Exact text

Sources

Each numbered mark above opens the evidence behind that idea: the label, what it does not show and where it comes from.

1. 1Evidence: Supported with caveatsIn large datasets from heterosexual online dating, people messaged others who ranked higher than themselves in desirability, and a reply was less likely the further above the sender the recipient ranked, which fits many non-replies reflecting the match rather than message wording.

   Why this label

   Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Demonstrates: Bruch and Newman (2018; four US cities, one platform) found both men and women pursued partners about 25% more desirable than themselves, reply probability fell markedly as the gap grew, and strategic messaging helped only modestly; Kreager et al. (2014; 8,259 men and 6,274 women over six months) found both sexes messaged the most desirable users regardless of their own standing, and women who initiated reached more desirable partners than those who waited. These are observational and say nothing about why a particular person did not reply. Marketing framing: the right opening line or message makes a reply likely (common framing, unattributed). Bears on A4: §23 'a text can create an opportunity but cannot manufacture reciprocal interest'; supported as a population tendency: even well-matched effort often goes unanswered and message strategy moves odds only a little.

   What it does not show

   • Observational platform data from two single sites; desirability was inferred from the platform's own activity, which can make the measure partly circular.
   • Heterosexual users only; US data from before 2018 (Kreager: one city, six months in about 2014 or earlier); app designs and norms have changed.
   • Replies are a behavioural proxy; the data do not show interest, attraction or reasons.
   • Associations only; message wording was not randomly assigned.
   • Replication status: Bruch and Newman reported consistency across four cities; no independent replication reviewed.

   Who it applies to

   A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

   Sources

   • Bruch, E. E., Newman, M. E. J. (2018). Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets, Science Advances.
   • Kreager, D. A., Cavanagh, S. E., Yen, J., Yu, M. (2014). “Where Have All the Good Men Gone?” Gendered Interactions in Online Dating, Journal of Marriage and Family.
2. 2Evidence: PlausibleNo study found tests whether message length, questions asked back, who initiates, or who carries the conversation lets a person read another's romantic interest in a text thread; the closest evidence links question-asking and matching conversational style to liking and mutual interest in live or speed-date talk.

   Why this label

   One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: in three live-conversation studies (Huang et al. 2017) people who asked more questions, especially follow-ups, were better liked and, among speed daters, more often got a second-date yes; in speed-date transcripts, closer language style matching went with mutual romantic interest, and in couples' instant messages with still being together 3 months later (Ireland et al. 2010); in Kreager et al. (2014), initiation was analysed as a pursuit pattern, not as a sign of interest. None tests a recipient reading these cues as interest in a text thread, and none defines a carry ratio. Marketing framing: none common beyond 'if she asks questions back she is interested' (common framing, unattributed). Bears on A4: §25 list of informative patterns and §36 carry ratio; supported at most as plausible heuristics about responsiveness, unsupported as readings of interest, so lessons should call them observations to weigh, never a score or a diagnosis.

   What it does not show

   • Searched Crossref, OpenAlex and the web (2026-10-05) for: texting or instant-message reply latency and romantic interest; response time norms in text messaging; message length, questions, initiation and reply rate in online dating; conversation initiation balance in text threads.
   • Huang et al. studied how liking of the question asker, not interest of the question asker, was predicted; a published critique of the speed-date analysis (Kluger and Malloy 2019) and the authors' reply were not read.
   • Ireland et al. measured language style matching with word-count software in speed dates and in couples already dating, not in first texts; correlational.
   • Absence of a tested link is not evidence of no link.
   • Speed-date and student samples; live speech rather than typed messages for two of the three sources.

   Who it applies to

   A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

   Sources

   • 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.
   • Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., Scissors, L. E., Finkel, E. J., Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language Style Matching Predicts Relationship Initiation and Stability, Psychological Science.
   • Kreager, D. A., Cavanagh, S. E., Yen, J., Yu, M. (2014). “Where Have All the Good Men Gone?” Gendered Interactions in Online Dating, Journal of Marriage and Family.
3. 3Evidence: Supported with caveatsResearchers define ghosting as ending a relationship by suddenly ignoring or stopping communication without saying why, which is different from a slow or delayed reply; reviewed motives include conflict avoidance, emotional self-protection and disinterest.

   Why this label

   Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Demonstrates: in a coded survey of 499 young adults in Canada (Kay and Courtice 2022) the shared meaning was one person suddenly ignoring or ceasing to communicate without telling the other why, and earlier definitions had differed; a systematic review of 11 studies (Morales et al. 2025) describes the same abrupt ending and lists motives of conflict avoidance, emotional self-protection, disinterest and poor communication, and notes that no validated, consistent measure exists. Marketing framing: silence is a test, or a sign of hidden attraction she is hiding (compare dating-frameworks-c12); neither source tests or lists that. Bears on A4: §28; supports a precise definition and not calling every delay ghosting, and the listed motives include disinterest, but a motive list does not tell the learner why one person went quiet.

   What it does not show

   • Self-reports of young adults (mainly under 30; Kay and Courtice mostly women in Canada); definitions are the participants' own, not a diagnostic standard.
   • The review covers 11 studies from 2019 to 2024 in emerging adults and notes inconsistent instruments; it is not a meta-analysis and was read only at abstract level.
   • Motives are as participants report them (self-report), which may not match the real reason.
   • Replication status: no large replication of the definition work found.

   Who it applies to

   A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

   Sources

   • Kay, C., Courtice, E. L. (2022). An empirical, accessible definition of “ghosting” as a relationship dissolution method, Personal Relationships.
   • Morales, A., Fuentes, E., Fernández-Martínez, I. (2025). A systematic review of ghosting as a relationship dissolution method in emerging adults’ relationships, Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología.
4. 4Evidence: PlausibleIn one large cross-validated study of recent breakups, relationships that ended by ghosting had been shorter and less committed than those that ended by direct conversation, and ghosting was marked by more avoidance and distant or mediated communication and less open confrontation.

   Why this label

   One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: Koessler et al. (2019) split a large sample of recent breakups, explored in one half and preregistered tests in the other; ghosting disengagers also reported less distress than direct disengagers, while recipients reported more distress than disengagers. Marketing framing: none common. Bears on A4: §29 and §28; supports treating prolonged silence early in dating as a recognised way low-commitment relationships end, which fits 'persistent silence should lead toward disengagement'; it predicts nothing about whether a given person will reply.

   What it does not show

   • Retrospective self-report of recent breakups of any length (sample details not in the abstract); not specifically after one or two dates.
   • Cross-sectional: shorter relationships may be both ghosted more and rated as less committed for other reasons.
   • Single study (with its own internal replication half); no independent replication found.
   • Findings describe groups, not why one person went quiet.

   Who it applies to

   A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

   Source

   • Koessler, R. B., Kohut, T., Campbell, L. (2019). When Your Boo Becomes a Ghost: The Association Between Breakup Strategy and Breakup Role in Experiences of Relationship Dissolution, Collabra: Psychology.
5. 5Evidence: PlausibleNo study found tests whether contacting someone again after they have gone silent, or after a breakup, brings back a reply or a relationship; the closest evidence shows reunions are common among established couples, and persistence after a no carries risk.

   Why this label

   One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: among 792 young adult daters and cohabitors, nearly half reported a breakup followed by a reunion (Halpern-Meekin et al. 2012), but the abstract does not say who initiated contact, whether the other party had gone silent, or whether the reunion went well. The ghosting definition used in the experiments includes ignoring attempts to restart contact (Telari et al. 2025), but no study there tested a follow-up message. On persistence see unwanted-pursuit-c2 (escalation and violence risk), unwanted-pursuit-c3 (rejectors found persistence intrusive; pursuers believed refusal had never been clear) and unwanted-pursuit-c5 (hope and rumination go with continued attempts). Marketing framing: giving space or 'no contact' makes an ex want you back, a marketing assertion; no peer-reviewed test found. Bears on A4: §27 and §28; the 'one clean attempt, then stop' rule is a design and ethics judgement, with no outcome evidence either way, and the evidence base gives no support for repeated attempts.

   What it does not show

   • Searched Crossref, OpenAlex and the web (2026-10-05) for: ghosting consequences, definitions and breakup strategies; breadcrumbing; re-contact or follow-up after silence; reconciliation after breakup; indirect post-date disinterest.
   • The reunion study covers established dating and cohabiting couples and does not separate breakups the other person wanted from mutual ones; it says nothing about someone who has gone silent after a few messages or one date.
   • A companion paper on the same data (Halpern-Meekin et al. 2013, 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01029.x) links on-off patterns with more violence and verbal abuse; it is not cited as a source here and was read at abstract level only.
   • Absence of evidence is not evidence that one follow-up never works or never harms.
   • This claim must never be used to license persistence after a clear or repeated non-response.

   Who it applies to

   A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

   Sources

   • Halpern-Meekin, S., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A. (2012). Relationship Churning in Emerging Adulthood, Journal of Adolescent Research.
   • Telari, A., Pancani, L., Riva, P. (2025). The phantom pain of ghosting: Multi-Day experiments comparing the reactions to ghosting and rejection, Computers in Human Behavior.
6. 6Evidence: 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.
7. 7Evidence: Marketing claimOptionsTexting's own terms say the program 'contains psychological techniques', is for information and entertainment only, and does not promise any particular result.

   Why this label

   Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence. The legal terms are more cautious than the sales page.

   What it does not show

   • Terms are boilerplate

   Who it applies to

   A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

   Source

   • MWO Media LLC (undated). Terms & Conditions | Options Texting, optionstexting.com.