Learn · Marketing claims translated
Wait to reply
Invented example
Wait before you text back: the man who replies fast looks like he has nothing else going on.
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? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Turn-taking in speech | How quickly people answer each other in conversation. | Evidence: Supported with caveats1 | No. Across ten languages, spoken replies tend to come within a fraction of a second; this concerns live talk, not messages. |
| Reply speed and connection | Whether quicker replies go with feeling connected. | Evidence: Plausible2 | No. In one paper, quicker replies in live talk went with more felt connection, the opposite of the advert's idea, but on a scale of fractions of a second in speech. |
| Delay in typed messages | Whether waiting before replying to a message changes how you are seen. | Evidence: Plausible3 | Untested. The only studies found were customer-service chat and student email; none studied dating, and none shows that a deliberate delay raises attraction. |
| Perceived selectivity | Seeming to have other options. | Evidence: Plausible45 | No. In one speed-dating study, genuine interest in a particular person was liked back, while liking nearly everyone was not; nothing here concerns seeming busy. |
| Waiting as dread | How a long, unclear wait feels to the person waiting. | Evidence: Speculative6 | Untested. A model of anticipation suggests waiting for an unwelcome outcome produces dread; it has not been tested on waiting for a reply. |
What would make it testable
As stated, it cannot be tested. It names no delay, no comparison and no outcome.
A testable version Among adults messaging after a first date, does replying several hours later, compared with replying on reading, change the other person's rated interest in meeting again, measured the next day?
The useful question underneath
Worry about seeming too keen, and the urge to reply out of nerves rather than because you have something to say.
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 caveatsIn recorded everyday conversation, people in all ten languages studied tended to answer within a fraction of a second and avoid talking over each other, and the average gap between speakers differed across languages by only a few hundred milliseconds.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Demonstrates: a 10-language study (Stivers 2009) found a shared pattern of avoiding overlap and keeping silence between turns short, with languages differing in average gap within a range of 250 ms of the cross-language mean; a review (Levinson 2016) describes responses as remarkably rapid. This is about gaps of well under a second in spoken talk. Marketing framing: advice that a slow or delayed answer signals confidence or keeps her chasing, for example the 'cat and the string' analogy in dating-frameworks-c12 and the warning about being 'too available' in dating-frameworks-c14; the studies here say nothing about deliberately slowing replies.
What it does not show
- Stivers 2009 compared a small number of conversations per language, mostly informal recorded talk; per-language sample sizes were not checked.
- No large independent replication was found for the cross-language gap figures.
- Spoken face-to-face and phone talk only, not typed messages or dating contexts.
- Levinson 2016 is a review by an author of the 2009 study, so the two are not independent.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K. E., Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
- Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in Human Communication – Origins and Implications for Language Processing, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Evidence: PlausibleIn conversations between friends and between strangers, quicker replies from a partner went with feeling more connected, and observers judged the same conversation as more connected when the replies were quicker.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: Templeton et al. (2022) asked pairs to talk and rate felt connection; faster response times predicted connection across and within conversations, mainly through how fast the partner responded to the person, on a time scale below about 250 ms that people cannot consciously control. A third-party listening task showed the same timing difference changed judged connection. The felt-connection results are associations from live talk; only the third-party task manipulated timing. Marketing framing: reply speed as a status game, where waiting longer is said to show higher value (see dating-frameworks-c12 and dating-frameworks-c14); the study measured fractions of a second in live speech, so it cannot support that advice either way.
What it does not show
- Single paper from one research group; no large independent replication found.
- Live spoken conversation, not texting, so it does not show that minutes or hours of delay affect connection.
- Participant demographics and effect sizes were not seen in the abstract.
- Association with felt connection does not show that speeding up replies would create connection.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Templeton, E. M., Chang, L. J., Reynolds, E. A., Cone LeBeaumont, M. D., Wheatley, T. (2022). Fast response times signal social connection in conversation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Evidence: PlausibleThe few studies of reply delay in typed messages look at customer-service chat and student-to-instructor email rather than dating, and none shows that deliberately delaying a reply raises attraction.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: in an online chat experiment (Lew et al. 2018) the effect of an agent's response latency on how observers judged the agent depended on whether the replies actually responded to what was said (contingency); in an email vignette experiment (Martin et al. 2017) the instructor's response time (10 hours or 14 days) was the only manipulated factor that significantly influenced liking, while the importance of the assignment did not. Neither involved romantic interest. Marketing framing: waiting before replying to a text keeps her interested (common framing, unattributed); see also dating-frameworks-c14 on being 'too available'. The studies do not test this.
What it does not show
- Observers read scripted vignettes; they were not people in a live exchange.
- Customer-service and teacher-student settings, not dating or friendship; the 10-hour versus 14-day contrast is far from typical texting gaps.
- Martin 2017 appeared in a regional communication association's annual; its peer-review standard was not checked.
- Direction and size of the latency effect in Lew 2018 were not seen in the abstract.
- No study of dating-app or text reply timing and attraction with adequate design was found; absence of evidence is not evidence of no effect.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Lew, Z., Walther, J. B., Pang, A., Shin, W. (2018). Interactivity in Online Chat: Conversational Contingency and Response Latency in Computer-mediated Communication, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.
- Martin, J. C., Tatum, N. T., Kemper, B. (2017). Thanks for the quick reply!”: Email Chronemics and Instructor Liking, Pennsylvania Communication Annual.
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.
Evidence: PlausibleIn one speed-dating study, people who said they desired almost everyone they met tended to be desired less by the others they met.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Desire directed at one specific person was reciprocated, but a general tendency to desire many people predicted being desired less. The pattern concerns genuinely different levels of interest, not a tactic.
What it does not show
- Single short report (156 undergraduates, plus 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 = -.41 for desiring many people and being desired less; the r = .14 in the same report is the reciprocity finding of c1).
- Correlational: it does not show that pretending to be choosy raises appeal, and the app does not teach concealing real interest.
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.
Evidence: SpeculativeWaiting can also feel bad: the same anticipation process that produces savoring produces dread when the awaited outcome is unwelcome.
Why this label
An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested. Loewenstein's model includes dread as the negative counterpart of savoring, explaining why people sometimes prefer to get unpleasant outcomes over with. It offers a frame for why a long, ambiguous wait after a message may be distressing rather than exciting.
What it does not show
- A theoretical model; the application to dating or messaging is untested.
- No source here measured waiting for a reply.
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Source
- Loewenstein, G. (1987). Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption, The Economic Journal.