ArticleScientific reports2026
Large language models can detect verbal indicators of romantic attraction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
What makes people "click" on a first date and become mutually attracted to one another? While understanding and predicting the dynamics of romantic interactions used to be exclusive to human judgment, we show that Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate some capacity to detect linguistic cues of romantic attraction during brief getting-to-know-you interactions. Examining data from 964 speed dates, we show that ChatGPT (and Claude 3) can predict both objective and subjective indicators of speed dating success (r = 0.12-0.23), and that their judgements overlap with those made by human observers (r = 0.21-0.35) with modest levels of accuracy. Notably, however, ChatGPT's predictions of actual matching (i.e., the exchange of contact information) were not only on par with those of human judges who had access to the same information but also incremental to speed daters' own predictions. Drawing on the Brunswik lens model, our findings also offer insights into how ChatGPT arrives at its judgements. Specifically, they suggest that its predictions can be explained by a combination of common content dimensions (e.g. the valence of the conversation) as well as more complex conversational dynamics (e.g., the use of humor, common interests or aligned values). While we found substantial overlap in the social cues utilized by ChatGPT and human raters, not all of these cues were valid predictors of matching. This suggests that both humans and LLMs rely on shared but imperfect heuristics when judging romantic attraction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.