How do you know if someone's interested in you? That's a question that has baffled men and women alike since the beginning of time. Is physical attraction something nebulous and enigmatic, or is it really just a simple case of observation and deduction? As it turns out, it's the latter. What was once the province of poets and artists is now being picked apart by scientists, who have analysed behaviourism, to determine the silent signals of lust governing human interaction.

Countless studies have dissected the rules of attraction, and there are thousands of pages of data out there all about what that careless gesture, or purring intonation really means. If you're worrying "what did she mean when she said that?" or "did he mean to brush up against me?" or "are they making eye contact or just not blinking much?" you can consult the relevant literature to determine whether or not your feelings are about to be reciprocated or rejected.

Now, the mother of all endeavours has just been published, which claims it has comprehensively cracked the code behind human desire.

The study, entitled 'A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Relation Between Interpersonal Attraction and Enacted Behaviour,' was published this week in the scientific journal Psychological Bulletin. The researchers responsible for it have gone so far as to call it the "most comprehensive analysis ever" on the science of attraction.

In a complex meta-analysis of over 50 other empirical studies, the boffins found that certain cues like prolonged eye contact, smiles, laughter, and initiating conversation are strongly associated with human attraction across almost all world cultures. In western culture, mimicking behaviours and head nodding are also apparently strong indicators of attraction. So if you see someone who nods a lot, smiles back, and mirrors your stance and posture, it could mean that they're into you.

Commenting on the study's findings, lead author R Matthew Montoya, of the University of Dayton in Ohio, stated: 

"There is a specific suite of behaviours associated with liking, and this same set of behaviours can be found in cultures from around the world ... Whether we engage in these behaviours has little or nothing to do with romantic desires. These behaviours apply when doctors interact with their patients, parents interact with their kids, or when salespeople talk to their customers ... When we like someone, we act in ways to get them to trust us. From this perspective, we engage in these behaviours to increase the degree of overlap, interdependence, and commitment to an agreement."

So you might not be able to use the above info to become a master seducer or peerless pick-up-artist, but you can use to to gauge whether someone is already attracted to you, and based on that info, it's certainly more likely that they could be attracted to you.

However, it's not an outright guarantee. Do you know what really is a surefire way of being 100 per cent certain of whether someone likes you or not? I'll tell you: asking them. Seriously, this never fails.

How do you know if someone's interested in you? That's a question that has baffled men and women alike since the beginning of time. Is physical attraction something nebulous and enigmatic, or is it really just a simple case of observation and deduction? As it turns out, it's the latter. What was once the province of poets and artists is now being picked apart by scientists, who have analysed behaviourism, to determine the silent signals of lust governing human interaction.

Countless studies have dissected the rules of attraction, and there are thousands of pages of data out there all about what that careless gesture, or purring intonation really means. If you're worrying "what did she mean when she said that?" or "did he mean to brush up against me?" or "are they making eye contact or just not blinking much?" you can consult the relevant literature to determine whether or not your feelings are about to be reciprocated or rejected.

Now, the mother of all endeavours has just been published, which claims it has comprehensively cracked the code behind human desire.

The study, entitled 'A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Relation Between Interpersonal Attraction and Enacted Behaviour,' was published this week in the scientific journal Psychological Bulletin. The researchers responsible for it have gone so far as to call it the "most comprehensive analysis ever" on the science of attraction.

In a complex meta-analysis of over 50 other empirical studies, the boffins found that certain cues like prolonged eye contact, smiles, laughter, and initiating conversation are strongly associated with human attraction across almost all world cultures. In western culture, mimicking behaviours and head nodding are also apparently strong indicators of attraction. So if you see someone who nods a lot, smiles back, and mirrors your stance and posture, it could mean that they're into you.

Commenting on the study's findings, lead author R Matthew Montoya, of the University of Dayton in Ohio, stated: 

"There is a specific suite of behaviours associated with liking, and this same set of behaviours can be found in cultures from around the world ... Whether we engage in these behaviours has little or nothing to do with romantic desires. These behaviours apply when doctors interact with their patients, parents interact with their kids, or when salespeople talk to their customers ... When we like someone, we act in ways to get them to trust us. From this perspective, we engage in these behaviours to increase the degree of overlap, interdependence, and commitment to an agreement."

So you might not be able to use the above info to become a master seducer or peerless pick-up-artist, but you can use to to gauge whether someone is already attracted to you, and based on that info, it's certainly more likely that they could be attracted to you.

However, it's not an outright guarantee. Do you know what really is a surefire way of being 100 per cent certain of whether someone likes you or not? I'll tell you: asking them. Seriously, this never fails.