Learn · Marketing claims translated
Ego and chase
Invented example
Ego down, chase up: our members' first-date rule.
Ideas it might be pointing at
A short claim can stand for several different ideas. Each is set out here with how well it is supported, and whether that support goes toward the advert's promise.
| Idea | What it is | Evidence | Does this support the advert? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feeling liked | Perceiving that a particular person is interested in you. | Evidence: Supported with caveats12 | No. Several studies find that perceiving a particular person's interest tends to go with somewhat more interest in that person, though the speed-dating evidence is limited and cannot show which comes first. Keeping someone guessing about your interest has mixed or negative results outside narrow experiments. |
| Wanting versus liking | The difference between wanting to pursue someone and liking them. | Evidence: Plausible3 | Partly. In two studies, playing hard to get raised the wish to pursue but lowered liking, and lowered both when the person was not already committed. That fits only the piece about pursuit rising, and it came with lower liking. |
| Effort and value | Valuing more what took effort to get. | Evidence: Plausible4 | No. Lab findings that effort raises valuation concern a person's own effort on a task; they do not show that getting another person to work harder for your attention makes them like you more. |
| Teasing that stays kind | Playful teasing between people who like each other. | Evidence: Supported with caveats5 | No. Teasing can land as affection or hostility, and among romantic couples the more satisfied partners teased in more prosocial, face-saving ways. This is about kindness inside a relationship, not a case for lowering anyone's self-regard. |
| Prestige, not dominance | Status earned through skill and shared knowledge, compared with status taken through intimidation. | Evidence: Supported with caveats6 | No. In small-group studies, prestigious people were liked and dominant people were not, and in vignette studies college women tended to prefer high-prestige to high-dominance partners, favoring dominance only in athletic competition and for short-term ratings. |
| Selective, not scarce | Showing real interest in one particular person rather than in everyone. | Evidence: Plausible7 | No. In one speed-dating study, people who showed particular interest in one partner were liked back and people who liked nearly everyone were liked less. That is about real, specific interest, not about making approval scarce. |
What would make it testable
As stated, it cannot be tested. 'Ego' and 'chase' are not defined, and the advice is to harm someone's self-regard, which this course would not teach whatever a test found.
A testable version In a vignette study, do adults who read about a date making a remark aimed at their confidence, compared with a neutral remark, report more or less wish to meet again and liking?
The useful question underneath
Over-pursuing, and wanting the other person to invest more. The aim 'I want her to invest more' becomes: stop carrying the whole interaction and leave room for her to contribute. Keep your own standards without lowering anyone's.
Lessons that use this
Sources
Each numbered mark above opens the evidence behind that idea: the label, what it does not show and where it comes from.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsPerceiving that someone is interested goes with more interest in them, while keeping a person guessing about your interest has mixed or negative results outside narrow experiments.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Demonstrates: perceived interest from the partner was among the robust positive predictors of romantic interest in a preregistered study; online experiments found vagueness lowered appeal when the person seemed uninterested and explicit interest raised it; playing hard to get raised wanting but lowered liking, and only when the other person was already committed to pursuing; the one study that found uncertainty raising attraction was a single online student experiment. See uncertainty-selectivity-c2, c3 and c5, and reciprocal-liking-c1. Marketing framing: staying somewhat out of reach keeps her chasing (see dating-frameworks-c12).
What it does not show
- Perceived interest finding is correlational: the study cannot show which comes first
- Online and student samples; experiments with confederates or profiles, not live dating
- Hard-to-get effects depend on prior commitment of the pursuer
- No large registered replication of the uncertainty-increases-attraction finding found
- Deliberately withholding warmth is manipulative and is not taught
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Sources
- Eastwick, P. W., Joel, S., Carswell, K. L., Molden, D. C., Finkel, E. J., Blozis, S. A. (2022). Predicting romantic interest during early relationship development: A preregistered investigation using machine learning, European Journal of Personality.
- Birnbaum, G. E., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Mizrahi, M., Barniv, A., Nagar, S., Govinden, J., Reis, H. T. (2018). Are you into me? Uncertainty and sexual desire in online encounters and established relationships, Computers in Human Behavior.
- Dai, X., Dong, P., Jia, J. S. (2014). When does playing hard to get increase romantic attraction?, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
- Whitchurch, E. R., Wilson, T. D., Gilbert, D. T. (2011). “He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not . . .”: Uncertainty Can Increase Romantic Attraction, Psychological Science.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsPeople who perceive that a particular person likes them tend to report somewhat more interest in that person, although the speed-dating evidence for this is limited and the studies cannot show which comes first.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. In speed-dating, desire that was unique to a pair showed some reciprocity, and in a seven-month study of singles, perceiving that a potential partner was interested was one of the robust positive predictors of one's own interest.
What it does not show
- The speed-dating report is a short report with 156 undergraduates; its full text was read in the S7.1 check, which confirmed the pattern; the reciprocity correlation it reports is small (r = .14). The r = -.41 in the same report belongs to a different finding, that desiring many people predicted being desired less (c3).
- All three sources are correlational: perceived interest and one's own interest are measured by self-report at the same time, so they do not show that being liked causes liking in return.
- Luo and Zhang describe only 'some support' for reciprocity, so the effect is not uniform across samples.
- These are population averages; they do not tell you whether a given person likes you.
- The Luo and Eastwick 2022 abstracts support only 'some' reciprocity and perceived interest as a predictor.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Mochon, D., Ariely, D. (2007). Selective Versus Unselective Romantic Desire: Not All Reciprocity Is Created Equal, Psychological Science.
- Luo, S., Zhang, G. (2009). What Leads to Romantic Attraction: Similarity, Reciprocity, Security, or Beauty? Evidence From a Speed‐Dating Study, Journal of Personality.
- Eastwick, P. W., Joel, S., Carswell, K. L., Molden, D. C., Finkel, E. J., Blozis, S. A. (2022). Predicting romantic interest during early relationship development: A preregistered investigation using machine learning, European Journal of Personality.
Evidence: PlausiblePlaying hard to get can raise how much a person wants to pursue you while lowering how much they like you, and if they are not already committed to pursuing you it lowers both.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Dai, Dong and Jia reconcile folk wisdom with earlier null results by separating wanting (motivation) from liking (affect). Two studies in one paper supported the pattern. The authors state that earlier research gave little support for the tactic working.
What it does not show
- Two studies in one paper; sample and procedure details were not checked beyond the abstract.
- Laboratory measures of wanting and liking, not real pursuit or relationship outcomes.
- A higher wish to pursue paired with lower liking is a poor basis for a relationship; the finding does not recommend the tactic.
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Source
- Dai, X., Dong, P., Jia, J. S. (2014). When does playing hard to get increase romantic attraction?, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
Evidence: PlausibleLab findings that effort raises valuation do not show that making someone chase you, wait or work harder makes them like you more.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The effort-valuation findings concern a person's own effort on a task or in joining a group (the IKEA effect, severity of initiation). None of the sources here tests one person deliberately withholding access to another. The mechanism, justifying one's own costly effort, may also not apply when the cost is imposed by someone else. Lessons should present this as a gap in the evidence, not as proof the tactic fails or works, and should not teach it as a tactic.
What it does not show
- Argument from the content of the cited studies, not a direct test of dating tactics.
- Direct studies of 'playing hard to get' belong to the uncertainty-selectivity topic and are not assessed here.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., Ariely, D. (2012). The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love, Journal of Consumer Psychology.
- Aronson, E., Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsTeasing is a playful provocation that can land as affection or hostility, and in studies of romantic couples the more satisfied partners teased in more prosocial, face-saving ways.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A conceptual review defines teasing as playful provocation that can lead to hostile or affiliative outcomes. A study of fraternity members and couples found satisfied partners used less face-threatening teasing with more softening gestures.
What it does not show
- Samples are fraternity members and established couples; cultural spread not checked.
- Whether the same holds on early dates is not tested in these sources.
- Review notes teasing can be more frequent and hostile from high-status and familiar others; gender differences are smaller than assumed.
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Sources
- Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review, Psychological Bulletin 127(2), 229-248.
- Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(5), 1231-1247.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsStatus gained through skill and shared knowledge (prestige) and status gained through intimidation (dominance) are distinct: prestigious people were liked while dominant people were not, and in vignette studies women preferred high-prestige to high-dominance partners, favouring dominance only in athletic competition and for short-term ratings.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Gives lessons a way to separate confidence that invites others in (competence, openness) from intimidation. The group-hierarchy study did not measure attraction, and the mating-relevant result comes from one team's three vignette experiments.
What it does not show
- Cheng et al. studied small groups of previously unacquainted people, not romantic attraction.
- Snyder et al. used written vignettes with college women, so behaviour in real settings may differ.
- Prestige-versus-dominance labels are research constructs and real behaviour often blends them.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Snyder, J. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Barrett, H. C. (2008). The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates?, Personal Relationships.
Evidence: PlausibleIn a speed-dating study, people who showed particular interest in one partner were liked back, while people who liked nearly everyone they met were liked less, so being selective in real interest was received better than indiscriminate interest.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Eastwick and colleagues separated dyadic reciprocity (liking a specific partner more than others) from generalised reciprocity (being liked by many while liking many). The first was positive and the second negative across 156 undergraduates on 4-minute dates.
What it does not show
- One study of undergraduates at one university, with a second sample of 608; the paper has no abstract, and its full text was read in the S7.1 check, which confirmed the claim (reported r = .14 and r = -.41).
- Selectivity was measured as natural variation in ratings, not manipulated; it is not evidence that pretending to be choosy works.
- Four-minute dates; effects on later dating are not covered.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Mochon, D., Ariely, D. (2007). Selective Versus Unselective Romantic Desire: Not All Reciprocity Is Created Equal, Psychological Science.