Learn · Marketing claims translated
Keep them guessing
Invented example
Never let her know where she stands with you; the doubt is what keeps her hooked.
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? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uncertainty about being liked | Not knowing whether the other person likes you. | Evidence: Plausible1 | Partly. One experiment fits: college women rated men on profiles higher when it was uncertain whether the men liked them. It used fictional feedback and no meeting, and no replication was found. |
| Clarity about interest | Saying plainly that you are interested. | Evidence: Supported with caveats2 | No. In online experiments from one programme, vagueness lowered appeal when the person seemed uninterested and explicit interest raised it. |
| Wanting versus liking | The difference between wanting to pursue someone and liking them. | Evidence: Plausible3 | No. 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. |
| Intermittent reward | Rewards that arrive unpredictably. | Evidence: Speculative4 | Untested. Uncertain reward cues drew more cue-directed wanting in rats; this has not been tested for human romantic attraction, and a stronger pull toward a cue is not liking. |
| Harm from unpredictability | What intermittent treatment does in real relationships. | Evidence: Plausible5 | No. The one study linking intermittent treatment to stronger attachment was of women leaving abusive relationships; it describes harm, not a method. |
What would make it testable
As stated, it cannot be tested. 'Hooked' names no measure or comparison, and the advice is to mislead someone about your interest, which this course does not teach whatever a test found.
A testable version Among adults messaging a new match, does being vague about interest, compared with being clear, change the other person's rated liking and wish to meet, measured after one exchange?
The useful question underneath
Not knowing how to show interest without seeming too keen, and how to tell whether it is returned.
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: PlausibleIn one lab experiment, college women were more attracted to men whose liking of them was uncertain than to men they were told liked them a lot, and the authors report that thinking about the men more increased the attraction.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Whitchurch and colleagues found this in a single experiment using fictional feedback about men seen on profile pages. Wilson and colleagues' separate non-romantic experiments found that uncertainty about a positive event prolonged the good mood it caused, which is the proposed mechanism.
What it does not show
- Single experiment with undergraduate women rating fictional men on profiles; no meeting, no behaviour, no dating outcome.
- Uncertainty here was a brief 'a lot or an average amount' manipulation, not feigned disinterest or withheld replies.
- No preregistered or independent replication was found in this search.
- Wilson et al. used non-romantic stimuli, so it supports the mechanism only by analogy.
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Sources
- Whitchurch, E. R., Wilson, T. D., Gilbert, D. T. (2011). “He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not . . .”: Uncertainty Can Increase Romantic Attraction, Psychological Science.
- Wilson, T. D., Centerbar, D. B., Kermer, D. A., Gilbert, D. T. (2005). The Pleasures of Uncertainty: Prolonging Positive Moods in Ways People Do Not Anticipate., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsBeing unclear about romantic interest does not reliably make someone more appealing: in online-interaction experiments, vagueness lowered appeal when the person seemed uninterested, and explicit expressions of interest raised it.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Birnbaum and colleagues ran six studies, four with online confederates who were clear or vague about romantic intent and two surveys and diaries in established couples. Partner regard predicted less uncertainty, which predicted greater perceived desirability. The authors read reduced desire under uncertainty as self-protection.
What it does not show
- All six studies come from one research programme; findings were read from the abstract only.
- Online confederate interactions and established-couple self-report differ from in-person early dating.
- Measured appeal and desire ratings, not later behaviour.
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Source
- 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.
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: SpeculativeIn rats, cues paired with uncertain rewards (uncertain in probability and magnitude) drew more sign-tracking, a measure of cue-directed wanting, than cues paired with certain rewards; this has not been tested for human romantic attraction.
Why this label
An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested. Anselme, Robinson and Berridge used a sign-tracking measure of cue wanting in rats. Whether similar wanting appears for human partners, and whether it would be a good thing, was not tested. Berridge and Robinson (1998) is cited for the wanting concept, not for uncertainty.
What it does not show
- Animal Pavlovian conditioning with food rewards, not social or romantic stimuli.
- A stronger pull towards a cue is not liking, satisfaction or a healthy relationship.
- Applying it to dating is an extrapolation; it is the application that is speculative, not the rat finding.
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Sources
- Anselme, P., Robinson, M. J. F., Berridge, K. C. (2013). Reward uncertainty enhances incentive salience attribution as sign-tracking, Behavioural Brain Research.
- Berridge, K. C., Robinson, T. E. (1998). What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience?, Brain Research Reviews.
Evidence: PlausibleResearch on 'traumatic bonding' studied abusive relationships: in one study of 75 women who had left them, intermittent abuse and power imbalance predicted stronger attachment to the ex-partner. It describes harm, not a method for creating attraction.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Dutton and Painter tested the idea that intermittent maltreatment produces strong attachment. Relationship variables explained 55% of the variance in attachment six months after leaving. The reinforcement-schedule explanation is a theoretical interpretation of correlational data.
What it does not show
- Single correlational, self-report study of women recently separated from abusive partners; no non-abusive comparison group.
- Attachment after abuse is a trauma-related response, not evidence that unpredictability increases healthy attraction.
- Must never be framed as a technique; the app's guardrails exclude manufactured insecurity and coercion.
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Source
- Dutton, D. G., Painter, S. (1993). Emotional Attachments in Abusive Relationships: A Test of Traumatic Bonding Theory, Violence and Victims.