Learn · Marketing claims translated
Ex chase again
Marketing claim
inspire their ex to chase again—without begging
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? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effort and liking | Whether making someone work for you makes them value you. | Evidence: Plausible1 | No. Lab findings that effort raises valuation concern a person's own task; they do not show that making someone chase you makes them like you more. |
| Playing hard to get | Staying out of reach so the other person pursues. | Evidence: Plausible2 | No. In two studies it raised the wish to pursue but lowered liking, and lowered both when the person was not already committed. |
| Commitment | What keeps people in a relationship. | Evidence: Well supported3 | No. Commitment rests on satisfaction, alternatives and investments; the model explains staying and leaving on average and offers no way to reverse another person's decision. |
| Unrequited feelings | One person wanting a relationship the other has ended or declined. | Evidence: Plausible45 | No. In retrospective accounts, would-be lovers believed the attraction had been mutual, while many on the other side found continued efforts intrusive. |
What would make it testable
As stated, it cannot be tested. 'Chase' names no behaviour or measure, and the outcome is another adult reversing a decision they made; even a positive result would not make it right to work against that decision.
A testable version Among adults whose partner ended the relationship, does completing the course, compared with a waiting list, change how often the former partner starts contact over three months, recorded by the course-taker?
The useful question underneath
Coping with a breakup you did not choose, which starts with accepting the other person's decision.
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: 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: 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: Well supportedIn romantic relationships, commitment is higher when people are more satisfied, have fewer attractive alternatives and have invested more in the relationship, and higher commitment predicts staying together.
Why this label
A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate. The investment model describes commitment as resting on satisfaction, alternatives and investments. A 52-study meta-analysis found each linked to commitment, together explaining about two-thirds of its variance, with commitment predicting breakup. 'Investment' here means resources already tied up in a relationship (time, shared friends, shared possessions), not effort spent on winning someone over.
What it does not show
- Associations are correlational and rest on self-report.
- Mostly established relationships and student samples, not first dates or early flirtation.
- Does not show that making a person invest early makes them like you more.
- Breakup prediction is a population pattern, not a forecast for any couple.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Le, B., Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model, Personal Relationships.
- Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Evidence: PlausibleIn retrospective written accounts of unrequited love, would-be lovers, unlike rejectors, believed the attraction had been mutual and that they were led on, while many rejectors described persistent efforts as intrusive, so one person's preoccupation is not evidence the other person feels the same.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Baumeister, Wotman and Stillwell compared written accounts from both sides of unreciprocated attraction and found mismatched perceptions. This supports lessons that stress checking what the other person actually does and respecting a clear no.
What it does not show
- Retrospective, self-selected written accounts; each side's memory is motivated.
- Student samples; the abstract was read in a truncated form.
- Describes differing perceptions, not how often they occur.
- A would-be lover's belief that they were led on is their perception; it does not show that the rejection was unclear.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Evidence: PlausibleIn retrospective accounts of unrequited love, many rejectors described the other's persistent efforts as intrusive and annoying, while would-be lovers believed the rejection had never been definitely communicated.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. This one study of retrospective narratives shows the two sides experience the same events differently, which is a reason to be clear when declining and to stop when the answer is no.
What it does not show
- Single study from 1993 using retrospective narrative accounts; sample details not checked.
- Each side's account may be self-serving.
- Does not show that the rejection was in fact unclear; a would-be lover's belief is their perception, and a no should be taken as a no.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.