength of the
association between self-reported attraction and behavior was
comparable between those situations with a presumed sexual mo-
tivation (e.g., during a study on “dating compatibility”) and those
without (e.g., same-sex interaction in the classroom).
Second, a large percent of the meta-analytic data was collected
from studies that involved initial encounters, in which social norms
largely prohibit the behavioral expression of sexual desire (Simon
& Gagnon, 1986). This prohibition would reduce the likelihood
that the observed findings reflect the expression of sexual desire.
In addition, research into the nonverbal behaviors associated with
sexual desire have identified several behaviors, including lip bite,
lip licking, lip touching, and tongue protrusions (Gonzaga et al.,
2006). However, the behaviors in our sample that aligned most
closely with such behaviors and with stereotypical expressions of
sexual desire (e.g., hair flip, breast presentation) were not corre-
lated with attraction (see Appendix B).
Conclusion. Our findings do not provide clear support for the
subjective experience explanation. A strong test of this explanation
necessitates the assessment of these various emotional states, at-
traction, and a set of nonverbal behavior. Although the absence of
available data does not allow us to include happiness/enjoyment,
sexual desire, or interest in the analyses, the pattern of findings
does not provide clear or strong support for this perspective.
Generate approach. This perspective posits that a positive
affective state motivates approach-oriented behavior. In support of
this approach, there were significant effect sizes for the behaviors
consistent with reducing the interpersonal space. Specifically, seat-
ing/standing distance and talking were both associated with self-
reported attraction. From this perspective, people approach not
necessarily to communicate their motives or emotional state, but to
realize expected rewards. Alternatively, this perspective provides a
less clear explanation for the significant effects for the various
affiliative behaviors. For example, mimetic behavior (e.g., of pen
twirling, face rubbing) is defined as a “tactic” to generate rapport
(e.g., Ashton-James et al., 2007; Guéguen, 2009) and laughter is
considered a method for producing and strengthening interpersonal
connectedness (e.g., Owren & Bachorowski, 2003) rather than as
“approach” behaviors, per se.
One theoretical approach submits that such behaviors are con-
sistent with “approach.” Mehrabian (1970, 1971) proposed that the
positive affective state may not manifest itself in overt approach
behaviors, but may manifest itself in “abbreviated forms,” includ-
ing eye contact, forward body lean, and directed body orientation.
As noted by Mehrabian (1971) and Mehrabian and Ksionzky
(1970), if a person expects positive reinforcement from a target
person (e.g., via anticipated acceptance or similarity of attitudes),
the person will reciprocate those nonverbal behaviors that they
“expect” from admirers. What is expected from admirers is de-
pendent on culture-specific norms regarding how liking is ex-
pressed.
Develop/restore degree of interdependence. Consistent with
predictions of functional (e.g., Ekman, 1992) and behavioral ecol-
ogy (Fridlund, 1994) approaches to emotion, the engagement in
affiliative behavior is a component of the emotion of attraction. Of
the three approaches, the meta-analytic results were most consis-
tent with this perspective. Three findings provide the foundation
for this conclusion.
First, the meta-analysis revealed that the behaviors assumed to
be associated with communicating trust were related to self-
reported attraction, including smiling (frequency), eye contact,
sitting/standing distance, and mimicry. From this perspective,
when one is attracted to another person, one will smile frequently,
make repeated eye contact, and mimic to generate trust from the
other person. Second, the link between self-reported attraction and
affiliative behavior was evident across various types of relation-
ships, such that a significant relation between attraction and be-
havior was evident in both high and low evaluative threat condi-
tions, romantic/sexual contexts, and sex compositions, which
indicates that attraction—and the role it plays to regulate interde-
pendent interactions—is consistent across different types of rela-
tionships and contexts. Third, the alignment between the behaviors
identified by the meta-analysis and those behaviors identified by
ethnographers is consistent with the develop/restore approach, in
which the behavioral expression of attraction would be predicted
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR
to be consistent across cultures (Mesquita & Frijda, 1992; Tracy &
Matsumoto, 2008).
How the develop/restore degree of interdependence process
works. People’s social lives include interactions that vary in
intensity from the trivial (the local bank teller, toll bridge opera-
tor), to the casual (acquaintances), to the intense and deep (roman-
tic partners, family members, longtime friends). From a function-
alistic approach to emotions, even the behavior in the most trivial
interpersonal interactions—a smile before approaching the waiting
bank teller, the establishment of eye contact across a crowded
discotheque, or an instructor’s smile to students on entering the
classroom— can be considered critical to the interaction. In this
context, the expression of affiliative behavior signals one’s inten-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tion to conditionally cooperate and to uphold one’s side during an
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
exchange (Boone & Buck, 2003; Montoya & Horton, 2014). A
smile with eye contact is expressed instrumentally to communicate
one’s willingness to satisfy one’s side of the social contract. In the
crowded bar, a smile with eye contact communicates one’s will-
ingness to deepen the (at the time nonexistent) exchange to in-
clude, say, a conversation while consuming a drink. Similarly, the
professor’s eye contact and smile at a student who knocks on his
or her door during office hours communicates willingness to
interact during the office visit. Although emotions are commonly
conceived as one’s “immediate” response to a stimulus (between 1
s and 4 s in duration, Ekman, 1984), people’s description of their
own emotional experiences indicates that emotions commonly last
for minutes, hours, or days (Frijda, Mesquita, Sonnemans, & van
Goozen, 1991; Scherer, Wallbott, & Summerfield, 1986; Wallbott
& Scherer, 1986), suggesting that attraction could facilitate the
sustained expression of affiliative behavior.
Emotions not only affect the person’s own behavioral response,
but they operate to convey information to the target person about
the person’s intentions, which then elicits change in the target
person’s behavior (e.g., Ames & Johar, 2009; Fischer et al., 2003;
Frijda, 1986; Hareli & Parkinson, 2008; Knutson, 1996; Owren &
Bachorowski, 2003; van Kleef et al., 2004). In the case of attrac-
tion, affiliative behavior operates proximally to augment the target
person’s trust, and ultimately to produce a behavioral response in
the target person. In initial interactions, the behavioral response
commonly takes the form of compliance, cooperation, or recipro-
cated behavior. Indeed, compliance requests paired with behav-
ioral cues to liking are more successful (Burger, Soroka, Gonzago,
Murphy, & Somervell, 2001; Cialdini, 2001; Daniels & Berkowitz,
1963; Goei, Lindsey, Boster, Skalski, & Bowman, 2003; Mehra-
bian & Ksionzky, 1970), and the presence of affiliation cues
produces more intergroup cooperation among male participants
(Kurzban, 2001) and they increase the success rate of bank loan
requests (Wexley, Fugita, & Malone, 1975).
Does this process work in committed relationships? When
the level of interdependence is deep and trust has been established,
the relation between attraction and affiliative behavior should be
attenuated. In such cases, the presence of high levels of trust
between, say, marital partners or old friends, reduces the relation
between attraction and affiliative behavior because there is no
“need” to communicate trust.
Our search of the literature for the presented meta-analysis also
uncovered research that reported the relation between enacted
behavior and a measure of relationship satisfaction between per-
sons in a preexisting relationship (e.g., married couples, friends).
691
Effect sizes that employed an index of relationship satisfaction
were not included in the larger analyses because such effects
considered the participant’s satisfaction with their relationship, not
their affective/behavioral evaluation of their relationship part-
ner. However, such research may provide initial insight into the
operation of attraction-related processes when interdependence
and trust is assumed to be high. We identified 27 effect sizes for
the relation between relationship satisfaction and enacted be-
havior. The relation was not significantly different from zero,
z ⫽ .05, SE ⫽ 0.03, z-score ⫽ 1.68, p ⫽ .09. A more complete
description of this analysis can be found in the online supple-
ment. This nonsignificant effect may be interpreted as consis-
tent with the develop/restore interdependence approach, such
that when trust is (assumed to be) high, there is no “need” to
communicate trust.
However, the “restore” function of attraction indicates that the
relation between self-reported attraction and affiliative behavior
should be higher when there is a “need” to express it, such as when
there is a threat to the relationship. In other words, when trust has
been called into question (by a “fight,” a long time apart, or after
one person is suspected of cheating), affiliative behavior would be
expressed to help restore it. Unfortunately, meta-analytic data were
not available to test this prediction, however, laboratory evidence
is consistent with this prediction. For instance, after experiencing
rejection from a minimal group, participants engaged in more
mimicry with ingroup members (Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin,
2008). Relationship partners who have emotionally hurt their part-
ners increased eye contact and hugging to express their honest
interest in restoring the relationship (Waldron & Kelley, 2005). In
addition, models of mother–infant interactions submit that infants
employ positive affective displays (e.g., smiling, eye contact,
cooing) to “repair” an unresponsive (still-faced) or an affectively
“mismatched caregiver” (Brazelton, 1974; Campos, Barrett, Lamb,
Goldsmith, & Sternberg, 1983; Gianino & Tronick, 1988; Massie,
1982).
Conclusion. The findings are largely consistent with the de-
velop/restore interdependence perspective and it explains the data
more completely than the other two approaches. From this per-
spective, affiliative behaviors serve to develop and/or restore the
degree of interdependence via the expression of trust-producing
behavior. What sets apart the develop/maintain interdependence
perspective from the subjective experience perspective is the pre-
diction that people engage in affiliative behavior strategically to
increase the trust. For instance, infants instrumentally smile and
coo at their caregivers to elicit nurturing behavior from them
(Bowlby, 1980; Gewirtz & Boyd, 1976, 1977), and in the context
of a romantic relationship, people strategically say “I love you” or
initiate interpersonal touch to communicate their level of commit-
ment and to restore a high level of mutual trust (e.g., Boone &
Buck, 2003; Sabatelli & Rubin, 1986). Moreover, these results
emphasize that the definition of attraction should focus on “devel-
oping and/or restoring the degree of interdependence” rather than
focusing on approach to acquire benefits/rewards.
Why Was the Overall Correlation Not Higher?
We found a small-to-moderately sized relation between self-
reported attraction and the various enacted behaviors. Compared
with meta-analyses that investigate the relation between psycho-
 692 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
logical states and enacted behavior, the effect size uncovered here
may have been expected. On the one hand, our effect size was
approximately twice the small-to-trivial size of the relation be-
tween deception and nonverbal behaviors (e.g., eye contact, smil-
ing, head nodding, hand movements; DePaulo et al., 2003; Sporer
& Schwandt, 2007; Zuckerman, Driver, & Guadagno, 1985). On
the other hand, our effect size was approximately half the relation
between attitudes and behavior in the noninterpersonal context
(e.g., r ⫽ .52, Glasman & Albarracín, 2006; r ⫽ .38, Kraus, 1995).
But why was the relation not higher? We discuss three psycho-
logical considerations that fall from concerns inherent to interde-
pendent relationships.
First, from the develop/restore interdependence perspective, the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
correlation between self-reported attraction and behavior should
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
not be particularly strong in initial interactions. Specifically, the
nonverbal behaviors associated with attraction connote the per-
son’s conditional cooperativeness (Boone & Buck, 2003). How-
ever, natural selection works against people whose behaviors in a
social exchange reflect their internal motivations (Dawkins, 1976;
Kurzban & Leary, 2001; Trivers, 1971). In this way, expressing
one’s cooperative intentions is risky because it leaves one open to
exploitation (Frank, 1988). When exploitation is possible, the
expression of affiliative behavior should be ambiguous to (a)
optimize the terms of the exchange and (b) collect more informa-
tion about the other person’s motives (Grammer et al., 1999). In
the dating context, concerns regarding exploitation is most evident
when daters with a long-term mating orientation interact with
daters with a short-term mating orientation.
It then follows that when concerns regarding exploitation are
eliminated/negated, attraction may be expressed more freely. In
such instances (e.g., in interactions with infants, family pets,
and/or the elderly), exaggerated forms of affiliative behavior may
result (e.g., infantilization, baby talk with the elderly; Bombar &
Littig, 1996; Caporael, 1981).
Second, when another person is exploitable, affiliative behavior
is expressed strategically to maximize the terms of the exchange.
Jones (1964), in his noted book Ingratiation, observed that people
enact affiliative behavior with the intent of heightening the amount
of attraction the target person has for the ingratiator. Jones sub-
mitted that motivations for ingratiation attempts may vary, but that
each attempt was centered on maximizing the ingratiator’s out-
comes (see also Appelbaum & Hughes, 1998; Eastman, 1994;
Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977). From this perspective, the rela-
tion between self-reported attraction and affiliative behavior may
be low when one flatters one’s boss (to heighten the chances of
receiving a raise) or when one behaves favorably toward a highly
sought-after applicant (to help lure the person to one’s institution).
In such cases, people express affiliative behavior to achieve their
instrumental goals, not necessarily as a reflection of their under-
lying subjective state.
Third, when an evaluative threat is salient, the relation between
self-reported attraction and enacted behavior may be lower. We
identified an Evaluative Threat ⫻ Behavior Type interaction, such
that direct behaviors, but not indirect, were less strongly associated
with affective attraction when evaluative threats were salient.
From this perspective, direct behaviors are reduced in threatening
situations to help shield the person from the possibility of negative
social comparisons or outright rejection. Indirect behaviors are
then free to more closely align with attraction because such ex-
pressions are relatively vague and whose meaning can change as a
function of the positivity of their reception (e.g., after rejection,
previously expressed smiles can be relabeled as “friendly smiles”
rather than “flirty” smiles).
Moderators of the Relation Between
Attraction and Behavior
We identified a significant meta-analytic correlation and various
moderators despite methodological considerations that reduce the
relation between psychological evaluations and behavior. Ajzen
and Fishbein (2005), for example, noted that the relation between
them may be reduced by (a) a large delay between the measure-
ment of intentions and the execution of the studied behavior and
(b) the psychological assessment being too general or vague rel-
ative to the measured behavior. Such methodological issues may
have lowered the overall effect size, but it is unlikely that such
issues played a major role in our analysis of the various modera-
tors. For example, 85% of the studies assessed enacted behavior
and self-reported attraction within minutes of one another and a
dating-related assessment of behavioral attraction did not improve
the relation. Below, we discuss further the impact of moderators of
the strength of the relation between attraction and behavior.
Assessment order. The sensitivity analyses revealed that the
relation between self-reported attraction and direct behavior was
larger when behavior was observed after the assessment of the
attitude (z ⫽ .32) rather than before (z ⫽ .19). The question
regarding whether attitudes “cause” behavior or behavior “causes”
attitudes has a long history (e.g., Ajzen, 1987; Bentler & Speckart,
1981; Kleinke, 1984). This finding is consistent with research that
has investigated the importance of order of assessment. Specifi-
cally, an investigation of the relation between work place attitudes
and actual work performance revealed that performance more
strongly aligned with one’s attitude when workplace performance
was used to predict attitudes than vice versa (Harter, Schmidt,
Asplund, Killham, & Agrawal, 2010). Cross-lagged panel designs
have consistently demonstrated that attitudes precede behavior
(e.g., Bentler & Speckart, 1981; Kahle & Berman, 1979). More
tellingly, a meta-analysis of 16 studies (Riketta, 2008) into the
relation between workplace behavior and work attitudes revealed
that the attitude-behavior relation was stronger when attitudes
were used to predict behavior (B ⫽ .06) than when behavior was
used to predict attitudes (B ⫽ .00).
Self-reported attraction type. Whereas the distinction be-
tween affective attraction, behavioral attraction, and enacted
behavior has largely been unaddressed by previous theories
(Sternberg, 1987) and measures (e.g., Rubin, 1970) of attrac-
tion, the current work indicates that these distinctions warrant
additional empirical attention. Although we failed to identify a
main effect for attraction type, the finding that the link between
affective attraction and direct behavior was lower under eval-
uative threat speaks to the importance of considering the nature
of the self-reported attraction assessment. Indeed, it is far too
common for researchers to combine affective attraction and
behavioral attraction items in their assessment of interpersonal
attraction (e.g., 32% of the studies in this meta-analysis as-
sessed attraction using both affective and behavioral items), or
to not assess the relation between affective/behavioral attraction
and behavior. For instance, of the two most recent large meta-
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR
analyses of research that focused on interpersonal attraction
(i.e., Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008 included 284 articles
in their investigation of the relation between similarity and
self-reported attraction; Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel, & Hunt,
2014 included 95 articles in their examination of the relation
between mate preferences and actual mate choice), only seven
studies from those meta-analyses were also included in this
meta-analysis (under 2%). The emotional/affective experience,
rather than its behavioral expression, has been the primary
focus on previous attraction research.
Romantic/sexual context. We did not identify a difference
as a function of the social context in which behaviors were
observed. Although “interpersonal attraction” is commonly
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
conceived as synonymous with “romantic attraction,” its influ-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ence held across various social contexts. Attraction’s role in
developing and regulating interdependent relationships indi-
cates that the relation between attraction and enacted behavior
should hold not only when deciding whether to flirt with a
highly attractive person, but also hold when interacting with
one’s boss or when talking with one’s child or parent. In this
way, these findings speak to the artificial barrier between
“affiliation behavior” as conceived in the romantic/sexual con-
tent versus other contexts. For instance, eye contact and smiles
are expressed by nurses to build rapport with their elderly
patients (e.g., Caris-Verhallen, Kerkstra, & Bensing, 1999) and
smiling and eye contact are used by adults during play with
children (Keller, Schömerich, & Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1988; Stern,
1974). From this perspective, it is no coincidence that the
behaviors hypothesized to build rapport in the business or
doctor-patient contexts (Duggan & Parrott, 2001; Robinson,
2006) include many of the same behaviors (e.g., smiling, eye
contact) as those behaviors proposed to be “solicitation cues”
and “flirting behaviors.”
Conclusion
This research speaks to the nature and function of interpersonal
attraction. The concordance of self-reported attraction and specific
behaviors associated with trust points to the critical role attraction
plays in the development and regulation of interpersonal relation-
ships. Looking forward, these findings indicate that a stronger
integration of research into response coherence with research into
the operation of initial and established romantic relationships may
provide avenues for methodological and theoretical growth, par-
ticularly with respect to the assessment of the affiliative behavior,
self-reported attraction, and interpersonal behavioral consequences
(e.g., compliance, cooperation).
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
Abelson, R. P., & Rosenberg, M. J. (1958). Symbolic psycho-logic: A
model of attitudinal cognition. Behavioral Science, 3, 1–13. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/bs.3830030102
Abraham, C., Sheeran, P., & Johnston, M. (1998). From health beliefs to
self-regulation: Theoretical advances in the psychology of action con-
trol. Psychology & Health, 13, 569 –591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
08870449808407420
693
Adolphs, R., Russell, J. A., & Tranel, D. (1999). A role for the human
amygdala in recognizing emotional arousal from unpleasant stimuli.
Psychological Science, 10, 167–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9280.00126
Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of
behavior in personality and social psychology. Advances in Experimen-
tal Social Psychology, 20, 1– 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-
2601(08)60411-6
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Homewood, IL:
Dorsey Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 –211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as
predictors of specific behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 27, 41–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034440
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In
D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of
attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Allgeier, A. R., & Byrne, D. (1973). Attraction toward the opposite sex as
a determinant of physical proximity. The Journal of Social Psychology,
90, 213–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1973.9712561
Ames, D. R., & Johar, G. V. (2009). I’ll know what you’re like when I see
how you feel: How and when affective displays influence behavior-
based impressions. Psychological Science, 20, 586 –593. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02330.x
Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., & Jensen, A. D. (1979). The measurement
of nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
7, 153–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909887909365204
Appelbaum, S. H., & Hughes, D. (1998). Ingratiation as a political tactic:
Effects within the organization. Management Decision, 36, 85–95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749810204160
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation.
Sociometry, 28, 289 –304. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786027
Arneson, K. (2011, August). Dating men: 15 secret little signs a guy likes
you. Glamour. Retrieved from http://www.glamour.com/gallery/dating-
men-15-secret-little-signs-a-guy-likes-you#1
ⴱ
Asendorpf, J. B., Penke, L., & Back, M. D. (2011). From dating to mating
and relating: Predictors of initial and long-term outcomes of speed-
dating in a community sample. European Journal of Personality, 25,
16 –30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.768
Ashton-James, C., van Baaren, R. B., Chartrand, T. L., Decety, J., &
Karremans, J. (2007). Mimicry and me: The impact of mimicry on
self-construal. Social Cognition, 25, 518 –535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/
soco.2007.25.4.518
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation.
Science, 211, 1390 –1396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.7466396
ⴱ
Bahns, A. J., Crandall, C. S., Gillath, O., & Preacher, K. J. (2016).
Similarity in relationships as niche construction: Choice, stability and
influence within dyads in a free choice environment. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/pspp0000088.supp
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Theory of mind and face-processing: How do they
interact in development and psychopathology? In D. Cicchetti & D. J.
Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Theory and methods
(Vol. 1, pp. 343–356). Oxford, UK: Wiley.
Basden, G. T. (1966). Niger Ibos: A description of the primitive life,
customs and animistic beliefs, etc., of the Ibo people of Nigeria. London,
UK: Cass. Retrieved from http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/
document?id⫽ff26-007
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117
.3.497
 694 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How
emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather
than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11,
167–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301033
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1988).
Form and function in motor mimicry: Topographic evidence that the
primary function is communicative. Human Communication Research,
14, 275–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00158.x
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1986). “I show how
you feel”: Motor mimicry as a communicative act. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 50, 322–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.50.2.322
Baxter, J. C. (1970). Interpersonal spacing in natural settings. Sociometry,
33, 444 – 456. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786318
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Beall, A. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2017). Emotivational psychology: How
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
distinct emotions facilitate fundamental motives. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 11, 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12303
Beath, K. J. (2016). Metaplus: An R package for the analysis of robust
meta-analysis and meta-regression. The R Journal, 8, 5–16.
ⴱ
Becker, F. D., Sommer, R., Bee, J., & Oxley, B. (1973). College class-
room ecology. Sociometry, 36, 514 –525. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2786247
Beebe, B., Gerstman, L., Carson, B., Dolins, M., Zigman, A., Rosenweig,
H., . . . Korman, M. (1982). Rhythmic communication in the mother-
infant dyad. In M. Davis (Ed.), Interaction rhythms: Periodicity in
communicative behavior (pp. 13–22). New York, NY: Human Sciences
Press.
Behrendt, G., & Tuccillo, L. (2004). He’s just not that into you: The
no-excuses truth to understanding guys. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Bentler, P. M., & Speckart, G. (1981). Attitudes “cause” behaviors: A
structural equation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 40, 226 –238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.226
ⴱ Buss, D. M. (2000). The evolution of happiness. American Psychologist,
Bernieri, F. J. (1988). Coordinated movement and rapport in teacher-
student interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 120 –138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00986930
Bernieri, F. J., Davis, J. M., Rosenthal, R., & Knee, C. R. (1994). Inter-
actional synchrony and rapport: Measuring synchrony in displays devoid
of sound and facial affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
20, 303–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167294203008
Bernieri, F. J., Gillis, J. S., Davis, J. M., & Grahe, J. E. (1996). Dyad
rapport and the accuracy of its judgement across situations: A lens model
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 110 –129.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.110
Bernieri, F. J., Reznik, J. S., & Rosenthal, R. (1988). Synchrony, pseudo-
synchrony, and dissynchrony: Measuring the entrainment process in
mother-infant interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 54, 243–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.243
Bernieri, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Interpersonal coordination: Behav-
ior matching and interactional synchrony. In R. S. Feldman & B. Rimé
(Eds.), Studies in emotion & social interaction: Fundamentals of non-
verbal behavior (pp. 401– 432). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Hand-
book of social psychology, Vol. II: Special fields and applications (pp.
413– 484). New York, NY: Random House Inc.
Bombar, M. L., & Littig, L. W., Jr. (1996). Babytalk as a communication
of intimate attachment: An initial study in adult romances and friend-
ships. Personal Relationships, 3, 137–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1475-6811.1996.tb00108.x
Boone, R. T., & Buck, R. (2003). Emotional expressivity and trustworthi-
ness: The role of nonverbal behavior in the evolution of cooperation.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 163–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
A:1025341931128
Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36,
129 –148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.129
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Loss. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Brazelton, T. B. (1974). The origins of reciprocity: The early mother-infant
interaction. In M. Lewis & L. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant
on its caregiver (pp. 49 –77). New York, NY: Wiley.
ⴱ
Brooks, D. M., & Wilson, B. J. (1978). Teacher verbal and nonverbal
behavioral expression toward selected pupils. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 70, 147–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.70.2.147
Brown, D. W. (1974). Adolescent attitudes and lawful behavior. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 38, 98 –106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268138
ⴱ
Brown, M., & Montoya, R. M. (2015). [Humor and attraction]. Unpub-
lished raw data.
ⴱ
Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2010). Adult attachment and dating
strategies: How do insecure people attract mates? Personal Relation-
ships, 17, 599 – 614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010
.01304.x
Bryant, G. A., Fessler, D. M. T., Fusaroli, R., Clint, E., Aarøe, L., Apicella,
C. L., . . . Zhou, L. (2016). Detecting affiliation in colaughter across 24
societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United
States of America, 113, 4682– 4687.
Buck, R. (1985). Prime theory: An integrated view of motivation and
emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 389 – 413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-295X.92.3.389
Burger, J. M., Soroka, S., Gonzago, K., Murphy, E., & Somervell, E.
(2001). The effect of fleeting attraction on compliance to requests.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1578 –1586. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/01461672012712002
Burgoon, J. K. (1991). Relational message interpretations of touch, con-
versational distance, and posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15,
233–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00986924
55, 15–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.15
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic
Press.
ⴱ
Byrne, D., Baskett, G. D., & Hodges, L. (1971). Behavioral indicators of
interpersonal attraction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1, 137–
149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1971.tb00358.x
Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L., Jr. (1967). Effectance arousal and attraction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/h0024829
ⴱ
Byrne, D., Ervin, C. R., & Lamberth, J. (1970). Continuity between the
experimental study of attraction and real-life computer dating. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 157–165. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/h0029836
Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review of
Psychology, 24, 317–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.24
.020173.001533
Byrne, D., Nelson, D., & Reeves, K. (1966). Effects of consensual vali-
dation and invalidation on attraction as a function of verifiability.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 98 –107. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/0022-1031(66)90009-6
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central
and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspec-
tive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032–1043.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1032
Cain, P. A., Ugander, M., Palmer, J., Carlsson, M., Heiberg, E., & Ar-
heden, H. (2005). Quantitative polar representation of left ventricular
myocardial perfusion, function and viability using SPECT and cardiac
magnetic resonance: Initial results. Clinical Physiology and Functional
Imaging, 25, 215–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-097X.2005
.00618.x
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR
Campos, B., Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., Gonzaga, G. C., & Goetz, J. L.
(2013). What is shared, what is different? Core relational themes and
expressive displays of eight positive emotions. Cognition and Emotion,
27, 37–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.683852
Campos, J. J., Barrett, K., Lamb, M., Goldsmith, H., & Sternberg, C.
(1983). Socioemotional development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook
of child psychology: Infancy and developmental psychology (Vol. 2, pp.
783–915). New York, NY: Wiley, Ltd.
Campos, J. J., Campos, R. G., & Barrett, K. C. (1989). Emergent themes
in the study of emotional development and emotion regulation. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 25, 394 – 402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.25.3.394
Caporael, L. R. (1981). The paralanguage of caregiving: Baby talk to the
institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
876 – 884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.5.876
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Cappella, J. N. (1981). Mutual influence in expressive behavior: Adult–
adult and infant–adult dyadic interaction. Psychological Bulletin, 89,
101–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.101
Cappella, J., & Palmer, M. T. (1990). Attitude similarity, relational history,
and attraction: The mediating effects of kinesic and vocal behaviors.
Communication Monographs, 57, 161–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
03637759009376194
Caris-Verhallen, W. M. C. M., Kerkstra, A., & Bensing, J. M. (1999).
Non-verbal behaviour in nurse-elderly patient communication. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 29, 808 – 818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2648.1999.00965.x
Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and
love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 779 – 818. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/S0306-4530(98)00055-9
Carver, C. S., & White, T. (1994). Behavioural inhibition, behavioural
activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment:
The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
319 –333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
Cashdan, E. (2004). Smiles, speech, and body posture: How women and
men display sociometric status and power. Journal of Nonverbal Behav-
ior, 22, 209 –228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022967721884
Centorrino, S., Djemai, E., Hopfensitz, A., Milinski, M., & Seabright, P.
(2011, May). Smiling is a costly signal of cooperation opportunities:
Experimental evidence from a trust game. Paper presented at the Centre
for Economic Policy Research, London, UK.
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The
perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.76.6.893
Cheung, M. W.-L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-
level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psycho-
logical Methods, 19, 211–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032968
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M., Freeman, S., &
Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field
studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366 –375.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.366
Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors
in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 25, 709 –722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672990
25006006
Coburn, K. M., & Vevea, J. L. (2015). Publication bias as a function of
study characteristics. Psychological Methods, 20, 310 –330. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/met0000046
Condon, W. S., & Sander, L. W. (1974). Synchrony demonstrated between
movements of the neonate and adult speech. Child Development, 45,
456 – 462. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1127968
695
ⴱ
Cooper, J. C., Dunne, S., Furey, T., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2012). Dorso-
medial prefrontal cortex mediates rapid evaluations predicting the out-
come of romantic interactions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 15647–
15656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2558-12.2012
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social ex-
change. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted
mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163–
228). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Coutts, L. M., & Schneider, F. W. (1976). Affiliative conflict theory: An
investigation of the intimacy equilibrium and compensation hypothesis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1135–1142. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.6.1135
ⴱ
Coutts, L. M., Schneider, F. W., & Montgomery, S. (1980). An investi-
gation of the arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Journal of Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 16, 545–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0022-1031(80)90057-8
Crane, D. R., & Griffin, W. (1983). Personal space: Objective measure of
martial quality. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9, 325–327.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1983.tb01519.x
ⴱ
Cuperman, R., & Ickes, W. (2009). Big Five predictors of behavior and
perceptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps
extraverts and introverts, but hurts “disagreeables”. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 97, 667– 684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0015741
Dael, N., Mortillaro, M., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Emotion expression in
body action and posture. Emotion, 12, 1085–1101. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0025737
Daniels, L. R., & Berkowitz, L. (1963). Liking and response to dependency
relationships. Human Relations, 16, 141–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
001872676301600203
ⴱ
Danyluck, C., & Page-Gould, E. (2017). [Self-reported attraction and
behavioral measures of participant toward same sex participant]. Un-
published raw data.
Darwin, C. (1965). The expression of the emotions in man and animals.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published
1872)
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
de Meijer, M. (1989). The contribution of general features of body move-
ment to the attribution of emotions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13,
247–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00990296
DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 111, 203–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111
.2.203
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton,
K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin,
129, 74 –118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
Dermer, M., & Pyszczynski, T. A. (1978). Effects of erotica upon men’s
loving and liking responses for women they love. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 36, 1302–1309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.36.11.1302
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Chester, D. S., & Bushman, B. J. (2016).
How often does currently felt emotion predict social behavior and
judgement? A meta-analytic test of two theories. Emotion Review, 8,
136 –143.
Deyo, Y., & Deyo, S. (2003). Speed dating: A timesaving guide to finding
your lifelong love. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Duggan, A. P., & Parrott, R. L. (2001). Physicians’ nonverbal rapport
building and patients’ talk about the subjective components of illness.
Human Communication Research, 27, 299 –311.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. San
Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional
approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad-
 696 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
emy of Management Journal, 37, 1379 –1391. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
256678
Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The
predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 623– 665. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0032432
Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in
meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical
Journal, 315, 629 – 634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
ⴱ
Ehrlich, H. J., & Graeven, D. B. (1971). Reciprocal self-disclosure in a
dyad. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 389 – 400. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(71)90073-4
Ekman, P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. Scherer &
P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 319 –344). Hillsdale, NJ:
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Erlbaum, Inc.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emo-
tion, 6, 169 –200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068
Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. In T. Dalgleish & M. Power (Eds.),
Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 45– 60). New York, NY:
Wiley, Ltd.
Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). The Duchenne smile:
Emotional expression and brain physiology. II. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58, 342–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.58.2.342
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to
deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88 –106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00332747
.1969.11023575
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face
and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124 –
129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0030377
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1976). Measuring facial movement. Envi-
ronmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 1, 56 –75. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/BF01115465
ⴱ village. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Emanuel, L. L. (2012). Nonconscious behavioral mimicry: Examining the
methods used to produce mimicry and the automatic nature of the effect
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Reading, Berkshire,
United Kingdom.
Ember, M. (1997). Evolution of the human relations area files. Cross-
Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 31,
3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106939719703100101
Exline, R. V., & Winters, L. C. (1965). Affective relations and mutual
glances in dyads. In S. Tomkins & C. Izzard (Eds.), Affect, cognition and
personality. New York, NY: Springer.
ⴱ study. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 11, 141–163.
Farley, S. D. (2014). Nonverbal reactions to an attractive stranger: The
role of mimicry in communicating preferred social distance. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 38, 195–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10919-
014-0174-4
Fazio, R. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role
of attitude accessibility. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G.
Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 153–179). New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Fazio, R. H., & Williams, C. J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moder-
ator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An inves-
tigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 505–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.51.3.505
Feng, D., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2012). Representing emotion in visual
images: A social semiotic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 2067–
2084. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.003
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in
informal groups; a study of human factors in housing. Oxford, UK:
Harper.
Finkel, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2010). Attraction and rejection. In R. F.
Baumeister & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state
of the science (pp. 419 – 459). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
ⴱ
Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2009). Arbitrary social norms influence
sex differences in romantic selectivity. Psychological Science, 20,
1290 –1295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02439.x
Fischer, H., Wright, C. I., Whalen, P. J., McInerney, S. C., Shin, L. M., &
Rauch, S. L. (2003). Brain habituation during repeated exposure to
fearful and neutral faces: A functional MRI study. Brain Research
Bulletin, 59, 387–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-9230(02)
00940-1
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The
reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Fisher, R. A. (1928). The general sampling distribution of the multiple
correlation coefficient. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London
Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character,
121, 654 – 673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1928.0224
ⴱ
Fletcher, G. J. O., Kerr, P. S. G., Li, N. P., & Valentine, K. A. (2014).
Predicting romantic interest and decisions in the very early stages of
mate selection: Standards, accuracy, and sex differences. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 540 –550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167213519481
Fogel, A., Toda, S., & Kawai, M. (1988). Mother-infant face-to-face
interaction in Japan and the United States: A laboratory comparison
using 3-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 24, 398 – 406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.3.398
Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the
emotions. New York, NY: Norton & Co.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2001). Positive emotions. In T. J.
Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Current issues and future
directions (pp. 123–151). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Fridlund, A. J. (1994). Human facial expression: An evolutionary view. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Friedl, E. (1997). Children of the Deh Koh: Young life in an Iranian
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions (studies in emotion and social interac-
tion). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H., Mesquita, B., Sonnemans, J., & van Goozen, S. (1991). The
duration of affective phenomena or emotions, sentiments and passions.
In K. T. Strongman (Ed.), International review of studies on emotion
(Vol. 1, pp. 187–225). Oxford, UK: Wiley, Ltd.
Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 36,
179 –185.
Gewirtz, J. L., & Boyd, E. F. (1976). Mother-infant interaction and its
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(08)60097-X
Gewirtz, J. L., & Boyd, E. F. (1977). Does maternal responding imply
reduced infant crying? A critique of the 1972 Bell and Ainsworth report.
Child Development, 48, 1200 –1207. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1128476
Gianino, A., & Tronick, E. Z. (1988). The mutual regulation model: The
infant’s self and interactive regulation and coping and defensive capac-
ities. In T. M. Field, P. M. McCabe, & N. Schneiderman (Eds.), Stress
and coping across development (pp. 47– 68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Giles, H. (1977). Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations. London,
UK: Academic Press.
Givens, D. B. (1978). The nonverbal basis of attraction: Flirtation, court-
ship, and seduction. Psychiatry, 41, 346 –359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00332747.1978.11023994
Glasman, L. R., & Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict
future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 132, 778 – 822. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909
.132.5.778
Godoy, R., Reyes-García, V., Huanca, T., Tanner, S., Leonard, W. R.,
McDade, T., & Vadez, V. (2005). Do smiles have a face value? Panel
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR
evidence from Amazonian Indians. Journal of Economic Psychology,
26, 469 – 490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2004.10.004
Goei, R., Lindsey, L. L. M., Boster, F. J., Skalski, P. D., & Bowman, J. M.
(2003). The mediating roles of liking and obligation on the relationship
between favors and compliance. Communication Research, 30, 178 –
197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250877
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
ⴱ
Goldberg, G. N., Kiesler, C. A., & Collins, B. E. (1969). Visual behavior
and face-to-face distance during interaction. Sociometry, 32, 43–53.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786633
Golding, P. (1967). Role of distance and posture in the evaluation of
interactions. Proceedings of the 75th Annual Convention of the Ameri-
can Psychological Association, 2, 243–244.
Gonzaga, G. C., Turner, R. A., Keltner, D., Campos, B., & Altemus, M.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(2006). Romantic love and sexual desire in close relationships. Emotion,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
6, 163–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.163
Goodwin, G., & Goodwin, J. T. (1942). The social organization of the
Western Apache. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
ⴱ
Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of
interest in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14,
209 –236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00989317
Grammer, K., & Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1990). The ritualization of laughter. In
W. A. Koch (Ed.), Natürlichkeit der Sprache und der Kultur [Natural-
ness of language and culture] (pp. 192–214). Bochum, Germany: Brock-
meyer.
ⴱ
Grammer, K., Honda, M., Juette, A., & Schmitt, A. (1999). Fuzziness of
nonverbal courtship communication unblurred by motion energy detec-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 487–508. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.487
ⴱ Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal,
Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A., & Fink, B. (2000). Non-verbal
behavior as courtship signals: The role of control and choice in selecting
partners. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 371–390. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00053-2
Graziano, W. G., & Bruce, J. W. (2008). Attraction and the initiation of
relationships: A review of the empirical literature. In S. Sprecher, A.
Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp.
269 –295). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Greer, A. E., & Buss, D. M. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encoun-
ters. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 185–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00224499409551752
Grinde, B. (2002). Happiness in the perspective of evolutionary psychol-
ogy. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 331–354. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1023/A:1021894227295
Gross, R. (2015). Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour (7th ed.).
London, UK: Hodder Education.
Guéguen, N. (2009). Mimicry and seduction: An evaluation in a courtship
context. Social Influence, 4, 249 –255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15534510802628173
Guéguen, N., Fischer-Lokou, J., Lefebvre, L., & Lamy, L. (2008). Wom-
en’s eye contact and men’s later interest: Two field experiments. Per-
ceptual and Motor Skills, 106, 63– 66. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms
.106.1.63-66
Guerrero, L. K. (1997). Nonverbal involvement across interactions with
same-sex friends, opposite-sex friends and romantic partners: Consis-
tency or change? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14,
31–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407597141002
Haddock, C. K., Rindskopf, D., & Shadish, W. R. (1998). Using odds ratios
as effect sizes for meta-analysis of dichotomous data: A primer on
methods and issues. Psychological Methods, 3, 339 –353. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.3.339
Hall, E. T. (1963). A system for the notation of proxemics behavior.
American Anthropologist, 65, 1003–1026. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa
.1963.65.5.02a00020
697
ⴱ
Hall, J. A., & Xing, C. (2015). The verbal and nonverbal correlates of the
five flirting styles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39, 41– 68. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1007/s10919-014-0199-8
Hareli, S., & Parkinson, B. (2008). What’s social about social emotions?
The Theory of Social Behaviour, 38, 131–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1468-5914.2008.00363.x
Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (2001). The role of affect in the mere
exposure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological and individual dif-
ferences approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
889 – 898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277011
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Asplund, J. W., Killham, E. A., & Agrawal,
S. (2010). Causal impact of employee work perceptions on the bottom
line of organizations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 378 –
389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610374589
Hayduk, L. A. (1978). Personal space: An evaluative and orienting over-
view. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 117–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.85.1.117
Hayduk, L. A. (1983). Personal space: Where we not stand. Psychological
Bulletin, 94, 293–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.94.2.293
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1999). Pair bonds as attachments. In J. Cassidy
& P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and
clinical applications (pp. 336 –354). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in
meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486 –504. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York,
NY: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003).
327, 557–560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Huston, T. L., & Levinger, G. (1978). Interpersonal attraction and rela-
tionships. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 115–156. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.ps.29.020178.000555
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2209-0
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York, NY: Henry
Holt and Company. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11059-000
James, W. T. (1932). A study of the expression of bodily posture. The
Journal of General Psychology, 7, 405– 437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00221309.1932.9918475
Jaques, N., McDuff, D., Kim, Y. L., & Picard, R. (2016). Understanding
and predicting bonding in conversations using thing slices of facial
expressions and body language. In D. Traum, W. Swartout, P. Khoosha-
beh, S. Kopp, S. Scherer, & A. Leuski (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer
science: Vol. 10011. Intelligent virtual agents (pp. 1–10). Boston, MA:
Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47665-0_6
Joffe, N. F. (1963). The Fox of Iowa. In R. L. Gloucester (Ed.), Accultur-
ation in seven American Indian tribes (pp. 259 –332). Gloucester, MA:
Peter Smith.
Jones, B. C., Debruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Conway, C. A., & Feinberg,
D. R. (2006). Integrating gaze direction and expression in preferences
for attractive faces. Psychological Science, 17, 588 –591. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01749.x
Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New
York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kagan, J. (1978). On emotion and its development: A working paper. In M.
Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The development of affect (pp.
11– 41). Boston, MA: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-
2616-8_2
Kahle, L. R., & Berman, J. J. (1979). Attitudes cause behaviors: A
cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 37, 315–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.315
 698 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
ⴱ
Kahn, A., & McGaughey, T. A. (1977). Distance and liking: When
moving close produces increased liking. Sociometry, 40, 138 –144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3033517
Kaplan, M. F., & Anderson, N. H. (1973). Information integration theory
and reinforcement theory as approaches to interpersonal attraction. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 301–312. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/h0035112
ⴱ
Karremans, J. C., & Verwijmeren, T. (2008). Mimicking attractive
opposite-sex others: The role of romantic relationship status. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 939 –950. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167208316693
Keller, H., Schömerich, A., & Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1988). Communication
patterns in adult-infant interactions in Western and non-Western cul-
tures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 427– 445. http://dx.doi
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
.org/10.1177/0022022188194003
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Kelley, H. H. (1983). The situational origins of human tendencies: A
further reason for the formal analysis of structures. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 8 –36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167283091003
Kelley, K., & Rolker-Dolinsky, B. (1987). The psychosexuality of female
initiation and dominance. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate
relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 63– 87).
Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Keltner, D., Tracy, J., Sauter, D., Cordano, D., & McNeil, G. (2016).
Expression of emotion. In L. F. Barrett, M. Lewis, & J. M. Haviland-
Jones (Eds.), The handbook of emotions (4th ed., pp. 467– 482). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction.
Acta Psychologica, 26, 22– 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-
6918(67)90005-4
Kendon, A. (1970). Movement coordination in social interaction: Some
examples described. Acta Psychologica, 32, 100 –125. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0001-6918(70)90094-6
King, D., Rowe, A., & Leonards, U. (2011). I trust you; hence I like the
things you look at: Gaze cueing and sender trustworthiness influence
object evaluation. Social Cognition, 29, 476 – 485. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1521/soco.2011.29.4.476
Kleck, R. (1969). Physical stigma and task oriented interactions. Human
Relations, 22, 53– 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872676902200103
Kleinke, C. L. (1984). Two models for conceptualizing the attitude-
behavior relationship. Human Relations, 37, 333–350. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/001872678403700404
ⴱ
Kleinke, C. L., Desautels, M. S., & Knapp, B. E. (1977). Adult gaze and
affective and visual responses of preschool children. The Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 131, 321–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325
.1977.10533303
ⴱ
Kleinke, C. L., Staneski, R. A., & Berger, D. E. (1975). Evaluation of an
interviewer as a function of interviewer gaze, reinforcement of subject
gaze, and interviewer attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31, 115–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076244
ⴱ
Kleinke, C. L., & Walton, J. H. (1982). Influence of reinforced smiling on
affective responses in an interview. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 42, 557–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.3.557
Knutson, B. (1996). Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal
trait inferences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 165–182. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1007/BF02281954
Konstantopoulos, S. (2011). Fixed effects and variance components esti-
mation in three-level meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 2,
61–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.35
Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-
analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 58 –75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167295211007
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its method-
ology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Krumhuber, E. G., Kappas, A., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2013). Effects of
dynamic aspects of facial expressions: A review. Emotion Review, 5,
41– 46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1754073912451349
Krumhuber, E., Manstead, A. S. R., & Kappas, A. (2007). Temporal
aspects of facial displays in person and expression perception: The
effects of smile dynamics, head-tilt, gender. Journal of Nonverbal Be-
havior, 31, 39 –56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10919-006-0019-x
Kurzban, R. (2001). The social psychophysics of cooperation: Nonverbal
communication in a public goods game. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
25, 241–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012563421824
Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatiza-
tion: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127,
187–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.187
LaFrance, M., & Broadbent, M. (1976). Group rapport: Posture sharing as
a nonverbal indicator. Group & Organization Management, 1, 328 –333.
LaFrance, M., Hecht, M. A., & Paluck, E. L. (2003). The contingent smile:
A meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling. Psychological Bulletin,
129, 305–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.305
Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral
mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14,
334 –339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.14481
Lakin, J. L., Chartrand, T. L., & Arkin, R. M. (2008). I am too just like you:
Nonconscious mimicry as an automatic behavioral response to social
exclusion. Psychological Science, 19, 816 – 822. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02162.x
Lamy, L. (2016). Beyond emotion: Love as an encounter of myth and
drive. Emotion Review, 8, 97–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1754073915594431
Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (1998). Egalitarian daters/traditionalist
dates. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 468 – 477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
019251398019004005
Lassiter, J. (Producer) & Tennant, A. (Director). (2005). Hitch [Motion
picture]. Culver City, CA: Sony Pictures.
ⴱ
Latta, R. M. (1976). There’s method in our madness: Interpersonal attrac-
tion as a multidimensional construct. Journal of Research in Personality,
10, 76 – 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(76)90084-2
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American
Psychologist, 46, 352–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.4
.352
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of
self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 1– 62). Cambridge, MA: Academic
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80003-9
Leary, M. R., Landel, J. L., & Patton, K. M. (1996). The motivated
expression of embarrassment following a self-presentational predica-
ment. Journal of Personality, 64, 619 – 636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-6494.1996.tb00524.x
LeBreton, J. M., Burgess, J. R. D., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, E. K., & James,
L. R. (2003). The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reli-
ability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources really dissim-
ilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6, 80 –128. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/1094428102239427
Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of
reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Applied social research methods
series: Vol. 49. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Little, K. B. (1965). Personal space. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 1, 237–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(65)90028-4
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1986). Statistical analysis with missing
data. New York, NY: Wiley.
Lott, A. J., Aponte, J. F., Lott, B. E., & McGinley, W. H. (1969). The effect
of delayed reward on the development of positive attitudes toward
persons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 101–113. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(69)90010-9
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1969). Liked and disliked persons as reinforcing
stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 129 –137.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0027036
Lott, D. F., & Sommer, R. (1967). Seating arrangements and status.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 90 –95. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/h0024925
Luther, L., Benkenstein, M., & Rummelhagen, K. (2016). Enhancing
patients’ hospital satisfaction by taking advantage of interpersonal sim-
ilarity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 50 –58. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.12.002
Maddux, J. E. (1999). Expectancies and the social cognitive perspective:
Basic principles, processes, and variables. In I. Kirsch (Ed.), How
expectancies shape experience (pp. 17– 40). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Mason, M. F., Tatkow, E. P., & Macrae, C. N. (2005). The look of love:
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Gaze shifts and person perception. Psychological Science, 16, 236 –239.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00809.x
Massie, H. N. (1982). Affective development and the organization of
mother-infant behavior from the perspective of psychopathology. In
E. Z. Tronick (Ed.), Social interchange in infancy (pp. 161–182). Bal-
timore, MD: University Park Press.
Matarazzo, J., & Wiens, A. (1972). The interview: Research on its anatomy
and structure. Chicago, IL: Aldine Atherton.
Mauss, I. B., Levenson, R. W., McCarter, L., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J.
(2005). The tie that binds? Coherence among emotion experience, be-
havior, and physiology. Emotion, 5, 175–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1528-3542.5.2.175
ⴱ Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 24 – 45). Stanford, CA:
Maxwell, G. M., Cook, M. W., & Burr, R. (1985). The encoding and
decoding of liking from behavioral cues in both auditory and visual
channels. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 239 –263. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF00986883
McCall, R. B., & McGee, P. E. (1977). The discrepancy hypothesis of
attention and affect in infants. In E. C. Uzgiris & F. Weizmann (Eds.),
The structuring of experience (pp. 179 –210). New York, NY: Plenum
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-8786-6_7
McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1989). Gender differences in nonverbal
flirtation. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 15, 271–282. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/01614576.1989.11074969
ⴱ
McFarland, D. A., Jurafsky, D., & Rawlings, C. (2013). Making the
connection: Social bonding in courtship situations. American Journal of
Sociology, 118, 1596 –1649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/670240
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Bio-
chemia Medica, 22, 276 –282. http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
Mehrabian, A. (1968a). Inference of attitudes from the posture, orientation,
and distance of a communicator. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 32, 296 –308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0025906
Mehrabian, A. (1968b). Relationship of attitude to seated posture, orien-
tation, and distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10,
26 –30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0026384
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Significance of posture and posiion in the commu-
nication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71,
359 –372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0027349
Mehrabian, A. (1970). The development and validation of measures of
affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 30, 417– 428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
001316447003000226
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mehrabian, A., & Friar, J. T. (1969). Encoding of attitude by a seated
communicator via posture and position cues. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 33, 330 –336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0027576
Mehrabian, A., & Ksionzky, S. (1970). Models for affiliative and confor-
mity behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 110 –126. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/h0029603
699
Mehu, M., Little, A. C., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2007). Duchenne smiles and
the perception of generosity and sociability in faces. Journal of Evolu-
tionary Psychology, 5, 183–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/JEP.2007
.1011
Mehu, M., & N=Diaye, K. (2010). The proximate mechanisms and ultimate
functions of smiles. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 454 – 455.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10001561
Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. H. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A
review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 179 –204. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0033-2909.112.2.179
Messinger, D. S., Fogel, A., & Dickson, K. L. (2001). All smiles are
positive, but some smiles are more positive than others. Developmental
Psychology, 37, 642– 653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.5
.642
Messinger, M., & Fogel, A. (2007). The interactive development of social
smiling. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behav-
ior (pp. 327–366). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-009735-7.50014-1
ⴱ
Michinov, E., & Monteil, J.-M. (2002). The similarity-attraction relation-
ship revisited: Divergence between the affective and behavioral facets of
attraction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 485–500. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.104
Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1986). Effects of affective and cognitive focus
on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 270 –276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2
.270
Molm, L. (2006). The social exchange framework. In P. J. Burke (Ed.),
Stanford University Press.
Montepare, J. M., Goldstein, S. B., & Clausen, A. (1987). The identifica-
tion of emotions from gait information. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
11, 33– 42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00999605
Montoya, R. M., & Hibbard, K. C. (2014). The use of covert and overt
jealousy tactics in romantic relationships: The moderating role of rela-
tionship satisfaction. Current Research in Social Psychology, 22, 39 –50.
Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2004). On the importance of cognitive
evaluation as a determinant of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 86, 696 –712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.86.5.696
Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2014). A two-dimensional model for the
study of interpersonal attraction. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 18, 59 – 86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868313501887
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity
necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived simi-
larity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889 –922.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700
ⴱ
Montoya, R. M., & Smith, N. S. (2015). [Attraction to a confederate].
Unpublished raw data.
Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women. Ethology
and Sociobiology, 6, 237–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0162-
3095(85)90016-0
Mortillaro, M., Mehu, M., & Scherer, K. R. (2011). Subtly different
positive emotions can be distinguished by their facial expressions. Social
Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 262–271. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/1948550610389080
Muehlenhard, C. L., Koralewski, M. A., Andrews, S. L., & Burdick, C. A.
(1986). Verbal and nonverbal cues that convey interest in dating: Two
studies. Behavior Therapy, 17, 404 – 419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0005-7894(86)80071-5
Nesse, R. M. (1990). Evolutionary explanations of emotions. Human
Nature, 1, 261–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02733986
Niedenthal, P. M. (1990). Implicit perception of affective information.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 505–527. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/0022-1031(90)90053-O
 700 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
O’Connor, B. P., & Gifford, R. (1988). A test among models of nonverbal
immediacy reactions: Arousal-labeling, discrepancy-arousal, and social
cognition. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 6 –33. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF00987350
Orbuch, T. L., & Sprecher, S. (2006). Attraction and interpersonal rela-
tionships. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp.
339 –362). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-387-
36921-X_14
Owren, M. J., & Bachorowski, J. (2003). Reconsidering the evolution of
nonlinguistic communication: The case of laughter. Journal of Nonver-
bal Behavior, 27, 183–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025394015198
Özyürek, A. (2002). Do speakers design their cospeech gestures for their
addressees? The effects of addressee location on representational ges-
tures. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 688 –704. http://dx.doi.org/
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10.1006/jmla.2001.2826
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Palmer, M. T., & Simmons, K. B. (1995). Communicating intentions
through nonverbal behaviors: Conscious and nonconscious encoding of
liking. Human Communication Research, 22, 128 –160. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00364.x
Patterson, M. (1968). Spatial factors in social interactions. Human Rela-
tions, 21, 351–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872676802100403
Patterson, M. L. (1982). A sequential functional model of nonverbal
exchange. Psychological Review, 89, 231–249. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0033-295X.89.3.231
ⴱ
Pe, M. L., Gotlib, I. H., Van den Noortgate, W., & Kuppens, P. (2016).
Revisiting depression contagion as a mediator of the relation between
depression and rejection: A speed-dating study. Clinical Psychological
Science, 4, 675– 682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2167702615602672
Perper, T. (1989). Theories and observations on sexual selection and
female choice in human beings. Medical Anthropology, 11, 409 – 454.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01459740.1989.9966006
Perper, T., & Weis, D. L. (1987). Proceptive and rejective strategies of U.S.
and Canadian college women. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 455– 480.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224498709551385
Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as a
determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent,
resistant, and predictive of behavior. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick
(Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 93–130).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (2010). Attitude change: Multiple roles for
persuasion variables. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 323–390). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Pigott, T. (2012). Advances in meta-analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2278-5
ⴱ
Pit, I., Quandt, J., & Karremans, J. (2015). [Self-reported attraction and
behavioral measures of participant toward experimenter]. Unpublished
raw data.
Pittinsky, T. L., Rosenthal, S. A., & Montoya, R. M. (2011). Liking is not
the opposite of disliking: The functional separability of positive and
negative attitudes toward minority groups. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 17, 134 –143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023806
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00335558008248231
Prislin, R. (1988). Attitude-behaviour relationship: Attitude salience and
implications of behavior. Psychologische Beiträge, 30, 129 –138.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Cather, C., Gat, I., & Sideris,
J. (1995). Defensive distancing from victims of serious illness: The role
of delay. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 13–20. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167295211003
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Sideris, J., & Stubing, M. J.
(1993). Emotional expression and the reduction of motivated cognitive
bias: Evidence from cognitive dissonance and distancing from victims’
paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 177–186.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.177
Reeve, J. (1993). The face of interest. Motivation and Emotion, 17, 353–
375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00992325
Reeve, J., & Nix, G. (1997). Expressing intrinsic motivation through acts
of exploration and facial displays of interest. Motivation and Emotion,
21, 237–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024470213500
Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship
context of human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin,
126, 844 – 872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.844
ⴱ
Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel,
E. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interac-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557–570.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022885
ⴱ
Remland, M. S., & Jones, T. S. (1989). The effects of nonverbal involve-
ment and communication apprehension on state anxiety, interpersonal
attraction, and speech duration. Communication Quarterly, 37, 170 –
183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463378909385538
Renninger, L. A., Wade, T. J., & Grammer, K. (2004). Getting that female
glance: Patterns and consequences of male nonverbal behavior in court-
ship contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 416 – 431. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.006
Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and perfor-
mance: A meta-analysis of panel studies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93, 472– 481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.472
Robinson, J. D. (2006). Nonverbal communication and physician-patient
interaction: Review and new directions. In V. Manusov & M. L. Pat-
terson (Eds.), The sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp.
437– 459). New York, NY: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/
9781412976152.n23
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1989). Young singles’ scripts for a first date.
Gender & Society, 3, 258 –268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243890
03002006
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating
scripts. Sex Roles, 28, 499 –509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00289677
Rosenberg, R. L., & Ekman, P. (1994). Coherence between expressive and
experiential systems in emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 201–229.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699939408408938
Rosenfeld, H. M. (1965). Effect of an approval-seeking induction on
interpersonal proximity. Psychological Reports, 17, 120 –122. http://dx
.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1965.17.1.120
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analysis procedures for social research. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 16, 265–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0029841
Rubin, Z. (1974). From liking to loving: Patterns of attraction in dating
relationships. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal at-
traction (pp. 383– 402). New York, NY: Academic Press. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-362950-0.50022-7
Russo, N. (1967). Connotation of seating arrangements. The Cornell Jour-
nal of Social Relations, 2, 37– 44.
Russo, N. F. (1975). Eye contact, interpersonal distance, and the equilib-
rium theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 497–
502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076476
Sabatelli, R. M., & Rubin, M. (1986). Nonverbal expressiveness and
physical attractiveness as mediators of interpersonal perceptions. Jour-
nal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10, 120 –133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF01000008
Sally, D. (1995). Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A
meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and Soci-
ety, 7, 58 –92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1043463195007001004
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR
Scharlemann, J. P. W., Eckel, C. C., Kacelnik, A., & Wilson, R. K. (2001).
The value of a smile: Game theory with a human face. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 22, 617– 640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
4870(01)00059-9
Scherer, K. R., & Ellgring, H. (2007). Are facial expressions of emotion
produced by categorical affect programs or dynamically driven by
appraisal? Emotion, 7, 113–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7
.1.113
Scherer, K. R., Wallbott, H. G., & Summerfield, A. B. (Eds.). (1986).
Experiencing emotion: A cross-cultural study. New York, NY: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Schneider, K., & Josephs, I. (1991). The expressive and communicative
functions of preschool children’s smiles in achievement-situation. Jour-
nal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 185–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
BF01672220
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Schneider, K., & Unzer, L. (1992). Preschoolers’ attention and emotion in
an achievement and an effect game: A longitudinal study. Cognition and
Emotion, 6, 37– 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411057
Segal, M. W. (1974). Alphabet and attraction: An unobtrusive measure of
the effect of propinquity in a field setting. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 30, 654 – 657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0037446
ⴱ
Selterman, D. F., Chagnon, E., & Mackinnon, S. P. (2015). Do men and
women exhibit different preferences for mates? A replication of East-
wick and Finkel (2008). SAGE Open, 5, 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
2158244015605160
Shavitt, S., & Fazio, R. H. (1991). Effects of attribute salience on the
consistency between attitudes and behavior predictions. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 507–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167291175005
Silvia, P. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure
of interest. Emotion, 5, 89 –102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5
.1.89
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Interest—The curious emotion. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 17, 57– 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8721.2008.00548.x
Simner, M. L. (1971). Newborn’s response to the cry of another infant.
Developmental Psychology, 5, 136 –150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0031066
Simon, R. W., Eder, D., & Evans, C. (1992). The development of feeling
norms underlying romantic love among adolescent females. Social Psy-
chology Quarterly, 55, 29 – 46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786684
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and
change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/BF01542219
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic
partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00264.x
ⴱ
Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Biek, M. (1993). Personality and
nonverbal social behavior: An ethological perspective of relationship
initiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 434 – 461.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1993.1020
Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., Christensen, P. N., & Leck, K. (1999).
Fluctuating asymmetry, sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive tac-
tics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 159 –172. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.159
Skinner, B. F. (1979). The shaping of a behaviorist. New York, NY:
Knopf.
Smith, C. A. (1991). The self, appraisal, and coping. In C. R. Snyder &
D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Pergamon Press general psychology series, Vol.
162. Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective
(pp. 116 –137). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core rela-
tional themes, and the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 233–269.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699939308409189
701
Smith, C. A., Tong, E. M. W., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2016). The differenti-
ation of positive emotional experience as viewed through the lens of
appraisal theory. In M. M. Tugade, M. N. Shiota, & L. D. Kirby (Eds.),
Handbook of positive emotions (pp. 11–27). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Smithson, C. L. (1959). Havasupai woman: Anthropological papers. Salt
Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
Smythe, M. J. (1991). Gender and communication behaviors: A review of
research. In B. Dervin (Ed.), Progress in communication sciences (pp.
173–215). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
ⴱ
Snyder, C. R., & Endelman, J. R. (1979). Effects of degree of interper-
sonal similarity on physical distance and self-reported attraction: A
comparison of uniqueness and reinforcement theory predictions. Journal
of Personality, 47, 492–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1979
.tb00628.x
Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group
success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected
failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 382–388.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.382
Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1976). When actions reflect attitudes: The
politics of impression management. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 1034 –1042. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.5
.1034
Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators
of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 13, 1–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.13.1.1
Staats, A. W. (1994). Psychological behaviorism and behaviorizing psy-
chology. The Behavior Analyst, 17, 93–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF03392655
Staats, A. W., & Eifert, G. H. (1990). The paradigmatic behaviorism theory
of emotions. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 539 –566. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/0272-7358(90)90096-S
Stel, M., Blascovich, J., McCall, C., Mastop, J., van Baaren, R. B., &
Vonk, R. (2010). Mimicking disliked others: Effects of a priori liking on
the mimicry-liking link. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40,
867– 880.
Stern, D. N. (1974). The goal and structure of mother-infant play. Journal
of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 13, 402– 421. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-7138(09)61348-0
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Liking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of
theories. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 331–345. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0033-2909.102.3.331
Sterne, J. A., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001). Systematic reviews in
health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases
in meta-analysis. British Medical Journal: British Medical Journal, 323,
101–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101
ⴱ
Stires, L. (1980). Classroom seating location, student grades, and atti-
tudes: Environment or self-selection? Environment and Behavior, 12,
241–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916580122008
Street, R. L., Jr., & Giles, H. (1982). Speech accommodation theory: A
social cognitive approach to language and speech behavior. In M. Roloff
& C. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 193–226).
Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Streiner, D. L. (2003). Being inconsistent about consistency: When coef-
ficient alpha does and doesn’t matter. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 80, 217–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8003_01
ⴱ
Sunnafrank, M., & Ramirez, A., Jr. (2004). At first sight: Persistent
relational effects of get-acquainted conversations. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 21, 361–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0265407504042837
Swensen, C. H. (1972). The behavior of love. In H. A. Otto (Ed.), Love
today: A new exploration (pp. 86 –101). New York, NY: Association
Press.
 702 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER
Symonds, C. (1972). A vocabulary of sexual enticement and proposition.
Journal of Sex Research, 8, 136 –139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00224497209550739
ⴱ
Tesch, F. E., Huston, T. L., & Indenbaum, E. A. (1973). Attitude simi-
larity, attraction, and physical proximity in a dynamic space. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 3, 63–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1973.tb01295.x
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social
behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-
chology (pp. 181–227). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60227-0
Tesser, A. (2000). On the confluence of self-esteem maintenance mecha-
nisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 290 –299. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0404_1
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Tickle-Degnen, L., Rosenthal, R., & Harrigan, J. A. (1989). Nonverbal
behavior as determinant of favorableness of impressions formed: Eight
meta-analyses. Unpublished manuscript.
Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in
dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84, 558 –568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.84.3.558
Tomkins, S. S. (1995). Exploring affect: The selected writings of Silvan S.
Tomkins. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663994
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional
adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 11, 375– 424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095
(90)90017-Z
Tracy, J. L., & Matsumoto, D. (2008). The spontaneous expression of pride
and shame: Evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 105, 11655–11660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802
686105
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious
emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 103–125.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1502_01
Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A
description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before
speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication (pp. 321–347).
London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1980). Reflections on trends in cross-cultural research.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 11, 35–58. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0022022180111003
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly
Review of Biology, 46, 35–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/406755
ⴱ
Vacharkulksemsuk, T., Reit, E., Khambatta, P., Eastwick, P. W., Finkel,
E. J., & Carney, D. R. (2016). Dominant, open nonverbal displays are
attractive at zero-acquaintance. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 4009 – 4014. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1073/pnas.1508932113
Van den Noortgate, W., López-López, J. A., Marín-Martínez, F., &
Sánchez-Meca, J. (2013). Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect
sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 576 –594. http://dx.doi.org/10
.3758/s13428-012-0261-6
Vangelisti, A. L. (2001). Making sense of hurtful interactions in close
relationships: When hurt feelings create distance. In V. Manusov & J. H.
Harvey (Eds.), Attribution, communication behavior, and close relation-
ships (pp. 38 –58). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
van Holt, T., Johnson, J. C., Carley, K. M., Brinkley, J., & Diesner, J.
(2013). Rapid ethnographic assessment for cultural mapping. Poetics,
41, 366 –383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2013.05.004
van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The
interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 57–76. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0022-3514.86.1.57
ⴱ
van Straaten, I., Engels, R. C. M. E., Finkenauer, C., & Holland, R. W.
(2008). Sex differences in short-term mate preferences and behavioral
mimicry: A semi-naturalistic experiment. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
37, 902–911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9179-y
ⴱ
van Straaten, I., Holland, R. W., Finkenauer, C., Hollenstein, T., &
Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). Gazing behavior during mixed-sex interac-
tions: Sex and attractiveness effects. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39,
1055–1062. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9482-x
ⴱ
Veenstra, A. (2011). Predicting desires and perceptions during speed-
dates using automatically extracted cues (Unpublished master’s thesis).
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research syn-
thesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychologi-
cal Methods, 10, 428 – 443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.4
.428
Vorauer, J. D., Cameron, J. J., Holmes, J. G., & Pearce, D. G. (2003).
Invisible overtures: Fears of rejection and the signal amplification bias.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 793– 812. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.793
Vorauer, J. D., & Ratner, R. K. (1996). Who’s going to make the first
move? Pluralistic ignorance as an impediment to relationship formation.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 483–506. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/0265407596134001
Vuilleumier, P., George, N., Lister, V., Armony, J., & Driver, J. (2005).
Effects of perceived mutual gaze and gender on face processing and
recognition memory. Visual Cognition, 12, 85–101. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/13506280444000120
Wagley, C. (1949). The Maya of Northwestern Guatemala. In R. Wau-
chope & R. C. West (Eds.), Handbook of Middle American Indians: Vol.
1 natural environment and early cultures (pp. 46 – 68). Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2005). Forgiving communication as a
response to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 22, 723–742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02654075050
56445
Wallbott, H. G. (1998). Bodily expression of emotion. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 28, 879 – 896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6⬍879::AID-EJSP901⬎3.0.CO;2-W
Wallbott, H. G., & Scherer, K. R. (1986). How universal and specific is
emotional experience? Evidence from 27 countries on five continents.
Social Sciences Information, 25, 763–795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
053901886025004001
ⴱ
Walsh, N. A., Meister, L. A., & Kleinke, C. L. (1977). Interpersonal
attraction and visual behavior as a function of perceived arousal and
evaluation by an opposite sex person. The Journal of Social Psychology,
103, 65–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1977.9713297
Wang, Y. (2012). The control of mimicry by social signals (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of
mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219 –235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.98.2.219
ⴱ
Wellens, A. R., & Faletti, M. V. (1978). Interrelationships of six measures
of interpersonal attraction. Psychological Reports, 42, 1022. http://dx
.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1978.42.3.1022
Wexley, K. N., Fugita, S. S., & Malone, M. P. (1975). An applicant’s
nonverbal behavior and student-evaluators’ judgments in a structured
interview setting. Psychological Reports, 36, 391–394. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2466/pr0.1975.36.2.391
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR
ⴱ
Whalen, C. K., Flowers, J. V., Fuller, M. J., & Jernigan, T. (1975).
Behavioral studies of personal space during early adolescence. Man-
Environment Systems, 5, 289 –297.
ⴱ
Whitham, S. E. (2014). Speed-dating with autism: Initial romantic attrac-
tion among adults with autism spectrum disorder (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Whitty, M. T. (2004). Cyber-flirting: An examination of men’s and wom-
en’s flirting behaviour both offline and on the internet. Behaviour
Change, 21, 115–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/bech.21.2.115.55423
Williams, G. P., & Kleinke, C. L. (1993). Effects of mutual gaze and touch
on attraction, mood, and cardiovascular reactivity. Journal of Research
in Personality, 27, 170 –183.
Williams, S. (2014, March). How to tell if a shy girl likes you. Wingman.
Retrieved from http://get-a-wingman.com/how-to-tell-if-a-shy-girl-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
likes-you/
Wilson, T. D., & Dunn, D. S. (1986). Effects of introspection on attitude-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
behavior consistency: Analyzing reasons versus focusing on feelings.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 249 –263.
Wilson, T. D., Dunn, D. S., Kraft, D., & Lisle, D. J. (1989). Introspection,
attitude change, and attitude-behavior consistency: The disruptive ef-
fects of explaining why we feel the way we do. Advances in Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 22, 287–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0065-2601(08)60311-1
Wilson, T. D., Kraft, D., & Dunn, D. S. (1989). The disruptive effects of
explaining attitudes: The moderating effect of knowledge about the
attitude object. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 379 –
400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(89)90029-2
Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the
face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits
positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989 –
1000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989
(Appendices follow)
703
Woodall, W. G., Burgoon, J. K., & Markel, N. N. (1980). The effects of
facial-head cue combinations on interpersonal evaluations. Communication
Quarterly, 28, 47–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463378009369374
Wortman, C. B., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1977). Interpersonal attraction
and techniques of ingratiation in organizational settings. In B. M. Staw
& G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp.
133–178). Chicago, IL: St. Clair.
Wyland, C. L., & Forgas, J. P. (2010). Here’s looking at you kid: Mood
effects on processing eye gaze as a heuristic cue. Social Cognition, 28,
133–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2010.28.1.133
Young, S. M., & Benyshek, D. C. (2010). In search of human placen-
tophagy: A cross-cultural survey of human placenta consumption, dis-
posal practices, and cultural beliefs. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 49,
467– 484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2010.524106
Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Closing the debate over the
independence of affect. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The
role of affect in social cognition (pp. 31–58). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Zillman, D. (1978). Attribution and misattribution of excitatory reac-
tions. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions
in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 335–368). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
ⴱ
Zsok, F., Haucke, M., & Cees de Wit, N. (2015). [Speed-dating among
adults from the Netherlands]. Unpublished raw data.
Zuckerman, M., Driver, R., & Guadagno, N. S. (1985). Effects of segmen-
tation patterns on the perception of deception. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 9, 160 –168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01000737
Zuritsky, E. (Writer), Bushnell, C. (Writer), Rottenberg, J. (Writer), &
Frankel, D. (Director). (2003). Pick-a-little, talk-a-little [Television se-
ries episode]. In A. Ellis (Producer), Sex and the City. New York City,
NY: Home Box Office (HBO).
 704 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER

Appendix A
Summary of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis

Sex Target Cognitive Attraction

Reference N comp. person Delay Order ET appraisal measure Sex Behavior z

Asendorpf, Penke, and Back (2011) 382 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 3 Speed dating— .62

actual contact
2 1 3 2 1 0 2 3 Speed dating—yessing .23
Bahns, Crandall, Gillath, and Preacher
(2016; Study 2) 418 1 1 3 2 0 0 1 3 Future contact .15
Bahns et al. (2016; Study 3) 452 1 1 3 2 0 0 1 3 Future contact .22
Becker, Sommer, Bee, and Oxley (1973) 282 5 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 Sit/stand distance .58
Bernieri (1988) 38 5 1 1 1 0 0 1 3 Mimicry .95
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Brooks and Wilson (1978) 93 5 6 1 2 0 0 1 3 Sit/stand distance .58

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Brown and Montoya (2015; participants 27 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 Smile—Duchenne (freq.) .08

in a relationship) Laughter .05
Eye gaze (duration) .02
Brown and Montoya (2015; participants 15 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 Smile—Duchenne (freq.) .03
not in a relationship) Laughter ⫺.04
Eye gaze (duration) .03
Brown and Montoya (2015; participants 19 3 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 Smile—Duchenne (freq.) .24
in a relationship) Laughter .29
Eye gaze (duration) .15
Brown and Montoya (2015; participants 15 3 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 Smile—Duchenne (freq.) .15
not in a relationship) Laughter .24
Eye gaze (duration) .24
Brumbaugh, and Fraley (2010) 80 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 Eye gaze (duration) .09
Talkative (word count) .34
66 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 Eye gaze (duration) .19
Talkative (word count) .15
Byrne, Baskett, and Hodges (1971; 30 1 5 1 2 0 1 3 1 Sit/stand distance .62
Study 1) 1 5 1 2 0 1 3 2 Sit/stand distance .05
Byrne et al. (1971; Study 2) 30 1 5 1 2 0 1 3 1 Sit/stand distance .05
1 5 1 1 0 1 3 2 Sit/stand distance .62
Byrne, Ervin, and Lamberth (1970) 42 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 Sit/stand distance .52
2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 Sit/stand distance .38
Cooper, Dunne, Furey, and O’Doherty (2012) 39 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 Speed dating—yessing .71
Coutts, Schneider, and Montgomery (1980) 10 6 3 1 1 0 1 3 1 Eye gaze (freq.) .93
Eye gaze (duration) .34
Smile (freq.) .45
Smile (duration) .52
Body orientation .00
Forward lean .00
10 6 4 1 1 0 1 3 1 Eye gaze (freq.) .33
Eye gaze (duration) .79
Smile (freq.) .34
Smile (duration) .15
Body orientation .00
Forward lean .00
Cuperman and Ickes (2009) 50 7 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 Open posture .17
Body orientation .35
Eye gaze (freq.) .21
Eye gaze (duration) .22
Nod .33
Talkative (duration) .39
16 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 Open posture .23
Body orientation .12
Eye gaze (freq.) .28
Eye gaze (duration) .45
Nod .19
Talkative (duration) .31
2 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 Open posture .12

(Appendices continue)
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR 705

Appendix A (continued)

Sex Target Cognitive Attraction

Reference N comp. person Delay Order ET appraisal measure Sex Behavior z

Body orientation ⫺.18

Eye gaze (freq.) .65
Eye gaze (duration) .54
Nod .60
Talkative (duration) .55
30 6 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 Open posture ⫺.07
Body orientation .09
Eye gaze (freq.) .44
Eye gaze (duration) .46
Nod .40
Talkative (duration) .29
⫺.11
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Danyluck and Page-Gould (2017) 50 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 Smile (freq.)

Laughter .05
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Future contact .40

48 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 Smile (freq.) .22
Laughter .17
Future contact .38
Ehrlich and Graeven (1971) 40 7 2 1 1 0 0 2 2 Talkative (word count) .00
Emanuel (2012) 45 5 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 Mimicry—face-rubbing ⫺.19
Mimicry—cheek- ⫺.19
rubbing
Mimicry—ear-touching .25
Exline and Winters (1965) 28 1 5 1 3 0 0 1 3 Eye gaze (duration) .09
Farley (2014) 49 4 2 1 1 1 0 3 2 Mimicry—face/head- .32
touching
Gesticulation .00
Smile (duration) ⫺.01
Laughter ⫺.07
Open posture .12
Finkel and Eastwick (2009) 175 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 Speed dating—yessing .43
2 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 Speed dating—yessing .45
Fletcher, Kerr, Li, and Valentine (2014) 100 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 Speed dating—yessing .54
Goldberg, Kiesler, and Collins (1969) 37 7 2 1 1 0 1 3 2 Eye gaze (duration) .35
Grammer (1990) 79 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 Laughter .13
Open posture .16
2 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 Laughter .12
Open posture ⫺.31
Grammer and Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1990) 79 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 Laughter ⫺.01
2 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 Laughter .20
Grammer, Honda, Juette, and Schmitt 49 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 Smile (freq.) .20
(1999; German sample) Eye gaze (freq.) .44
Eye gaze (duration) .17
Head cant .04
Forward lean ⫺.27
Talkative (duration) .23
Talkative (word count) .65
Open posture .13
2 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 Smile (freq.) .10
Eye gaze (freq.) .06
Eye gaze (duration) ⫺.07
Head cant .19
Forward lean .02
Talkative (duration) .03
Talkative (word count) .32
Open posture .05

(Appendices continue)
 706 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER

Appendix A (continued)

Sex Target Cognitive Attraction

Reference N comp. person Delay Order ET appraisal measure Sex Behavior z

Grammer et al. (1999; Japanese sample) 29 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 Smile (freq.) .20

Eye gaze (freq.) .41
Eye gaze (duration) .34
Head cant ⫺.20
Forward lean ⫺.01
Talkative (duration) .33
Talkative (word count) .42
Open posture .05
2 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 Smile (freq.) .33
Eye gaze (freq.) .51
Eye gaze (duration) .48
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Head cant .16

Forward lean .10
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Talkative (duration) .38

Talkative (word count) .38
Open posture .08
Grammer et al. (2000) 45 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 Smile (duration) .13
Talkative (duration) .23
Head cant .24
Laughter .16
Gesticulation .29
2 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 Smile (duration) ⫺.20
Talkative (duration) .34
Hall and Xing (2015) 51 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 Eye gaze (duration) .28
Forward lean ⫺.12
Sit/stand distance ⫺.27
2 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 Eye gaze (duration) .27
Forward lean .06
Sit/stand distance ⫺.14
Jaques, McDuff, Kim, and Picard (2016) 13 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 Smile (freq.) ⫺.25
2 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 Smile (freq.) ⫺.21
Kahn and McGaughey (1977; Study 1a) 24 5 5 1 2 0 0 3 3 Sit/stand distance ⫺.22
Kahn and McGaughey (1977; Study 1b) 23 5 5 1 2 0 0 3 3 Sit/stand distance .22
Karremans and Verwijmeren (2008;
participants in a relationship) 20 4 2 1 1 1 0 3 2 Mimicry—face rubbing .30
Karremans and Verwijmeren (2008;
participants not in a relationship) 20 4 2 1 1 1 0 3 2 Mimicry—face rubbing .37
Kleinke, Desautels, and Knapp (1977) 48 5 5 1 1 0 0 1 3 Eye gaze (duration) .00
Kleinke, Staneski, and Berger (1975) 54 4 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 Eye gaze (freq.) .00
Eye gaze (duration) Sit/ .00
stand distance .00
54 4 4 1 1 1 0 1 2 Eye gaze (freq.) .00
Eye gaze (duration) .00
Sit/stand distance .00
Kleinke, and Walton (1982) 48 6 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 Smile (freq.) .00
Smile (duration) .00
Eye gaze (freq.) .00
Eye gaze (duration) .00
Talkative (duration) .00
Talkative (word count) .00
Latta (1976; Study 1a) 64 6 2 1 1 0 1 3 1 Body orientation ⫺.01
Latta (1976; Study 1b) 64 6 2 1 1 0 1 3 1 Body orientation .06
Sit/stand distance ⫺.08
Maxwell, Cook, and Burr (1985) 50 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 3 Eye gaze (duration) .40
Open posture ⫺.17
Gesticulation .28
Body orientation .21

(Appendices continue)
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR 707

Appendix A (continued)

Sex Target Cognitive Attraction

Reference N comp. person Delay Order ET appraisal measure Sex Behavior z

McFarland, Jurafsky, and Rawlings (2013) 46 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 Talkative (word count) .24

Laughter .37
48 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 Talkative (word count) .31
Laughter .30
Michinov and Monteil (2002; Study 1) 30 5 1 1 1 0 0 3 3 Sit/stand distance .26
Michinov and Monteil (2002; Study 2) 38 5 1 1 1 0 0 3 3 Sit/stand distance .15
Montoya and Smith (2015) 48 3 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 Sit/stand distance .23
Smile—Duchenne (freq.) .18
Talkative (duration) .28
Eye gaze (frequency) .30
Eye gaze (duration) .17
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

48 3 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 Smile—Duchenne (freq.) .22

Talkative (duration) .19
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Eye gaze (frequency) .29

Eye gaze (duration) .28
Sit/stand distance .20
48 3 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 Smile—Duchenne (freq.) .24
Talkative (duration) .29
Eye gaze (frequency) .19
Eye gaze (duration) .04
Sit/stand distance .51
48 3 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 Smile—Duchenne (freq.) .27
Talkative (duration) .27
Eye gaze (frequency) .15
Eye gaze (duration) ⫺.06
Sit/stand distance .54
Pe, Gotlib, Van den Noortgate, and 136 2 1 1 2 1 0 3 3 Speed dating— .33
Kuppens (2016) yessing
Pit, Quandt, and Karremans (2015) 51 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Sit/stand distance .01
2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 Sit/stand distance ⫺.05
102 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 Sit/stand distance .06
102 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 Sit/stand distance .20
Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, and 137 1 1 2 1 0 0 3 1 Speed dating—yessing .40
Finkel (2011) 1 1 3 1 0 0 3 1 Speed dating— .38
actual contact
45 1 1 2 1 0 0 3 2 Speed dating—yessing .77
1 1 3 1 0 0 3 2 Speed dating— .52
actual contact
Remland, and Jones (1989) 51 5 5 1 1 1 0 1 3 Talkative (duration) .33
Selterman, Chagnon, and Mackinnon 153 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 Speed dating—yessing .52
(2015) 2 Speed dating—yessing .44
Simpson, Gangestad, and Biek (1993) 109 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 Smile .00
Eye gaze (duration) .00
Head cant .00
Forward lean .00
Open posture .00
Laughter .00
Gesticulation .00
101 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 2 Smile (duration) .00
Eye gaze (duration) .00
Head cant .00
Forward lean .00
Open posture .00
Laughter .00
Gesticulation .00
Snyder and Endelman (1979) 90 1 2 1 1 0 1 3 3 Sit/stand distance .19
Stires (1980) 279 5 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 Sit/stand distance .00
Sunnafrank and Ramirez (2004) 130 1 1 3 2 0 1 3 3 Sit/stand distance .27
Tesch, Huston, and Indenbaum (1973) 116 6 2 1 2 0 1 3 1 Body orientation .00
Sit/stand distance .27

(Appendices continue)
 708 MONTOYA, KERSHAW, AND PROSSER

Appendix A (continued)

Sex Target Cognitive Attraction

Reference N comp. person Delay Order ET appraisal measure Sex Behavior z

Vacharkulksemsuk, Reit, Khambatta, 12 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 Speed dating—yessing .73

Eastwick, Finkel, and Carney (2016) Laughter .20
Smile (freq.) .28
2 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 Speed dating—yessing .62
Laughter .22
Smile (freq.) .10
van Straaten, Engels, Finkenauer, and 53 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 Mimicry—-pen- .18
Holland (2008) pushing
Mimicry— ⫺.15
posture change
56 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 2 Mimicry—pen- .05
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

pushing
Mimicry—posture .30
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

change
van Straaten, Holland, Finkenauer, 57 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 Eye gaze (duration) ⫺.06
Hollenstein, and Engels (2010) 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 2 Eye gaze (duration) .29
Veenstra (2011) 8 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 Speed dating—yessing .00
2 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 Speed dating—yessing .00
8 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 1 Speed dating— .00
actual contact
2 1 2 2 1 0 2 2 Speed dating— .00
actual contact
Walsh, Meister, and Kleinke (1977) 40 3 3 1 1 1 0 3 1 Eye gaze (freq.) .00
Eye gaze (duration) .00
40 3 2 1 1 1 0 3 1 Eye gaze (freq.) .00
Eye gaze (duration) .00
40 3 4 1 1 1 0 3 1 Eye gaze (freq.) .00
Eye gaze (duration) .00
Wellens and Faletti (1978) 36 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Smile (duration) .00
Talkative (duration) .00
Eye gaze (duration) .00
2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 Smile (duration) .00
Talkative (word count) .00
Eye gaze (duration) .00
Whalen, Flowers, Fuller, and Jernigan (1975) 50 5 6 1 2 0 0 1 3 Sit/stand distance .46
Whitham (2014) 6 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Speed dating—yessing .39
18 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 Speed dating—yessing .39
Zsok, Haucke, and Cees de Wit (2015) 16 2 1 3 2 1 0 1 3 Speed dating— .15
actual contact
16 2 1 3 2 1 0 2 3 Speed dating— .20
actual contact
Note. Sex comp ⫽ sex composition; Target person ⫽ target person behavior; Order ⫽ assessment order; ET ⫽ evaluation threat; Sex composition: 1 ⫽
same sex interactions, 2 ⫽ other sex interactions, 3 ⫽ woman–man interactions, 4 ⫽ man–woman interactions, 5 ⫽ both same and other sex interactions,
6 ⫽ woman–woman interactions, 7 ⫽ man–man interactions; Target person behavior: 1 ⫽ fellow participant, 2 ⫽ neutral acting confederate, 3 ⫽ positive
acting confederate, 4 ⫽ negative acting confederate, 5 ⫽ confederate– collapsed, 6 ⫽ participant–friend/partner; Delay: 1 ⫽ under 1 hr, 2 ⫽ same day, 3 ⫽
over 1 week; Assessment order: 1 ⫽ attraction assessed after behavior, 2 ⫽ behavior assessed after attraction, 3 ⫽ before and after measure of attraction;
Evaluative threat salience: 0 ⫽ absent, 1 ⫽ present; Cognitive appraisal salience: 0 ⫽ not salient, 1 ⫽ salient; Attraction measure: 1 ⫽ affective attraction,
2 ⫽ behavioral attraction, 3 ⫽ mix of affective and behavioral attraction; Participant sex: 1 ⫽ woman, 2 ⫽ men, 3 ⫽ collapsed data from men and women.

(Appendices continue)
 SELF-REPORTED ATTRACTION AND ENACTED BEHAVIOR 709

Appendix B
Behaviors Excluded From the Main Analyses

Behavior Source(s) k z SE Lower CI Upper CI z score

Future contact Danyluck & Page-Gould, 2007 2 .426 .124 .183 .669 3.435ⴱⴱ
Vocal response Farley, 2014; McFarland et al., 2013; 4 .345 .077 .195 .495 4.506ⴱⴱ
Tesch et al., 1973
Looking through Grammer et al., 2000 1 .272 .163 ⫺.049 .592 1.663
Shrug Grammer et al., 2000 1 .092 .163 ⫺.228 .412 .564
Flirtatious glance Simpson et al., 1993 2 .071 .082 ⫺.089 .232 .869
Eyebrow flashes Simpson et al., 1993 2 .071 .079 ⫺.085 .227 .895
Fold hands Grammer et al., 1999 4 .056 .092 ⫺.123 .236 .614
Head down Grammer et al., 2000 1 .052 .163 ⫺.269 .372 .315
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Adaptor Grammer et al., 1999 4 .034 .092 ⫺.145 .214 .375

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Move shoulders Grammer et al., 1999 4 ⫺.008 .092 ⫺.188 .171 ⫺.089
Look down Simpson et al., 1993 2 ⫺.030 .082 ⫺.191 .130 ⫺.369
Breast presentation Grammer et al., 2000 1 ⫺.059 .163 ⫺.379 .262 ⫺.360
Cover face Grammer et al., 1999 4 ⫺.109 .092 ⫺.288 .071 ⫺1.188
Palm Grammer et al., 2000 2 ⫺.110 .122 ⫺.348 .129 ⫺.903
Head toss Grammer et al., 2000 1 ⫺.220 .163 ⫺.541 .100 ⫺1.349
Arms parallel Grammer et al., 2000 1 ⫺.220 .163 ⫺.541 .100 ⫺1.349
Knees toward body Grammer et al., 2000 1 ⫺.231 .163 ⫺.551 .090 ⫺1.412
Roll up sleeves Grammer et al., 2000 1 ⫺.231 .163 ⫺.551 .090 ⫺1.412
Look around Grammer et al., 2000 1 ⫺.241 .163 ⫺.561 .079 ⫺1.475
Deictograph Grammer et al., 2000 1 ⫺.252 .163 ⫺.572 .069 ⫺1.539
Arm flex Grammer et al., 2000 1 ⫺.262 .163 ⫺.582 .058 ⫺1.603
Move legs Grammer et al., 2000 1 ⫺.380 .163 ⫺.701 ⫺.060 ⫺2.328ⴱ
ⴱ ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01. p ⬍ .001.

Received October 8, 2016

Revision received January 29, 2018
Accepted February 2, 2018 䡲

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at https://my.apa.org/portal/alerts/ and you will
be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!