Learn · Marketing claims translated
Two words
Invented example
A few words, and anyone will start to want you.
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? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who ends up wanted | Whether anything known beforehand predicts desire for one person. | Evidence: Plausible1 | No. In two speed-dating studies from one group, more than 100 traits and preferences that people reported before they met did not predict which particular person they would end up wanting. Nothing found supports a phrase that works on everyone. |
| Borrowed effects | Whether brain and memory effects borrowed by marketing create attraction. | Evidence: Plausible2 | No. The effects that attraction marketing borrows were studied in other settings: dopamine in animal reward tasks, recall of interrupted tasks, and novelty in couples who already know each other. None was tested as a way to create romantic attraction. |
| Prepared lines | How prepared opening lines are rated. | Evidence: Plausible3 | No. In ratings of imagined approaches between strangers by 205 undergraduates, openers built on jokes, empty compliments or sexual references scored poorly, and openers that showed helpfulness, generosity or cultural interests scored well. Raters judged written scenes, not live approaches. |
| Perceived liking | What goes with believing that someone likes you. | Evidence: Supported with caveats4 | Partly. Several studies find that people who perceive that a particular person likes them tend to report somewhat more interest in that person. The studies cannot show which comes first, and the effect is an average, not a promise about one person. |
| The words themselves | The two words and the six phrases that adverts of this kind promise. The claim above says only "a few words". | No verified evidence found | Untested. More than one advert makes this promise, and the ones we have seen don't show the two words or the six phrases. Without them there is nothing to test, and this page does not guess them. |
What would make it testable
As stated, it cannot be tested. The advert doesn't show the two words or the six phrases. Without them there is nothing to test, and 'want you' is not defined or measured.
A testable version Among adults in a first conversation, does saying one specific, true thing about what you enjoyed in the talk, compared with a general compliment, change how warm the other person rates the conversation, measured by their own ratings afterward?
The useful question underneath
Wanting to say what you feel so that it is heard. The aim 'I want the exact words' becomes: say something plain, specific and true in your own voice, say it once, and respect the answer.
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: PlausibleBefore two people meet, more than 100 of their self-reported traits and preferences did not predict which particular person they would end up wanting.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: in two speed-dating studies, models fed more than 100 pre-date self-reports predicted some of how much people desired others in general and how much others desired them in general, but could not predict desire for a specific partner beyond those tendencies; in a preregistered 7-month study of 208 singles, the perceiver-by-target compatibility account got only modest support. Marketing framing: a single hidden attraction trigger that works on a particular person (see dating-frameworks-c7).
What it does not show
- Same research group produced both studies; no independent replication found
- Speed-dating and young single samples, mostly US
- Self-reported traits; models predict statistically, not for an individual
- Absence of prediction here does not show compatibility does not exist, only that these measures did not capture it
- Eastwick et al. 2022 ran a different design (7 months, 208 singles), not a replication
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J. (2017). Is Romantic Desire Predictable? Machine Learning Applied to Initial Romantic Attraction, Psychological Science.
- 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: PlausibleThe brain and memory effects that attraction marketing borrows were studied in other settings and were not tested as ways to create romantic attraction: dopamine in animal reward tasks, the Zeigarnik effect in recall of interrupted tasks, and novelty in couples who already know each other.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: dopamine neurons mainly signal reward prediction errors (see reinforcement-reward-dopamine-c1, c2 and c3), and uncertain reward cues drew more cue-directed wanting in rats; a 2025 meta-analysis found no memory advantage for interrupted tasks (see zeigarnik-rumination-c1); shared novel, self-expanding activities went with relationship benefits in established couples (see anticipation-novelty-c3 and c4). Marketing framing: leaving her 'hanging', anticipation and dopamine hacks create attraction (common framing, unattributed).
What it does not show
- Mixes animal, lab-task and couples evidence; no direct test on attraction to a specific person
- Animal and task findings do not transfer to dating by default
- Zeigarnik meta-analysis covers recall, not attraction
- Novelty studies cover established couples, mostly self-report
- No large registered replication of any of these applied to attraction found
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Sources
- Schultz, W. (2016). Dopamine reward prediction error coding, Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience.
- Berridge, K. C., Kringelbach, M. L. (2015). Pleasure Systems in the Brain, Neuron.
- Anselme, P., Robinson, M. J. F., Berridge, K. C. (2013). Reward uncertainty enhances incentive salience attribution as sign-tracking, Behavioural Brain Research.
- Ghibellini, R., Meier, B. (2025). Interruption, recall and resumption: a meta-analysis of the Zeigarnik and Ovsiankina effects, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.
- Tomlinson, J. M., Hughes, E. K., Lewandowski, G. W., Aron, A. (2018). Do shared self-expanding activities have to be physically arousing?, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
Evidence: PlausibleIn ratings of imagined approaches between strangers, openers built on jokes, empty compliments or sexual references scored poorly, and openers that showed helpfulness, generosity or cultural interests scored well.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. A rating study with 205 undergraduates found this pattern. A larger follow-up reportedly grouped openers into good-mate, compliment, sex and humour clusters, with humour openers preferred by female raters; that is known here only from a search summary. The pattern is about how a written opener is judged, not about real outcomes.
What it does not show
- Raters judged written vignettes, not live approaches.
- The sample was undergraduates in one country, and the vignettes were a man approaching a woman.
- A follow-up is reported, from a search summary only, to have found humour openers preferred by one group of raters; its abstract was not seen.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Bale, C., Morrison, R., Caryl, P. G. (2006). Chat-up lines as male sexual displays, Personality and Individual Differences 40(4), 655-664.
- Cooper, M., O’Donnell, D., Caryl, P. G., Morrison, R., Bale, C. (2007). Chat-up lines as male displays: Effects of content, sex, and personality, Personality and Individual Differences 43(5), 1075-1085.
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.