Anticipation and novelty
Looking forward to something good can be pleasant in itself; withholding contact to build anticipation is a different thing and is not supported.
Evidence: PlausiblePlausible: One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. This is the weakest level among the claims below.
What the research shows
A model of anticipation, with some support from studies of planned purchases, treats looking forward to a good event as a pleasure in itself, and waiting for an experience was more enjoyable than waiting for an object. Several studies find that couples who do novel, engaging things together tend to report higher relationship quality and, in established couples, more desire; in four studies, learning and growing together mattered more than thrill. No good evidence shows that keeping someone guessing about your interest is a reliable way to be liked. What you can take from it: plan something worth looking forward to, say when it is, and try new things together.1234
What dating marketing says it shows
A typical sales line, written for this page
A typical sales line promises: "Make her wait for you, because the longer she waits, the more she will want you." Pages like this present delay and withheld contact as the source of desire.
What doesn't follow
The anticipation and novelty studies concern looking forward to good things and shared activities in established couples; they do not show that making someone wait builds desire.
Limits
Anticipation evidence comes from consumer purchases and economic modelling, not dating. The novelty studies are mostly of married or long-term couples, with short lab tasks and self-report, largely from one research network. The uncertainty evidence is narrow lab designs; none tests feigned disinterest in real dating.
Sources
Each numbered mark above opens the evidence behind that statement: the label, what it does not show and where it comes from.
Evidence: PlausibleLooking forward to a specific good event can itself feel good, and looking forward to an experience tends to be more enjoyable than waiting for an object.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Loewenstein's model treats anticipation as a source of pleasure ('savoring'). In four studies of planned purchases, people reported more happiness and excitement while waiting for experiences than for possessions.
What it does not show
- Evidence comes from consumer purchases and economic modelling, not dating, so applying it to a planned date is an extrapolation.
- Kumar 2014 used questionnaires, experience sampling and archival stories; effect on dating plans is untested.
- Loewenstein's account is a model, with some empirical support.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Loewenstein, G. (1987). Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption, The Economic Journal.
- Kumar, A., Killingsworth, M. A., Gilovich, T. (2014). Waiting for Merlot: Anticipatory Consumption of Experiential and Material Purchases, Psychological Science.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsCouples who do novel, engaging things together tend to report higher relationship quality and, in established couples, more desire.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Surveys and lab experiments found that shared novel, arousing tasks raised couples' relationship quality, and diary, longitudinal and experimental studies linked shared self-expanding activities to higher desire and satisfaction in established couples.
What it does not show
- The studies are mostly of married or long-term couples; early dating is not directly tested.
- Lab tasks were short (7 minutes in Aron 2000); outcomes are self-reported.
- Most cited studies come from the self-expansion research network; independent replication was not assessed.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples' shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Muise, A., Harasymchuk, C., Day, L. C., Bacev-Giles, C., Gere, J., Impett, E. A. (2019). Broadening your horizons: Self-expanding activities promote desire and satisfaction in established romantic relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- 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: PlausibleWhat seems to drive the benefit of shared activities is learning and broadening oneself together, rather than physical arousal or thrill.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. In four studies of couples and friend pairs, self-expansion predicted relationship and individual outcomes while physical arousal did not once self-expansion was accounted for.
What it does not show
- Small experiments (35 married couples; 106 friend pairs) plus surveys.
- Same research network as the original novelty-and-arousal work.
- Married couples and friends, not early dating.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- 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: PlausibleFindings that uncertainty or playing hard to get increases attraction come from narrow lab designs, and the better-tested versions show costs, so there is no good evidence that deliberately keeping someone guessing about your interest is a reliable way to be liked.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The one uncertainty-increases-attraction experiment used fictional feedback and measured only attraction ratings. Dai et al. found liking fell even where wanting rose, and Birnbaum et al. found that vagueness lowered appeal when the person seemed uninterested and that explicit interest raised it. None of the verified sources tests feigned disinterest in real dating.
What it does not show
- This is a claim about the absence of direct evidence in a limited set of sources, not a systematic search.
- Lab effects here do not transfer automatically to real-life tactics in either direction.
- Lessons should not teach feigned disinterest or manufactured uncertainty; the app's guardrails also exclude deception.
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.
- Dai, X., Dong, P., Jia, J. S. (2014). When does playing hard to get increase romantic attraction?, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
- 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.