Charm Upgrade

Learn · Social Mistakes and the Scrambler, critically

Hard to get, tested

Lesson 2 of 5 in this module · about 7 minutes · Romantic communication

The idea

Findings that uncertainty or playing hard to get raises attraction come from narrow lab designs, and the better-tested versions show costs 1.

The sales material uses an analogy in which a woman loses interest once she has “caught” you, and staying somewhat out of reach keeps her chasing 2. This course labels it Speculative, because the pages show no study behind it 2.

One experiment seems to agree. College women were more attracted to men whose liking of them was uncertain than to men they were told liked them a lot, and the authors report that thinking about the men more increased the attraction 3. The limits are large.

  • It was a single experiment, with undergraduate women rating fictional men on profile pages. There was no meeting, no behavior and no dating outcome 3.
  • Uncertain meant being told a man liked them “a lot or an average amount”. It was not feigned disinterest or withheld replies 3.
  • We found no preregistered or independent replication. The proposed mechanism comes from non-romantic experiments, in which uncertainty about a small gift prolonged the good mood, so it holds only by analogy 3.
  • The study cannot show that thinking about someone causes attraction in real dating 4.

Our review marks as Speculative the step from this experiment to withholding warmth or contact on purpose, which nobody in the study did 5.

Playing hard to get was also tested directly. One paper with two studies found that among people already committed to pursuing, it could raise how much they wanted to pursue the other person while lowering how much they liked them. Among people not already committed, it lowered both 6. Chasing is wanting, a push to pursue. Liking is warmth toward the person. Our review reads a higher wish to pursue paired with lower liking as a poor basis for a relationship; the finding does not recommend the tactic. The studies used lab measures, not real pursuit or relationships 6.

In online-interaction experiments, being unclear about romantic interest did not reliably raise appeal: vagueness lowered it when the person seemed uninterested, and explicit expressions of interest raised it 7. All six studies come from one research program, and chatting online with a confederate, someone working for the researchers, differs from meeting in person early in dating 7.

Put together, none of the sources we reviewed tests feigned disinterest in real dating, so there is no good evidence that deliberately keeping someone guessing is a reliable way to be liked 1.

One person’s preoccupation is not evidence the other feels the same 8.

Why it matters

A sales analogy can turn into a plan for how to treat a real person. Checking what was tested shows the nearest studies are narrow and the direct tests show costs 1.

What it looks like

Example

Anil, 32, has read the “cat and the string” idea, and Sunita, 31, wrote to him this morning after pottery class. He asks what has been tested and finds no good support for holding back. He replies when he would anyway, in about her size: “I liked the class. If you’d like coffee this week, I’d enjoy that. No pressure either way.”

The same moment, handled the other way

Counterexample

Anil holds his reply for two days on purpose, so that the gap leaves Sunita wondering.

Nothing tested supports this 1. It treats her wait as a lever, and he loses what makes his reads useful: seeing what she does when she is free to choose.

The one thing to remember

The rule

Reply when you would naturally reply, in about her size, and say plainly if you want to meet again.

Never time a reply, or hold back warmth, to leave someone unsure. This course does not teach feigned disinterest or manufactured uncertainty, whatever any lab result shows: it asks you to deceive her and use her feelings as a lever. If you want to leave room, leave it honestly (module 8, lesson 3).

Try it now

Item 1 of this lesson’s set: What the experiment shows.

Open the exercise set

In the real world (optional)

If you like, think of a time a slow or unclear reply kept you thinking about someone, and ask yourself whether the thinking told you anything about how they felt. Nothing needs writing down.

What this doesn’t tell you

The research here does not show that hard to get never works, and it cannot say what happens in any one case. It is lab and online work, and our search was limited, not systematic 3 7 1. It does not say you must answer at once, or that a gap is a mistake. It says arranging a gap as a performance has no good support.

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.
  1. 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

  2. SpeculativeThe Scrambler sales material uses a 'cat and the string' analogy: a woman loses interest once she has 'caught' you, and staying somewhat out of reach keeps her chasing.

    Why this label

    An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested. Untested theory. Research on uncertainty and attraction, intermittent reinforcement and effort/investment (uncertainty-selectivity, reinforcement-reward-dopamine, effort-investment) shows mixed or context-bound effects. Deliberate unavailability is manufactured uncertainty and is not taught.

    What it does not show

    • Analogy, no data
    • Treats women as a single group
    • Free video does not explain the mechanism

    Who it applies to

    One person or case only.

    Sources

  3. PlausibleIn one lab experiment, college women were more attracted to men whose liking of them was uncertain than to men they were told liked them a lot, and the authors report that thinking about the men more increased the attraction.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Whitchurch and colleagues found this in a single experiment using fictional feedback about men seen on profile pages. Wilson and colleagues' separate non-romantic experiments found that uncertainty about a positive event prolonged the good mood it caused, which is the proposed mechanism.

    What it does not show

    • Single experiment with undergraduate women rating fictional men on profiles; no meeting, no behaviour, no dating outcome.
    • Uncertainty here was a brief 'a lot or an average amount' manipulation, not feigned disinterest or withheld replies.
    • No preregistered or independent replication was found in this search.
    • Wilson et al. used non-romantic stimuli, so it supports the mechanism only by analogy.

    Who it applies to

    Depends on the setting and the people involved.

    Sources

  4. PlausibleIn one experiment, women who were uncertain whether a man liked them thought about him more, and the authors report that this extra thinking increased their attraction, but the study cannot show that thinking about someone causes attraction in real dating.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Whitchurch and colleagues report that thinking about the men mediated the uncertainty effect. A mediator in one lab experiment shows association with the rating, not that preoccupation is a lever to create lasting attraction.

    What it does not show

    • Single experiment with undergraduate women and fictional feedback.
    • Mediation analysis is correlational in the mediator.
    • No replication found in this search.

    Who it applies to

    Depends on the setting and the people involved.

    Source

  5. SpeculativeThe finding that uncertainty about being liked can increase attraction comes from one online student experiment and does not show that deliberately withholding warmth or contact builds healthy anticipation.

    Why this label

    An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested. In that study, uncertain interest led to more attraction than certain high interest, apparently because participants thought about the men more. Wilson 2005 shows uncertainty can prolong the pleasure of small positive events. Neither studies real dating or someone withholding contact on purpose, and the anticipation research above concerns looking forward to something good that is known to be coming. Lessons should not present withdrawal as a technique.

    What it does not show

    • Whitchurch 2010 used college women rating profiles of strangers in one session; I located no published direct replication.
    • Wilson 2005 used non-social positive events such as a small gift.
    • Short-term attraction ratings do not measure relationship outcomes or the other person's experience.

    Who it applies to

    Depends on the setting and the people involved.

    Sources

  6. 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

  7. Supported with caveatsBeing unclear about romantic interest does not reliably make someone more appealing: in online-interaction experiments, vagueness lowered appeal when the person seemed uninterested, and explicit expressions of interest raised it.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Birnbaum and colleagues ran six studies, four with online confederates who were clear or vague about romantic intent and two surveys and diaries in established couples. Partner regard predicted less uncertainty, which predicted greater perceived desirability. The authors read reduced desire under uncertainty as self-protection.

    What it does not show

    • All six studies come from one research programme; findings were read from the abstract only.
    • Online confederate interactions and established-couple self-report differ from in-person early dating.
    • Measured appeal and desire ratings, not later behaviour.

    Who it applies to

    Depends on the setting and the people involved.

    Source

  8. PlausibleIn retrospective written accounts of unrequited love, would-be lovers, unlike rejectors, believed the attraction had been mutual and that they were led on, while many rejectors described persistent efforts as intrusive, so one person's preoccupation is not evidence the other person feels the same.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Baumeister, Wotman and Stillwell compared written accounts from both sides of unreciprocated attraction and found mismatched perceptions. This supports lessons that stress checking what the other person actually does and respecting a clear no.

    What it does not show

    • Retrospective, self-selected written accounts; each side's memory is motivated.
    • Student samples; the abstract was read in a truncated form.
    • Describes differing perceptions, not how often they occur.
    • A would-be lover's belief that they were led on is their perception; it does not show that the rejection was unclear.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Source

More practice

The rest of the set, Hard to get, tested: exercises: 3 items, about 5 minutes. Decide what the evidence supports, and how well. Open the exercise set.