Perceived selectivity
Interest aimed at one person tends to be received better than interest in everyone; pretending to be choosy is a different thing.
Evidence: PlausiblePlausible: One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. This is the weakest level among the claims below.
What the research shows
In one speed-dating study of undergraduates on four-minute dates, people who liked a particular partner more than others were liked back, while people who desired nearly everyone they met were desired less. Selectivity there was natural variation in real interest, not a tactic. In a speed-dating experiment, how choosy people were depended partly on their role: those who moved from partner to partner said yes more often than those who stayed seated. In two lab studies, playing hard to get raised the wish to pursue but lowered liking. What you can take from it: let your interest be about the particular person, and leave out pretence.1234
What dating marketing says it shows
Cited from a public source: Rio, B., Judge, R., Nice Guy Mistakes (bobbyriotraining.com)
Sales material for a dating course points to seeming needy, showing too much interest early and being too available, for example by texting or meeting up, as mistakes. Advice built on this idea often tells a man to ration his interest so that he seems in demand.5
What doesn't follow
The speed-dating results concern genuine differences in interest; they do not show that hiding or rationing real interest makes anyone more appealing.
Limits
Speed-dating at one university (156 undergraduates, with a second sample of 608) and an experiment at 15 heterosexual events (350 people); short, structured dates, correlational except for the rotation manipulation. The hard-to-get result is two lab studies in one paper with laboratory measures, not real pursuit.
Sources
Each numbered mark above opens the evidence behind that statement: the label, what it does not show and where it comes from.
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: PlausibleHow choosy someone appears depends partly on their role in the situation: speed daters who moved from partner to partner said yes more often than those who stayed seated.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. When men rotated, men were less selective than women; when women rotated, that gap disappeared. Rotators reported more self-confidence, which accounted for their lower selectivity. This shows selectivity is not simply fixed by sex.
What it does not show
- One speed-dating experiment, N = 350, 15 events at heterosexual events.
- Assignment of events to conditions and other design details were not checked beyond the abstract.
- Self-confidence mediation is statistical and does not prove mechanism.
- Speed-dating is a short, structured setting with little relevance to ordinary social settings.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W. (2009). Arbitrary Social Norms Influence Sex Differences in Romantic Selectivity, Psychological Science.
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: Marketing claimBobby Rio's 'Nice Guy Mistakes' page promises three mistakes and points to seeming needy, showing too much interest early, and being too available (texting, meeting up).
Why this label
Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence. Related research: kindness-confidence-dominance, reciprocal-liking, effort-investment. Early clear interest generally helps liking in research, so 'too much interest' is contestable.
What it does not show
- Sales page
- The page does not number the three mistakes; the list is inferred from its text
- Three mistakes, not the six in the product spec
Who it applies to
One person or case only.
Source
- Rio, B., Judge, R. (undated). Nice Guy Mistakes, bobbyriotraining.com.