OSA (Observe, Share, Ask)
Marni Kinrys's OSA (Observe, Share, Ask)
What it claims
Marni Kinrys describes OSA as a conversation method of three parts: observe something, share something, and ask a question. She says she created it and has taught it to over 10,000 men 1. She says that when men talked to her as if they already knew her, she responded more openly and the conversation flowed more easily 2.
The potentially useful principle
A turn that notices something real, adds something of your own and hands the conversation back is a balanced turn. It shares, and it asks.
Evidence status
Evidence: Marketing claim
Kinrys's description of OSA is a Marketing claim 1. Her account of how she responded is her own anecdote, with no evidence cited 2. The parts have indirect support: research consistently finds that people who share more personal information tend to be liked more, and that people like those they have shared with 3. In one study of first conversations, taking turns sharing produced more liking than one person sharing while the other only listened 4. Several studies find that people who ask more follow-up questions tend to be better liked, mostly in get-to-know-you conversations 5.
A rigorous interpretation
No study in our evidence base tests OSA as a package, and none shows that it creates interest. The research supports something narrower than a method: in get-to-know-you conversations, people who ask follow-up questions tend to be better liked 5. Use OSA as the shape of one balanced turn, then read what comes back.
Practice exercise
OSA builder: build a turn from a real observation, a genuine share and an open question, then turn a run of questions into a two-way conversation.
- Observe, Share, Ask (M04-L1)
- From interview to conversation (M04-L2)
Why do we believe this?
Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim carries one of five labels.
- Well supported
- A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate.
- Supported with caveats
- Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings.
- Plausible
- One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question.
- Speculative
- An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested.
- Marketing claim
- Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence.
Evidence: Marketing claimMarni Kinrys describes OSA as a conversation method of observation, sharing and asking a question, which she says she created and has taught to over 10,000 men.
Why this label
Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence. Creator attribution and reach are self-reported. The structure overlaps self-disclosure-questions and responsiveness, which cover reciprocal disclosure and follow-up questions.
What it does not show
- Self-reported reach, unverified
- Step-by-step detail was not on the free pages read
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Sources
- Kinrys, M. (2013). How To Talk To Women Using OSA Formula | Wing Girl Method, winggirlmethod.com.
- Kinrys, M. (2016). Effortless Approach O.S.A : A Tool That Helps You Start Conversations With Women - Marni's Wing Girl Method, winggirlmethod.com.
- Kinrys, M. (2014). Great Opener To Say To Women - Marni's Wing Girl Method, winggirlmethod.com.
Evidence: Marketing claimKinrys says that when men talked to her as if they already knew her she responded more openly and found conversation flowed more easily, and that an observation-based opener got her engaged; she teaches this as part of OSA.
Why this label
Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence. Seller's assertion based on her own experience and, she says, on checking with other women; no evidence is cited on the page. Related research: self-disclosure-questions, responsiveness. Familiarity effects are in attraction-foundations.
What it does not show
- No evidence cited; personal anecdote and her own account of other women's reactions
- Written from a female recipient's view for male initiators in a stranger-approach setting
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Sources
- Kinrys, M. (2016). Effortless Approach O.S.A : A Tool That Helps You Start Conversations With Women - Marni's Wing Girl Method, winggirlmethod.com.
- Kinrys, M. (2014). Great Opener To Say To Women - Marni's Wing Girl Method, winggirlmethod.com.
Evidence: Well supportedPeople who share more personal information tend to be liked more by listeners, and people tend to like those they have shared with.
Why this label
A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate. A 1994 meta-analysis found disclosure and liking linked in three directions: intimate disclosers are liked more, people disclose more to those they like, and disclosing to someone increases liking for them. The relation depended on study design and disclosure type.
What it does not show
- Based on an abstract-level reading; effect sizes not extracted.
- Mostly lab and student studies from before 1994; little on dating-specific contexts.
- Moderated by paradigm, type of disclosure and discloser gender, so the link is not uniform.
- Correlational and experimental studies are mixed in the pooled effect.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Collins, N. L., Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review, Psychological Bulletin.
Evidence: PlausibleIn initial conversations, taking turns sharing tended to produce more liking than one person sharing while the other only listens.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Pairs of undergraduates in 12-minute interactions liked each other more when disclosure alternated than when one person did all the disclosing. This supports matching your sharing to the other person's pace rather than front-loading.
What it does not show
- Single study sample of undergraduates in a lab; no dating outcome measured.
- Abstract-level information came from a search summary; effect sizes not seen.
- A related 2015 follow-up by the same team exists but was not read.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Wondra, J. D., Hilaire, N., Wallpe, K. (2013). Taking turns: Reciprocal self-disclosure promotes liking in initial interactions, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
- Collins, N. L., Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review, Psychological Bulletin.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsIn get-to-know-you conversations, people who ask more questions, especially follow-up questions that build on what was just said, tend to be better liked, and people do not expect this.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Across three studies of live conversations, people who asked more questions were better liked; when instructed to ask more, they were seen as more responsive, and responsiveness explained the liking effect. Follow-up questions were the main driver.
What it does not show
- Conversations were among strangers in online or lab settings, often US samples.
- The speed-dating strand of the evidence is disputed (see next claim).
- Instructed question counts are not the same as natural, motivated questions; quality and sincerity were not the focus.
- A 2025 correction to the paper was published (doi 10.1037/pspi0000491, confirmed on Crossref). The S7.1 abstract check reports that it describes an independent audit that confirmed the conclusions; its text was not read here, so this record relies on neither the correction nor the audit.
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.
- Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Huang, K., Minson, J., Gino, F. (2019). It helps to ask: The cumulative benefits of asking follow-up questions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.