Meeting People Authentically

A Complete Approach Guide

A compassionate, evidence-based guide for anyone who wants to meet potential partners with confidence, respect, and genuine connection

Why Meeting People Feels Hard in the Modern World

"Meeting someone new — truly new, in real life or online — is one of the most fundamentally human acts we perform. It is also, for many people, one of the most terrifying."

We live in an era of paradoxes when it comes to meeting romantic partners. We have more tools for connecting than any generation in history: dating apps, social networks, event platforms, community groups, and instant messaging. And yet reported loneliness has risen consistently over the past two decades.[1] Many people describe having rich online social lives while feeling profoundly disconnected in person. Others report swiping through hundreds of profiles a week without a single meaningful interaction.

At the same time, the old structures that once brought strangers together — neighborhood communities, religious institutions, workplace socialising — have weakened or become less relevant for many people. Meeting someone "organically" now often means navigating a complex, ambiguous social landscape without a map.

This guide is that map. It is written for anyone who wants to meet potential romantic partners — people of any gender, any sexual orientation, any relationship structure (monogamous or otherwise), any level of social experience. Whether you feel completely at ease meeting new people or whether the very idea fills you with dread, this guide has something for you.

What This Guide Is — and Isn't

  • It is evidence-based: claims are grounded in published psychological research, not pickup mythology
  • It is consent-centred: meeting people authentically means respecting their autonomy and signals at every stage
  • It treats meeting people as a mutual skill: not a performance, a hunt, or a numbers game
  • It is especially supportive of shy, anxious, and introverted people — you are not broken; you are normal
  • It is not a manipulation manual: techniques designed to override someone's genuine preferences are not included here

📊 Did You Know?

A landmark 2019 study found that online meeting has now overtaken every other way couples meet in the United States — more than meeting through friends, at work, or at bars and restaurants combined.[2]

Yet the same research found that relationships that began with in-person meetings reported marginally higher long-term satisfaction on average — suggesting neither channel is inherently superior, and that how you approach matters more than where.

One clarification before we begin: the word "approach" in this guide means the act of initiating connection — not a gendered or sexualised technique. Anyone can approach anyone. The principles here apply equally across all genders and all orientations.

Understanding Social Anxiety: The Science of Shyness

"Shyness is not a flaw to overcome — it is a deeply human response to vulnerability. Understanding it is the first step to working with it rather than against it."

If the idea of approaching someone you're attracted to makes your heart race, your thoughts race, or your feet freeze — you are not alone, and you are not broken. Social anxiety in romantic contexts is among the most common forms of anxiety reported in general population studies, with some research suggesting it affects over 12% of people at clinically significant levels at some point in their lives.[3]

The Biology of Approach Anxiety

When we approach a stranger, particularly one we find attractive, the brain's threat-detection systems activate. The amygdala — the region responsible for processing potential social threats — fires in ways nearly identical to its response to physical danger.[4] This is not irrational. For most of human evolutionary history, rejection from one's social group could mean isolation — a genuinely dangerous outcome.

The result is a cascade of stress responses: elevated heart rate, cortisol release, constricted thinking, and a powerful drive to avoid the perceived threat. In the moment of contemplating an approach, many people experience what psychologists call "cognitive distortion" — specifically, the tendency to dramatically overestimate the likelihood and severity of negative outcomes.

The Liking Gap: You're More Liked Than You Think

A landmark series of studies published in 2018 found a consistent "liking gap" in social interactions: people consistently underestimate how much others like them after conversations.[5] Participants who had just had a conversation rated how much they liked their partner, and how much they thought their partner liked them. In virtually every study, people thought they were liked less than they actually were.

This has direct implications for approach anxiety: the fear that others will find you boring, weird, or unwanted is very likely an overestimate.

Shyness vs. Introversion vs. Social Anxiety

These three terms are often conflated, but they describe meaningfully different experiences:

Shyness

Shyness is a temperament trait characterised by inhibition and hesitation in social situations, particularly with unfamiliar people. Shy people often want social connection deeply — they simply feel more apprehensive in pursuit of it. Shyness exists on a spectrum and can shift across contexts and across a lifetime.

Introversion

Introversion is a preference for lower-stimulation environments and a tendency to feel drained rather than energised by extended social interaction. Introverts are not necessarily shy — many are socially confident and skilled, but simply require more solitude to recharge. Introversion is a stable personality dimension, not a disorder.

Social Anxiety Disorder

Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is a clinical condition characterised by intense, persistent fear of social situations in which one might be scrutinised or negatively evaluated. Unlike ordinary shyness, SAD significantly interferes with daily functioning. It responds well to cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and, where appropriate, medication.[3] If you suspect you have SAD, please consider seeking professional support.

What Actually Helps

Research on reducing approach anxiety consistently points to several effective strategies:

🔎 Reflection: Your Anxiety Pattern

Consider where your anxiety is highest. Is it:

  • Before an interaction (anticipatory anxiety)?
  • During (in-the-moment freeze or blanking)?
  • After (replaying and critiquing what you said)?

Each pattern has a different solution. Anticipatory anxiety responds well to graduated exposure. In-the-moment freezing benefits from anchoring techniques (grounding in the present sensory experience). Post-interaction rumination responds well to self-compassion practice and deliberate redirection of attention.

The Approach Mindset: From Performance to Presence

"The single biggest shift you can make is from asking 'How do I come across?' to asking 'What am I actually noticing about this person?' Curiosity is the most attractive state you can be in."

Much traditional "dating advice" is fundamentally performance-based: how to appear confident, how to seem interesting, how to project a particular image. This approach has a fundamental problem — it is cognitively exhausting and ultimately self-defeating. When your mental bandwidth is consumed by monitoring your own performance, you have very little left for the actual person in front of you. And people can tell.

Research on what makes social interactions feel rewarding consistently highlights genuine presence and engagement as key factors. Studies on "active-constructive responding" — the practice of fully engaging with what someone is telling you — find that it is one of the strongest predictors of relationship quality at every stage.[8]

Presence Over Performance

What does "presence" look like in practice?

The Research on Authenticity

A 2021 meta-analysis examining what people find attractive in potential partners found that perceived authenticity — the sense that someone is being genuine and not performing — was among the most consistently cited attractive qualities across genders and cultures.[9] Authenticity is not a strategy — but it is an outcome of the right internal state.

Outcome Independence: The Healthy Version

"Outcome independence" is a phrase that gets misused in manipulative dating communities to mean feigning indifference. That is not what we mean here. Genuine outcome independence means:

This state cannot be performed convincingly. It has to be built, through genuinely investing in your life outside of dating. The good news is that the same investments that create healthy outcome independence — meaningful friendships, engaging work, interesting hobbies — also make you more genuinely interesting to others.

Meeting as Mutual Discovery

Perhaps the most important mindset shift is from unilateral pursuit ("I need to convince this person to like me") to mutual discovery ("I'm curious whether we'd actually be compatible"). This reframe is not just psychologically healthier — it is more effective, because it changes the dynamic from petitioner to potential partner from the first moment.

🔎 Reflection: What Are You Actually Looking For?

Before focusing on how to meet people, it's worth spending time with the question of what you're actually looking for. Not in an abstract, list-of-traits sense, but in terms of the feeling of connection you're seeking. Ask yourself:

  • What does a connection that feels right feel like to me?
  • What kinds of people do I actually come alive around?
  • Am I looking for a long-term relationship, something more casual, or am I genuinely uncertain?
  • What am I bringing to a potential relationship, not just what I'm seeking?

Clarity about your own intentions makes every interaction more authentic — and more respectful.

Where and When: The Best Contexts for Authentic Meetings

"Not all social contexts are created equal. Some are far more conducive to genuine connection than others — and knowing the difference saves you a lot of frustration."

Where you meet people matters — not just in terms of who's likely to be there, but in terms of the social dynamics that make genuine connection more or less likely. The best contexts for meeting potential partners share several qualities: they create natural shared reference points, they allow for conversation without the explicit pressure of "this is a pickup situation," and they attract people whose interests overlap with yours.

High-Quality Contexts

Activity-Based Communities

Classes, workshops, sports leagues, hiking groups, maker spaces, community theatre, choir — any context where you're doing something with other people over time is a rich environment for meeting potential partners. The shared activity creates natural conversation, the repeated contact over multiple sessions allows connection to develop gradually, and compatibility in at least one interest is already established.

Social Events Through Existing Networks

Research consistently finds that mutual social connections are among the strongest predictors of relationship success.[10] Meeting someone through a friend, colleague, or acquaintance provides pre-existing social context, some degree of mutual vetting, and a natural warm introduction. Cultivating your social network — not as a dating strategy, but as a genuine life practice — is one of the most effective long-term approaches.

Third Places

Sociologist Ray Oldenburg coined "third places" to describe the social spaces between home (first place) and work (second place): cafés, bookshops, libraries, parks, community gardens, neighbourhood bars. These are places where regulars accumulate and where social norms allow for friendly conversation without the explicit dating-context pressure.

Interest-Based Events

Talks, readings, conferences, art openings, game nights, meetup groups — events organised around specific interests attract people who share those interests, creating an immediate conversational hook and a filter for basic compatibility.

Contexts That Require More Care

⚠️ Captive Audience Situations

Some contexts are technically social but involve people who cannot easily leave or disengage: gyms, public transport, workplaces (depending on power dynamics), waiting rooms. Meeting people in these contexts is not impossible, but it requires extra sensitivity to whether the other person is genuinely open to conversation. The inability to leave easily increases the cost of an unwanted approach significantly — factor this in.

Gyms in particular are frequently cited by women surveyed about unwanted approaches as among the most uncomfortable contexts for unsolicited conversation.[11]

Timing Matters Too

Beyond location, timing significantly affects the quality of social interactions:

In-Person Approaches: Respectful, Natural, Effective

"The best in-person approach is one where the other person could, in retrospect, describe it as a pleasant social interaction — regardless of whether it leads anywhere romantically."

In-person approaches remain one of the richest channels for meeting potential partners, because they allow both parties to read each other's full presence: voice, expression, energy, manner. They are also the channel with the highest anxiety attached to them — which is why so many people abandon them entirely in favour of the lower-risk (but also lower-bandwidth) world of apps.

The principles for in-person approaches can be summarised simply: be a good person to talk to, not someone trying to extract a romantic outcome from an interaction.

Before You Approach

The Approach Itself

There is no single correct script. What works varies by context, by personality, and by the specific chemistry of two people. But some principles hold consistently:

Low-pressure opening in a bookshop:

"Excuse me — have you read anything by that author? I keep seeing the name but haven't taken the plunge."

This is situationally natural, requires nothing from the person except a brief response, and creates a natural topic of conversation. It also immediately signals something about who you are (you read).

Low-pressure opening at a social event:

"I haven't met you yet — I'm [name]. How do you know [host/organiser]?"

This is not really an opener at all — it's just normal social behaviour at a social event. There is no pressure and no hidden agenda. Start here.

Body Language Basics

Research on nonverbal communication in social interactions is extensive. Some consistently replicated findings relevant to approach:

On Explicitly Expressing Interest

At some point in an in-person interaction that's going well, expressing genuine interest is not just permitted — it's kind. Ambiguity is uncomfortable for everyone. Something like: "I've really enjoyed talking with you — I'd genuinely like to do this again" is clear, warm, and respectful. It puts the decision with the other person without pressure. Compare this to elaborate manoeuvring to get someone's number without ever saying why — the latter is actually less respectful, not more.

Opening Conversations: What Research Says Actually Works

"The best opener is a genuine question you actually want answered. The worst is one designed to impress rather than connect."

The opening of a conversation is one of the most anxiety-producing moments for many people — the blank-page problem of social interaction. Entire industries have built themselves around selling "openers": clever first lines designed to spark attraction. But what does the research actually say?

What Research Finds About First Impressions

Studies on first impressions in social and romantic contexts consistently find several things:

Types of Openers and How They Fare

Situational Openers (Best)

Comments or questions that emerge naturally from the shared context you're in. "What's that you're drinking — it looks interesting." "This band is incredible — have you seen them before?" "I've been here three times and I still don't know what to order." These feel natural because they are natural — they're what anyone would say if they just wanted to start a friendly conversation.

Genuine Compliments (Good, With Caveats)

A sincere, non-invasive compliment can be a warm opener: "I have to say, your laugh has been making this whole room better." Compliments about appearance to strangers are riskier — they can feel objectifying or presumptuous, especially if unsolicited — while compliments about things that are more volitional (their energy, something they said, their visible engagement with something) tend to land much better.

Direct Interest (Works in Clear Contexts)

In contexts where it's reasonably clear both people are there to meet others (speed dating, singles events, apps), being straightforwardly direct about interest is completely appropriate and often refreshing: "I noticed you when you came in and I wanted to say hi." This only works when the context makes the intent legible and non-threatening.

Scripted or "Technique" Openers (Avoid)

Openers designed from "game" or pickup frameworks — deliberately confusing or contrarian remarks meant to create psychological "disruption" — perform poorly in research settings and are reliably perceived as inauthentic by their recipients. People generally know when they're being worked.

The Most Underrated Conversation Skill: Listening

Research on what makes people feel genuinely connected after a first meeting consistently highlights one factor above most others: feeling that the other person was genuinely interested in what they had to say.[8]

In practice, this means:

💡 The Question Research

A 2017 study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that people who asked more questions in a conversation — particularly follow-up questions — were rated as significantly more likeable by their conversation partners.[14]

Participants were often unaware that their partner had asked them many questions. What they remembered was that they had liked the person and felt the conversation went well.

Reading Social Signals: Interest, Openness, and Discomfort

"Learning to read signals accurately — and to respond to them honestly — is one of the most important social skills you can develop. It protects both you and the other person."

One of the most frequently cited frustrations in both directions of social approach is signal misreading: the person who couldn't tell they were being flirted with, and the person who couldn't tell their approach was unwelcome. Signal literacy — the ability to accurately read and respond to social and emotional cues — is a learnable skill.

Signals of Openness and Interest

No single signal is definitive, but clusters of the following suggest genuine openness or interest:

Signals of Discomfort or Disinterest

⚠️ These Signals Mean Stop or Proceed Very Differently

  • Closed body language: Crossed arms, body turned away, leaning back, creating physical distance
  • Monosyllabic responses: Short answers that don't invite continuation — she/he/they is being polite, not coy
  • Checking phone repeatedly during the interaction
  • Looking around: Scanning the room rather than engaging with you
  • Physically moving away when you move closer
  • "Polite excuse" pattern: Mentioning they need to get back to friends, have to make a call, etc.
  • Vague, non-committal responses to invitations: "Maybe sometime" or "I'll see" without any real follow-through signals

These are not "tests" to push through. They are communications. Responding to discomfort signals by escalating is harassment, not persistence.

The "Polite No" Problem

One genuine complexity is that many people — particularly, though not exclusively, women — have learned to soften rejections rather than state them directly, out of experience that direct refusals are sometimes met with hostility.[11] This creates a situation where disinterest is communicated indirectly, which some people (particularly those with lower social signal literacy) may genuinely misread as ambiguity.

The most respectful response to perceived ambiguity is not to push harder, but to make it explicitly easy for the person to say no. Something like: "I'd genuinely love to keep talking — but I also want to make sure I'm not keeping you from something. No pressure at all." This gives them a clear, face-saving exit, and genuine interest will still express itself.

🔎 Reflection: Your Signal-Reading Defaults

Many people have a characteristic error direction — they tend to either over-read interest (seeing signals where none exist) or under-read it (missing genuine signals of openness). Which is more characteristic of you?

If you tend to over-read: practise asking yourself "What would this person's behaviour look like if they were just being polite?" as a reality check.

If you tend to under-read: consider that many shy or introverted people express interest subtly — and that the absence of dramatic enthusiasm doesn't mean absence of interest.

Digital Meeting: Apps, Social Media, and Online Communities

"Online meeting has fundamentally changed the landscape of how people connect — not by replacing human connection, but by changing the initial conditions under which it can form."

Online dating has shifted from a stigmatised niche to the single most common way couples meet in many countries. Understanding both its genuine advantages and its significant limitations helps you use it more effectively — and avoid its psychological pitfalls.

The Advantages of Online Meeting

The Limitations and Pitfalls

⚠️ The App Illusion

Dating apps create a simulation of abundance that can become psychologically counterproductive. Research has found that:

  • More choices do not lead to better outcomes — the "paradox of choice" effect is well-documented in dating contexts[15]
  • App-based dating can create a "shopping" mentality that is antithetical to genuine connection
  • Extended app use is associated with lower self-esteem and higher rates of loneliness in some populations, particularly among men[16]
  • The heavily visual filtering of most apps systematically disadvantages people who are far more compelling in person than in photos

Optimising Your Profile — Honestly

A dating profile is a form of self-presentation, not a marketing campaign. Research on online dating profiles finds that the most effective profiles are those that feel specific and authentic rather than carefully curated to seem universally appealing.[17]

First Messages That Work

Research on opening messages in online dating consistently finds that generic openers ("Hey," "How's your week going?") perform far worse than messages that reference something specific from the person's profile.[14]

Less effective: "Hey! I think you're really cute. Wanna chat?"

More effective: "Your photo at the trailhead — is that the ridge trail in [place]? I've been wanting to do that one. What was it like?"

The second message demonstrates you read their profile, creates a natural conversational thread, and invites a real response — all without putting pressure on the interaction.

Moving from Digital to In-Person

Extensive texting or messaging before meeting often creates a false intimacy that doesn't survive the reality of meeting in person. Research suggests that meeting relatively early — after a few good exchanges, not after weeks of messaging — produces better outcomes for most people.[2]

A good first meeting is low-stakes: a coffee, a brief walk, a drink — something that can be 45 minutes if it's not going well and two hours if it is. The purpose is to determine whether the chemistry that seemed present online exists in person, not to have a perfect date.

Safety in Online Meeting

Basic Safety Practices

  • Meet in a public place for first meetings — always
  • Tell a friend where you're going, who you're meeting, and when you expect to be back
  • Arrange your own transport to and from the meeting
  • Keep personal information (home address, workplace details) private until you have reason to trust someone
  • Trust your instincts — if something feels wrong before or during a meeting, it is always okay to leave
  • Consider video calling before meeting in person — it screens for significant profile misrepresentation and gives you a stronger sense of whether you want to proceed

Social Media and Online Communities

Beyond dedicated dating apps, genuine connections form in interest-based online communities: subreddits, Discord servers, hobby forums, local Facebook groups, alumni networks. These have some advantages over apps: connection forms around genuine shared interest before romantic potential even becomes relevant, which is a much more natural foundation.

The key ethical consideration in community spaces is that these environments exist primarily for their stated purpose — not as dating pools. Treating every community member as a potential romantic prospect is a fast way to be unwelcome and to make others uncomfortable. Connection in these spaces should emerge organically, as it would in a real-world activity community.

The Introvert Advantage: Meeting People on Your Terms

"Introversion is not a handicap in romantic connection — it is a different operating mode. Many qualities that introverts bring to interactions are precisely what people find most attractive."

So much conventional dating advice is written by and for extroverts: go out more, talk to more strangers, be more spontaneous, fill every silence. For introverts, this advice is not just unhelpful — it is often actively counterproductive. When you operate against your natural mode, you come across as less authentic, not more confident.

This section is for introverts who want to meet people in ways that play to their genuine strengths.

What Introversion Actually Looks Like in Social Settings

Introversion doesn't mean disliking people or conversation — it means that extended social stimulation is more draining than energising. Introverts often:

Playing to Your Strengths

Introvert Advantages in Connection

  • Deep listening: In a world of people half-listening while composing their own response, genuine presence stands out
  • Thoughtful questions: Introverts tend to ask questions that go somewhere, not surface pleasantries
  • Selectivity: When an introvert gives you their genuine attention, it is clearly not just being given to everyone — which makes it feel meaningful
  • Written communication: Many introverts shine in messaging and written contexts — which gives apps and online communities a genuine advantage
  • Activity contexts: Introverts often thrive in settings where a shared activity provides conversational scaffolding — a class, a hike, a cooking workshop — rather than "naked" socialising

Choosing Contexts That Work for You

Rather than pushing yourself into environments that require sustained high-energy socialising (large bars, parties with many strangers, networking events), seek out contexts where your introvert qualities are assets:

Managing Social Energy

For introverts, social energy is a real and finite resource. Managing it well means:

🔎 Reflection: Your Social Energy Budget

Think about a typical week. On a scale where 0 is completely depleted and 10 is fully energised, what number do you usually bring to social situations? What are the activities and practices that reliably bring that number up? Are you scheduling those as consistently as you're scheduling social events? For introverts, recharging is not optional — it is what makes genuine connection possible.

Rejection as Information: Building Resilience

"Rejection is not a verdict on your worth. It is data about fit. The most resilient people in dating aren't those who never feel rejected — they're those who have learned to hold that feeling without letting it define them."

Rejection is unavoidable in the process of meeting potential partners, because compatibility is genuinely rare. Most interactions with most people, however pleasant, are not going to lead to romantic connection — that's not a failure, that's just maths. Building a healthy relationship with rejection is therefore one of the most important skills in this entire guide.

The Neuroscience of Rejection

Brain imaging studies have found that the neural pathways activated by social rejection overlap significantly with those activated by physical pain.[18] This is not a metaphor — rejection genuinely hurts in a neurologically meaningful way. Acknowledging this, rather than dismissing the pain of rejection as irrational, is an important first step.

The same research points toward what helps: social connection (talking to a friend), physical activity, and time. Not distraction — actually processing the experience.

What Rejection Usually Means vs. What It Rarely Means

What It Usually Means

  • This specific person isn't a match for this specific moment — which says very little about you or them
  • There may be practical constraints you don't know about: they're in a relationship, recently out of one, not in a position to date
  • Your energies, communication styles, or life priorities simply don't align
  • The timing was wrong

What It Rarely Means

  • That you are fundamentally unlovable or unattractive
  • That you did everything wrong
  • That you should give up
  • That your approach was inappropriate (unless you actually did something inappropriate)

Responding to Rejection With Grace

How you respond to rejection is both a reflection of your character and a practical matter — the dating world is smaller than it seems. Responding gracefully means:

⚠️ The Danger of "Persisting Through Rejection"

Some dating advice frames rejection as an obstacle to push through. This is both empirically wrong and ethically problematic. Research on unwanted persistence — continuing to pursue someone after clear signals of disinterest — finds that it is experienced as threatening and harassing by recipients in the overwhelming majority of cases, regardless of the pursuer's intentions.[11]

The romantic narrative of the persistent suitor who "wins" the reluctant love interest is a cultural myth that causes genuine harm. Accept rejection. Move on.

Building Rejection Resilience

Resilience to rejection is not callousness — it is the capacity to feel the sting, process it, and not let it become a defining story about your worth. Research on resilience highlights several building blocks:[19]

From Stranger to Connection: The Art of Follow-Through

"Meeting someone is just the beginning. What you do in the first days after is often more important than the initial approach."

A successful approach or match is not the end of the process — it is the start of a more delicate phase. Moving from a pleasant initial interaction or a promising app exchange to a genuine, developing connection requires a different kind of skill: the skill of follow-through.

Exchanging Contact Details

In in-person contexts, the shift from "pleasant conversation" to "I'd like to continue this" often involves an explicit moment. Some principles:

The First Follow-Up

There is no single right timeline for following up after getting someone's contact — "rules" about waiting a certain number of days are invented and unhelpful. What matters more:

First follow-up after meeting at an event:

"Hey — this is [name] from [event]. I've been thinking about what you said about [something they mentioned]. I'd genuinely like to hear more over coffee sometime this week if you're up for it."

This is warm, specific, direct, and low-pressure. It doesn't demand an immediate response or an elaborate explanation of their schedule.

Planning a First Meeting

Whether you met in person or online, a first dedicated meeting is its own art:

When Interest Is Mutual: Moving Forward

If a first meeting goes well, moving forward is usually a matter of continuing the pattern: showing genuine interest, following up with something real, being clear about wanting to see each other again. A few things to keep in mind:

A Note on Consent in Developing Connections

As physical and emotional intimacy develop, ongoing, enthusiastic consent remains essential at every stage. Consent is not a single event — it is a continuous conversation. Checking in, not assuming, and making it easy for a partner to change their mind are the practices of genuine respect. This is not a formality — it is how trust is built.[20]

References & Further Reading

  1. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. doi:10.1177/1745691614568352
  2. Rosenfeld, M. J., Thomas, R. J., & Hausen, S. (2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(36), 17753–17758. doi:10.1073/pnas.1908630116
  3. Stein, M. B., & Stein, D. J. (2008). Social anxiety disorder. The Lancet, 371(9618), 1115–1125.
  4. Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). The pain of social disconnection: Examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(6), 421–434.
  5. Boothby, E. J., Cooney, G., Sandstrom, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (2018). The liking gap in conversations: Do people like us more than we think? Psychological Science, 29(11), 1742–1756.
  6. Hofmann, S. G., & Smits, J. A. J. (2008). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for adult anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69(4), 621–632.
  7. Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2013). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self‐compassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(1), 28–44.
  8. Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 904–917.
  9. Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385–399.
  10. Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Willetts, M. C. (2002). Social networks and change in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and Change in Relationships. Cambridge University Press.
  11. Fairchild, K., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Everyday stranger harassment and women's objectification. Social Justice Research, 21(3), 338–357.
  12. Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal Communication. Aldine-Atherton.
  13. Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598.
  14. Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Minson, J., & Gino, F. (2017). It doesn't hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 430–452.
  15. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006.
  16. Strubel, J., & Petrie, T. A. (2017). Love me Tinder: Body image and psychosocial functioning among men and women. Body Image, 21, 34–38.
  17. Whitty, M. T. (2008). Revealing the 'real' me, searching for the 'actual' you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1707–1723.
  18. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292.
  19. Southwick, S. M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A. S., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014). Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: Interdisciplinary perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5(1), 25338.
  20. Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). "By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom": How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex Research, 36(3), 258–272.

Further Reading