What to find out
Lesson 3 of 3 in this module · about 7 minutes · Romantic communication
The idea
Four things are worth finding out over time. Values: what matters to her, and how she treats people when nothing is at stake for her. Reliability: whether what she says and what she does line up, over several contacts. Interests: what she enjoys, alone and with others, and how much overlaps with yours. Relationship goals: what she is looking for right now, in her own words. This list is a framework for this course, not a research result. We have no study showing that these four predict how early dating will go. You learn values and reliability mostly by watching, over time, and interests and goals mostly by hearing about them.
One paper of three studies found that when people designed an ideal long-term partner or screened potential partners, both sexes treated kindness, along with intelligence, as a necessity 1. The tasks were hypothetical, so they show what people say they would require, not whom they choose or are drawn to 1.
A meta-analysis and a speed-dating study find that the more people actually interact, the more the similarity that predicts liking is similarity they perceive, as opposed to similarity measured on questionnaires 2. That comes largely from lab studies of strangers and one speed-dating event, and perceived similarity may partly follow from liking 2.
In large datasets of mostly established couples, a person’s own perceptions of the relationship predicted its quality best, and much of how a relationship would change stayed unpredictable 3. The couples were mostly established, so the link to early dating is indirect 3.
So the four areas are things to learn, not a screen she must pass.
How to ask. In several studies, conversations that moved gradually toward more personal topics produced more closeness than small talk, and deeper conversations felt less awkward and more connecting than people expected 4. The closeness procedure was structured and mutually agreed, so it does not show that unsolicited deep disclosure at a first meeting is welcome, and the outcome was closeness between strangers, not romantic attraction 4. Some evidence suggests that taking turns sharing tends to produce more liking than one person doing all the sharing 5. The rules that follow are practice suggestions, not findings. Go gradually, at her pace, starting with something she has already opened. Share before the heavier question, so she is not the only one disclosing. Ask inside a topic, not from a list: “What are your values?” fits no walk. The Observe, Share, Ask turn from module 4 fits.
A direct question about relationship goals is fine once you have shared your own and she has room to decline. That is a practice suggestion, not a research finding.
Why it matters
In large datasets of mostly established couples, people’s own perceptions predicted relationship quality best, and much of how relationships changed stayed unpredictable 3. In several studies of strangers who had agreed to it, gradually more personal talk left them feeling closer than small talk did 4.
What it looks like
Example
On a Saturday walk, Aoife, 29, mentions a trip to the lakes. Jonah, 35, asks, “Did you grow up hiking, or come to it later?” He tells her about his first bad boots. Later he says, “I’m looking for something real this year, not a casual thing. No need to answer if it’s too early, but how about you?” He lets her answer or skip it.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same walk. Jonah asks Aoife five questions in twenty minutes: her work, whether she wants children, her last relationship, whether she is looking for something serious, her next weekend. She answers each politely, asks him nothing, and he has learned little about her.
His wish to learn about her was sound. The interview was the trouble.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Ask inside her topic, share one true thing of your own first, and leave an easy way to skip.
“No need to answer if it’s too early” is the easy way out. If she skips a question, move on.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Trams and tools.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, write your own answer to one area from this lesson: values, reliability, interests or what you are looking for now. Then say it aloud once, the way you would tell a friend.
What this doesn’t tell you
This lesson does not show that these four areas predict compatibility in early dating. It does not show that stated kindness shows up in whom people pick 1, or that more similarity makes a better relationship. It cannot tell you what Aoife wants. Only she can, and only as much as she chooses to share.
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: PlausibleIn tasks where people design an ideal long-term partner or screen potential partners, kindness (with intelligence) was treated as a necessity by both sexes, secured before other traits.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Supports the lesson that kindness is a baseline requirement. The evidence seen is one paper (three studies); the second source's introduction reportedly summarises earlier surveys that rate kindness highly, but its abstract was not seen and those studies were not checked.
What it does not show
- Stated preferences in hypothetical partner-design and screening tasks, not observed dating behaviour; they do not show who people actually choose or are attracted to.
- The abstract of the second source (Lukaszewski and Roney) was not obtained, so its sample and wording were not confirmed.
- Does not say what people do when kindness conflicts with other traits in practice.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Lukaszewski, A. W., Roney, J. R. (2010). Kind toward whom? Mate preferences for personality traits are target specific, Evolution and Human Behavior.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsThe more people actually interact, the more the similarity that predicts liking is similarity they perceive rather than similarity measured on questionnaires.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A meta-analysis found that measured similarity predicted attraction for strangers with no or brief interaction but not in existing relationships, while perceived similarity predicted attraction throughout. A speed-dating study found the same pattern for romantic liking.
What it does not show
- The meta-analysis is dominated by lab studies of strangers and information on paper; abstract-level reading only.
- Perceived similarity may partly result from liking someone rather than cause it; the data are correlational.
- The speed-dating test is one study of undergraduates at one event series.
- Perceived similarity on specific traits was a much weaker predictor than a general sense of similarity.
- Actual similarity still predicted attraction in short-interaction studies in the meta-analysis, with a smaller effect; it lost significance only in existing relationships.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
- Tidwell, N. D., Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J. (2013). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed‐dating paradigm, Personal Relationships.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsIn large longitudinal couple datasets, a person's own perceptions of the relationship (feeling their partner is committed, feeling appreciated, sexual satisfaction, little conflict) predict relationship quality best, and much of how a relationship will change remains unpredictable.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Across 43 datasets, relationship-specific perceptions predicted relationship quality better than individual differences did (up to 45% vs 21% of variance at baseline, 18% vs 12% at the end), and individual differences and partner reports added nothing beyond a person's own relationship-specific reports. Change over time was largely unpredictable. This argues against treating a checklist of traits or compatibility as a verdict on a new relationship.
What it does not show
- Predictors and outcome are both self-report, and many predictors were measured at the same time as the outcome, so the results are not causal.
- The samples were mostly established couples from Western laboratories; the abstract does not give the mix of dating and married couples, so early-dating applicability is indirect.
- Prediction accuracy was moderate at best at the study's end.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., Allison, C. J. (2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsConversations that gradually moved to more personal topics produced more closeness, and deeper conversations felt less awkward and more connecting than people expected.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A 45-minute escalating-disclosure procedure generated more closeness than small talk, and later experiments showed strangers over-predicted awkwardness of deep talk and under-predicted partners' interest in their disclosures.
What it does not show
- Outcome in the 1997 procedure was self-rated closeness between strangers, not romantic love or attraction.
- Studies 2-3 in the same paper found no effect of attitude matching or an explicit goal of getting close.
- Lab and online samples, largely Western and student or crowdsourced.
- Sessions were structured and mutually agreed; they do not show that unsolicited deep disclosure in a first meeting is welcome.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., Bator, R. J. (1997). The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
- Kardas, M., Kumar, A., Epley, N. (2022). Overly shallow?: Miscalibrated expectations create a barrier to deeper conversation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
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.
More practice
The rest of the set, What to find out: exercises: 3 items, about 5 minutes. Build a turn from something you notice, something you share and a question. 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.
Marni Kinrys: [Video] Raw Female Perspective On What Turns Women Off - Marni's Wing Girl Method
Free public page where Kinrys gives her perspective on behaviours that put people off; an attributable source for what the Wing Girl Method publicly says.
Keep in mind. Single coach's perspective; do not generalise to what 'women' want. Site sells paid courses.
Bobby Rio: 5 "Nice Guy" Conversation Mistakes to AVOID
Bobby Rio on conversation habits that undermine engagement, per the title; relevant to engaged versus merely polite behaviour and to conversational re-engagement.
Keep in mind. Commercial dating coach; 'nice guy' framing is contested and the channel also carries manipulation-style content the app must not teach.