We’ve all seen it happen: a friendly laugh gets mistaken for flirtation, or a polite compliment for a come‑on. Almost half a century of research shows that men are generally more likely than women to overperceive sexual or romantic interest, an effect known as the sexual overperception bias. This is often explained by researchers in terms of error management theory, which simply suggests that it’s less costly for men to risk an embarrassing situation than to miss a genuine opportunity. Building on this, later studies revealed a more complex story, pointing to factors such as self‑rated attractiveness or openness to casual sex (i.e., sociosexual orientation), and emotion projection (i.e., the tendency to think others feel what we feel). Context matters too: bars, parties, and alcohol make people more likely to overperceive attraction.

Most of this research has focused solely on heterosexual interactions. And “most of this research” here means “virtually all papers to date". Consequently, we know next to nothing about whether (and if so, how) sexual overperception shows up in lesbian, gay, bisexual, or other queer communities. A 2024 mixed‑method study set out to explore this gap.

What the lone LGBTQ+ study found

The researchers began by simply asking LGB participants what behaviours signalled sexual interest. Their nominations looked a lot like those from heterosexual samples. In a small field study with gay men, the team compared how participants rated their own intentions versus others’ intentions when engaging in specific behaviours and found no evidence of a sexual overperception bias. A larger survey including heterosexual and LGB respondents asked people to recall times when their friendliness was misinterpreted as flirtation. Bisexual women were less likely than other groups to report having their friendliness misread, and across all groups misperception felt awkward, embarrassing, or simply indifferent. These results suggest that the overperception pattern isn’t a universal human default but may be shaped by context, community norms, and who’s interpreting whom.

Bridging the gap: What future research should tackle

The data on LGBTQ+ communities are thin, but they raise crucial points for the future. First, it is paramount that we recruit bigger and broader samples. A limited number of studies with only few participants cannot capture the diversity of queer experiences. Future work should be intentionally designed with lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and nonbinary communities in mind. In a similar vein, the best way to go about this is to collaborate with communities. Studies should be co‑designed with LGBTQ+ organisations to ensure the researchers ask the right questions and participants feel safe sharing their experiences. Most of all? Include trans and nonbinary perspectives. Most existing research collapses gender into a male–female binary, ignoring the experiences of trans and nonbinary individuals. Finally, the best way to examine the sexual overperception bias is through face-to-face interactions, such as speed dates. The problem with imagined scenarios is that behaviour is removed from its real setting, and what people say they’d do often doesn’t match what they actually do in practice.

Why this matters

Inclusive research can inform consent education and help us understand how our perceptions are shaped by individual differences, context, and other factors. By looking beyond heteronormative assumptions, we not only correct a blind spot in science but also empower people in all communities to communicate more clearly and respectfully.

Banner designed by pikisuperstar / Freepik