A new University of Iowa study shows that providing instruction and feedback to college-aged men can help them more accurately interpret nonverbal cues, such as body language and facial expressions, from their female peers when determining a woman’s current level of sexual interest.

The study, “Effects of Gender, Rape-Supportive Attitudes and Explicit Instruction on Perception of Women’s Momentary Sexual Interest,” was published online Oct. 20 in the journal Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

Eventually, this type of research might be useful in enhancing efforts to prevent sexual aggression on college campuses, says Teresa Treat, professor of psychology in the UI Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.

“Sexual aggression is a serious problem on college campuses across the country,” Treat says. “While current prevention programs are very valuable, they are not yet as effective as any of us would like them to be. Researchers have shown that misperception of a woman’s sexual-interest cues plays a role in sexual aggression; this research takes the novel step of trying to modify what people focus on when judging a woman’s sexual interest.”

In the study, 496 male and female undergraduates between the ages of 18 and 24 were shown a series of 130 full-body photographs of female models wearing warm-weather clothing that varied in degree of sexual provocativeness. The models also exhibited various nonverbal cues, such as rejection, sadness, friendliness, and sexual interest.

Participants were asked to judge how sexually interested the women in the photographs appeared at that moment, or if they appeared to be rejecting a sexual advance. Half of the participants received additional instructions before rating the photographs, which asked them to focus on the women’s facial expressions and body language while completely ignoring both the attractiveness of the models and the style of clothing they were wearing.

The study showed both men and women relied most on the models’ nonverbal cues when judging sexual interest. However, women relied on the models’ nonverbal cues more than men did, while men tended to rely more on the models’ overall attractiveness. Women also relied more than men on the provocativeness of the models’ clothing when making the same judgments. These connections between judgment and gender were key components of the study’s findings.

Equally as important, Treat says, the study showed that when given instruction to focus only on nonverbal cues, both males and females were able to focus more on nonverbal cues and less on attractiveness, even if the participants endorsed more rape-supportive attitudes (meaning that a person tends to participate in victim-blaming or normalizes, excuses, or condones assault or rape).

“This finding suggests that instruction could help even men who are at a higher risk of sexual aggression to focus on women’s nonverbal cues,” Treat says, adding that short of hearing a woman say she isn’t interested, these cues are the next-best way for men to realize that a woman doesn’t want to be approached. “What this study indicates is focusing more on nonverbal cues and less on overall attractiveness and provocativeness of dress when judging how women feel is associated with a reduced risk of aggressive behavior among men.”

Treat also has conducted research into the effects of providing feedback to males on the accuracy of their judgments after they have judged the level of a woman’s sexual interest. In that study, titled “Enhancing the Accuracy of Men’s Perceptions of Women’s Sexual Interest in the Laboratory,” Treat found that even among high-risk men, repeated practice with feedback shifted the men’s focus to women’s nonverbal cues.

Comparing the results of the two studies suggests that both feedback and instruction make a difference, but feedback has a larger impact on men’s ability to more accurately interpret non-verbal cues, Treat says.

Much more study is needed before these instruction and feedback findings could be used to improve or expand prevention programs for college students, Treat says, but her research has provided a starting point.

“All we know at this point is that brief instruction coupled with feedback on the accuracy of a judgment is enough to increase focus on women’s nonverbal cues and decrease focus on less-valid indicators,” she says. “Many questions remain about the duration of the effects (of instruction and feedback) and their impact on real-world behavior. It will be critical to study whether the instruction and feedback that change men’s perceptions in a lab can influence their real-world behavior.”