When they'd rather not
Lesson 7 of 7 in this module · about 7 minutes · Communication
The idea
A deeper question is an invitation, so the other person is free to decline. When they do, that topic is closed. This is a course principle, and it rests on the course’s rule that a no ends the line: after a refusal, do not ask again, in other words or at all.
Declines come in different sizes. Some are plain: “I’d rather not get into that.” Others are softer: a one-line answer and a question about you, a changed topic, a joke that turns the question aside. A soft one is easier to misread. You can ask once, lightly, whether they would rather talk about something else, and then accept whatever comes back.
Why is a quiet pass worth taking seriously? Several studies find that saying no in the moment is socially costly for the person saying it. In studies from two research groups, people said yes more often than requesters expected, and a yes could be partly driven by not wanting to hurt the other person 1. The tasks were help requests and staged date offers, mostly with US student and online samples, not real dating outcomes 1. So a no that got said has already cost something, and a polite answer may be partly kindness. The finding does not show that asking more is safe 1.
Both sides can also see the same events differently. In one 1993 study of retrospective accounts of unrequited love, many rejectors described the other person’s persistent efforts as intrusive and annoying, while the would-be lovers believed the rejection had never been definitely communicated 2. That study was about romantic rejection, not a question at a party, and each side’s account may be self-serving 2. It does not show that any rejection was unclear. The course practice is plain: a no is a no.
You may feel sure you can tell a soft decline from shyness. Be careful. In one paper with two studies, people overrated how well they read others, and the least accurate overestimated most 3. It was not tested in dating or flirting 3. So do not build a plan on a guess about what the pass really means.
A pass may be about the pace, the topic or the mood. Depth that arrives before it is wanted can cost something: one role-play experiment found that very intimate disclosure from someone just met lowered liking 4. You cannot tell which reason is in play, and you do not need to. Say a few warm words, stay at the current depth or go lighter, and let the conversation carry on. No question is safe from a no, and none needs to be.
Why it matters
Several studies find that saying no in the moment tends to cost the person saying it something 1. A calm reply to a no that got said keeps that cost from growing, and it keeps the rest of the conversation open for both of you.
What it looks like
Example
You and Kenji, 39, are shelving donated books at a library sale. You ask why he left his last job. He says, “I’d rather not get into that.” You say, “Sure,” hold up a battered paperback and add, “Can you tell if this one is a classic or just old?” He laughs and turns it over.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same sale. You ask Kenji why he left his last job. He says he would rather not get into it. You ask, “Was it that bad?” and then, “You can tell me.” When he goes quiet, you say, “Fine, forget I asked.”
Two more asks after a no pressed him for an answer he had already given, and the sulk made his no cost him more.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Take a decline as complete: say a few warm words, go lighter, and do not ask again or ask why.
If an answer is unclear rather than stated, ask once, lightly, and then accept whatever comes back. A decline closes that topic, not the conversation. This is a course principle, not a research finding.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Not today. Pick the reply that accepts in a few words.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, the next time someone passes on a question in a conversation you were having anyway, notice your own first impulse, and let a warm word and a lighter topic come first.
What this doesn’t tell you
The studies concern help requests, staged date offers and old retrospective accounts, not a topic declined at a library sale. They do not say why any one person declines. The pass may have nothing to do with you, and the lesson does not read it either way.
Why do we believe this?
Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim in this course 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: Supported with caveatsSaying no in the moment is socially costly for the person saying it, so people say yes more often than requesters expect, and a yes can be partly driven by not wanting to hurt the other person.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Demonstrates: in the last of six studies requesters were less willing than potential helpers to appreciate the social costs of refusing; and in two studies single people were less willing to decline unsuitable potential dates when the situation seemed real than when hypothetical, partly out of concern for the other person's feelings. Hesitant or polite replies are also ambiguous; see consent-communication-c1 and c3. Marketing framing: none common.
What it does not show
- Two research groups with different tasks; effects measured in the lab and in hypothetical or staged scenarios
- Help requests and staged date offers, not real dating outcomes
- Student and online samples, mostly US
- Explains why a quick yes is not proof of enthusiasm; it does not show that asking more is safe
- No large registered replication found
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Flynn, F. J., Lake, V. K. B. (2008). If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Joel, S., Teper, R., MacDonald, G. (2014). People Overestimate Their Willingness to Reject Potential Romantic Partners by Overlooking Their Concern for Other People, Psychological Science.
Evidence: PlausibleIn retrospective accounts of unrequited love, many rejectors described the other's persistent efforts as intrusive and annoying, while would-be lovers believed the rejection had never been definitely communicated.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. This one study of retrospective narratives shows the two sides experience the same events differently, which is a reason to be clear when declining and to stop when the answer is no.
What it does not show
- Single study from 1993 using retrospective narrative accounts; sample details not checked.
- Each side's account may be self-serving.
- Does not show that the rejection was in fact unclear; a would-be lover's belief is their perception, and a no should be taken as a no.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Evidence: PlausiblePeople overrate how well they read others, and the least accurate overestimate most; self-rated mind-reading ability tracked actual accuracy only weakly or not at all.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Supports calibration drills with feedback instead of trusting a feeling of insight. Plausible rather than supported because it rests on one paper (two studies); the authors state that earlier work also found a weak or non-existent link, which was not checked here.
What it does not show
- Two studies: a video-based accuracy test and a negotiation exercise with MBA students (Study 2: 164).
- Self-estimates were relative-ability (percentile) judgments; not tested in dating or flirting.
- Narcissism result is correlational.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Ames, D. R., Kammrath, L. K. (2004). Mind-Reading and Metacognition: Narcissism, not Actual Competence, Predicts Self-Estimated Ability, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior.
Evidence: PlausibleVery intimate disclosure from someone you have just met can lower liking and make them seem less well adjusted, or out of place, even though disclosure usually raises liking.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. In a role-play experiment, liking was highest for a medium discloser and lower for a high one, and the high discloser was rated less well adjusted. In a Facebook study, intimate disclosures shared in a public setting were judged less appropriate and the discloser was liked less. This qualifies the broad finding that intimate disclosers are liked more.
What it does not show
- The 1972 experiment used 30 women and role-play of a stranger; dating from an older era.
- The second study concerns online posts and a public versus private setting, not a face-to-face first meeting.
- Two studies in different settings; no meta-analytic test of the dip at high intimacy.
- Appropriateness depends on setting, relationship and culture.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Cozby, P. C. (1972). Self-Disclosure, Reciprocity and Liking, Sociometry 35(1), 151.
- Bazarova, N. N. (2012). Public Intimacy: Disclosure Interpretation and Social Judgments on Facebook, Journal of Communication 62(5), 815-832.
- Collins, N. L., Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review, Psychological Bulletin.
More practice
The rest of the set, When they'd rather not: five answers: 5 items, about 5 minutes. Say a limit in one plain sentence, or answer someone's limit with acceptance and nothing else. Open the exercise set.
Go further
Outside talks, videos and pages on the topics this lesson cites. Nothing from them loads until you follow a link, and a link is not an endorsement: read the note under each one.
Vanessa Van Edwards: 10 Quirky Questions to Ask On Your Next Date
Example open-ended, curiosity-led questions to ask on a date, relevant to responsiveness and to restarting a conversation that has stalled.
Keep in mind. Light entertainment format; questions are prompts, not a technique that guarantees liking.
Vanessa Van Edwards: 28 Science-Backed Body Language Signs of Attraction
Catalogue of cues said to signal attraction (leaning in, mirroring, proximity, eye contact), with the useful advice to look for clusters of signals rather than one gesture.
Keep in mind. Mixes research with popular lists; the gendered framing and some involuntary-signal claims (pupils, blushing) are weakly sourced. Cues never authorise touch.
Vanessa Van Edwards: Cues by Vanessa Van Edwards: 9780593332191 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books
Book on reading and sending nonverbal cues for warmth and competence; the publisher page gives the official description and edition details.
Keep in mind. Self-help book; evidence quality varies by chapter. Link to the publisher only.