It might be easy to recall an optimistic male friend or acquaintance who thinks every female waitress is flirting with him. Every time a woman so much as smiles at him, he jumps to promiscuous conclusions.

While the man’s “I think she’s got a thing for me,” perceptive tendency is a common stereotype that has made an appearance in countless romantic comedies and sitcoms, there is a rich layer of evolutionary theory and experimental evidence beneath the gendered cliché.

When not related to sexual intent, our tendency to mistakenly perceive or react to a signal that isn't actually present is called the false alarm bias. It is a cognitive error where people identify a threat, opportunity, or behavior based on incomplete or misleading information, resulting in false positives. This bias is often driven by heightened sensitivity to certain cues due to past experiences, training, or the context of the situation. 

Sexual Underpeception and Commitment Skepticism 

Two other cognitive errors have been associated with sexual overperception bias: sexual underperception bias and commitment skepticism. First, its counterpart, sexual underperception bias, touts that women often underestimate sexual interest from members of the opposite sex (though the research isn’t super consistent).²⁰ The suspected evolutionary roots of this mechanism are to minimize the costly errors associated with “mating,” such as a heavy burden associated with child rearing and, of more modern and realistic concern, unwanted sexual advances or stigmatism associated with promiscuity.²⁰ Evidence for the sexual overperception bias and the sexual underperception bias have been found across cultures with different levels of gender equality.

Researchers have also talked about the sexual overperception bias in relation to the commitment skepticism bias, where women tend to underestimate male interest in committed relationships. These two biases are typically understood as relating to the binary male and female, but some have argued that rather than viewing these biases as gender specific, they should be understood as contingent on the costs and benefits of the two types of errors involved.¹⁴ 

To get a better idea of the varying ways these biases can present themselves across different genders, imagine the following scenario. A woman is assessing whether her new love interest wants to take things to the next level and commit to an exclusive relationship. Her father is also present and is assessing the young man as well. Due to his vested interest in his daughter finding a suitable partner with whom she can start a family, the father is also likely to experience the commitment skepticism bias as he wants to make sure that he really is the right guy. 

Now, consider a man trying to determine whether a woman is interested in him. He reads her glances and smiles as an indication that she is. His mother is also present and is also trying to work out if this woman is a potential girlfriend. Similar to the father in the scenario above, she has a vested interest in seeing her son happy and starting a family, so she may experience, albeit not directly, the sexual overperception bias. 

In both scenarios, the sex of the person is irrelevant; it is the cost-benefit matrix that each person faces that determines what kind of ‘error’ (underestimation or overestimation) they make. 

Since sexual intent is rarely expressed explicitly, it is subject to misunderstandings and inaccuracies. Research shows that men are more likely to overperceive a potential partner’s sexual interest, while women are more likely to underperceive it.¹ This finding does not imply that all men overperceive sexual interest, or that such overperception cannot occur amongst women. It does imply, however, that men are more likely to be susceptible to the bias than women.

Regardless of the notable sex differences, the bias can lead to incongruent social interactions with one individual falsely assuming another is interested in them sexually. If this assumption is acted on, it can lead to an inappropriate or uncomfortable interaction between the individuals, and in the context of the workplace, these misperceptions can hinder present and future relationships between colleagues. Studies have shown that women are more likely to perceive sexually ambiguous comments as sexual harassment and that men are more likely to be perceived as engaging in sexual harassment.¹¹  

On a group level, sexual overperception bias can lead to toxic work cultures where women often find themselves in uncomfortable situations as their male colleagues falsely presume sexual interest.

Multiple studies have found that while the sexual overperception bias is greater among men, this effect can be explained by an individual’s level of sociosexuality–one’s willingness to engage in sexual activity outside of a committed relationship.² In one study, where participants judged the flirtatiousness of faces, sociosexuality scores actually explained a greater share of the overperception than sex alone (it is worth noting that sociosexuality is generally higher among men as a group across most cultures.)³

Social spaces where there is a greater prominence of sociosexuality (e.g., college campuses) may be more prone to sexual overperception bias. On a similar thread, research on the bias has also found that men scoring higher in self-reported “masculinity” are more prone to sexual overperception.⁴ This could mean that workplaces with greater levels of masculine culture would experience more instances of sexual overperception bias.

Many of the theories as to why we experience sexual overperception bias stem from evolutionary biology and natural selection. As reproductive output has the potential to be higher in men than women, it is more “costly” for men to miss a mating opportunity than it is for women. For women, it is more costly to “mate” due to lengthy gestational periods and labour. Differences in costs result in men being more sensitive to sexually opportunistic cues. In less academic terms, since men don’t have to go through the laborious journey of child-rearing to pass their DNA along, they’re naturally inclined to be more attentive to the possibility of sex as it’s less costly for them to replicate their genes than it is for women.

With a greater implicit attentiveness, the prevalence of false positives in judging sexual interest is inevitable. This type of cognitive error has persisted over generations of homo sapiens, however, and is the crux of error management theory (EMT).⁵ Error management theory suggests that certain cognitive biases can persist throughout evolutionary processes when the cost of one type of error is greater than the alternative. Applied to the sexual overperception bias, this theory suggests that the costs of missed sexual opportunity for men were greater than the costs of pursuing a disinterested woman.¹⁵ Said differently, for biological males, a false-positive manifested in the sexual overperception bias is less costly than a false-negative, where a woman would be expressing sexual interest, but the man would be oblivious (no gene replication for him).

Evolutionary explanations are very theory-heavy, and though they may offer a compelling story to anyone who values Darwinian logic, it is important to keep in mind that if there’s any truth to them, it’s likely only part of the story, as nature and nurture often work together rather than apart.

Some experts have contested the evolutionary angle, suggesting the sex differences found in the research can be eliminated by exploring additional individual differences apart from sex, such as sociosexuality, as previously highlighted, as well as self-rated attractiveness and personal sexual interest in the other person.¹ Others, meanwhile, have suggested that the bias is culturally dependent rather than determined by sex, meaning overperception is a product of societal norms where men are expected to initiate sexual behavior. A study conducted in Norway, however, a country high in gender equality and egalitarianism, also found sexual overperception to occur disproportionately in men compared to women, supporting the EMT framework.⁶

Sexual overperception bias is a far-reaching cognitive error as it potentially rests at the core of several workplace harassment incidences. In a corporate landscape where people are often prompted to be warm and amiable with one another, the opportunity for misperceptions in sexual interest is unfortunately vast.

A 2016 study by a special task force under the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,⁷ found that 60% of women say they experience “unwanted sexual attention, sexual coercion, sexually crude conduct, or sexist comments” in the workplace. Although there are certainly many factors that contribute to the issue, addressing the sexual overperception bias is a strong starting point in understanding and rectifying the injustices and sexual harassment women experience in the workplace.

Being rejected by someone simply because you misread their verbal or nonverbal signals can have a negative impact on self-esteem and even mental health. Romantic or sexual rejection, whether it be with a stranger or a long-term intimate partner, has been found to contribute to distinct patterns of depressive symptoms, particularly in young and middle-aged adults.19 Understanding how to avoid the sexual overperception bias in everyday scenarios, especially when actively looking for a partner, may be an important step to avoiding a potential decline in mental health associated with the loneliness epidemic. 

While the sexual overperception bias is important to keep in mind when making a judgment on another’s sexual interest, it is even more crucial to do so when considering whether to act on suspected interest. One should consider whether the time and place are appropriate to probe such a belief. It can also be helpful to consider the evidence in the third person. If you had seen a woman hold the door and smile for another man, would you really wager that she’s seducing him? As the colloquial antidote to vanity goes: Don’t flatter yourself.

It may sound quite obvious but sexual overperception bias has been shown to be less impactful for those in committed partnerships. Most research on the phenomenon relates to its effect in the context of initial encounter or for fictitious or unknown targets. One study, however, suggests that men in established romantic or sexual relationships actually shift in the direction of the opposite bias and under perceive their romantic partner’s sexual desire.¹⁶ This under perception actually has a functional purpose due to its association with their partner feeling more satisfied and committed to the relationship. 

The sexual overperception bias first emerged in the academic literature in 1982 following a paper from Antonia Abbey.⁸ Abbey’s lab study found that male participants perceived female actors to be more seductive. She also discovered that men were more likely than women to perceive interactions in sexual terms and make sexual judgments, and that male participants seemed to perceive mere friendliness from females as seduction.

Since Abbey’s original paper, numerous studies have replicated its findings using an array of methodologies. While the notion that sexual overperception bias being mostly a male phenomenon persists throughout the research, the interpretation of such a statement remains mixed, with some hesitant to draw evolutionary conclusions, arguing there is more nuance to the effect apart from just sex differences.

In recent years, studies have gone as far as to debunk the existence of the sexual overperception bias, arguing that the original methodology to develop the concept was flawed.¹⁷ A study conducted by researchers at Kansas State University in 2021 found no evidence that men tend to overperceive women’s sexual interest.¹⁸ The authors argue that the bias may have come around as the result of flawed methodology in early studies and that, in reality, men and women are both fairly accurate in their perceptions of sexual intent from another person. 

The study asked 85 participants to read brief descriptions of two people interacting and estimate how much sexual intent was being communicated in each vignette. The descriptions were unambiguous, such as ‘She is touching and kissing you, she intimately holds you.’ There were no differences between men's and women’s accuracy in perceiving sexual intent, and men weren’t found to be over-perceiving interest. 

In a second study, this time with 271 participants, the researchers tested more ambiguous descriptions such as ‘she shows interest in the conversation with you. She frequently smiles at you.’ Again, the researcher found no evidence of the sexual overperception bias. 

What they did conclude, however, was that there were problems in the methodology of previous research on sexual overperception bias; that is, actual sexual interest was subtracted from the participant’s estimate of interest to obtain a sexual misperception score. As a result, men’s misperception scores were greater than women’s, even as men’s perceptions were closer to the true levels of interest communicated. The new, revised methodology compared participants' perceptions against several other different baseline measures, leading to, they argue, more reliable data. 

Product advertising often draws heavily on gender bias to appeal to certain audiences. These can include stereotypical representations of gender roles, characteristics, and behaviors and are used to influence consumers’ perceptions and purchasing decisions. Just think back to the adverts you watched as a child; many likely depicted girls playing with dolls or helping in toy kitchens, while boys were shown building with blocks, racing toy cars, or engaging in adventurous outdoor play. 

Taking this idea one step further, product marketers can leverage the sexual overperception bias and gender-specific strategies to increase interest in their product or service. A new fitness app targeted at men, for example, may use in their promotional video an attractive female trainer demonstrating the features of the app while working out. Feeling as though the actress is addressing them directly, the male viewer may experience an unconscious sexual interest in the actress, which may transfer into a desire to use the app. As psychologist David M Buss notes, men are more likely to ‘falsely infer that women are sexually interested in them when [women] merely smile,’¹³ so it stands to reason that male viewers may feel some degree of connection to the actress. 

Although nothing is yet known about the relationship between sexual over perception bias and AI, researchers have highlighted the presence of gender biases in machine learning tools. According to one study, automated robots which were trained on large datasets and standard models were found to exhibit strongly stereotypical and biased behavior in terms of gender and race.¹² 

So, how does AI become biased? Well, first, there are the datasets which are used to teach the machine learning algorithm. If not enough women are involved in the learning processes (women are grossly underrepresented in tech jobs), there will be large gaps in the AI’s knowledge. On a broader level, machine learning is led by humans, so it stands to reason that the gender biases we have in the ‘real world’ get passed onto the machines that we’re training. 

Some AI tools continue to perpetuate gender biases. The AI service ‘Genderify’, for example, takes a person’s name, username, and email address and tries to identify their gender. Names beginning with ‘Dr’ appear to be consistently labeled as male: ‘Dr Meghan Smith’ was identified as having a 75.90% likelihood of belonging to a male, despite the common female name. Clearly, the dataset used to train the algorithm behind Genderify didn’t include enough women PhD and MD holders. Luckily, this platform was short-lived.

Without relating to any specific cases, it’s not hard to imagine an incident where a female subordinate exhibits friendliness around a male superior, who in turn interprets it as sexual interest and subsequently makes advancements towards the woman.

These interpretive social asymmetries are all too familiar in the context of the sexual overperception bias. With perceptions of sexual interest stemming from feedback as subtle as body language,⁹ despite their inaccuracy, these misperceptions can lead to the inappropriate behavior we eventually read about in the newspaper. Many of the men involved in these high-profile #MeToo cases claim the situation was a misunderstanding or miscommunication.

Researchers Carin Perilloux, Judith Easton, and David Buss used a speed-dating paradigm to explore the sexual overperception bias.¹⁰ They had opposite sex undergraduate participants rotate around a room engaging in 3-minute conversations about neutral topics. Perilloux and colleagues found the usual effect: that the men overestimated the women’s sexual interest while the women underestimated it. Interestingly, they found that the magnitude of men’s overperception was related to a woman’s physical attractiveness. In other words, men were more likely to think a woman was into them when they thought that woman was attractive.

What it is

The sexual overperception bias relates to the tendency to overperceive another individual’s sexual interest. It is often explained using error management theory, although other theories for existence have been put forward. 

Why it happens

Many support the evolutionary framework of error-management theory in accounting for the sexual overperception bias. There are however, additional individual differences apart from sex that can explain some of the effects. Overall, the phenomenon is likely a result of a number of factors.

Example 1 – #MeToo

Sexual overperception bias provides psychological context to the contentious discussion surrounding the #MeToo movement. Although the bias cannot tell us which situations are and are not appropriate, it can offer insight into the why behind some of these problematic incidences.

Example 2 – Speed Dating

Researchers applied a speed dating paradigm in exploring the sexual overperception bias. They were able to replicate classic findings, and also found that men were even more likely to overperceive sexual interest when the woman was attractive.

How to avoid it

Like with many cognitive biases, it helps to acknowledge that what you see is not always what others see. We see what we believe, with such beliefs not always being true. In the cases of sexual overperception bias, it is important not to jump to early conclusions based on a potentially flawed perception.

Implicit Bias, Gender – and why we are all culprits

Although not directly related to the sexual overperception bias, this piece addresses gender-related implicit biases in the workplace at large, and how they ultimately disadvantage women.

Gender and Self-perception in Competition

This piece covers a different area of research in sex differences that have implications in the workplace: self-perception. Analogous to the sexual overperception bias, men tend to overestimate their intelligence while women tend to underestimate it.