Charm Upgrade

Learn · Social Mistakes and the Scrambler, critically

Make them chase? Effort and liking

Lesson 3 of 5 in this module · about 7 minutes · Romantic communication

The idea

Findings that effort raises how much people value things do not show that making someone work harder makes them like you more 1.

People value what they make themselves. In four experiments, people who assembled boxes, folded origami or built Lego valued their work more than other people did, but only when they finished the task. When the creation was destroyed or left unfinished, the effect disappeared 2. It is one paper from one research group, and it concerns consumer-product tasks. It is about valuing one’s own finished creation, not valuing a person 2.

A classic lab experiment on joining a group, from 1959 and known to us from secondary summaries, reported that participants who passed a more embarrassing screening rated a dull discussion more favorably 3. The original abstract was not available to us, and the group was staged. In two Dutch field studies of real group initiations, harsher initiation went with frustration, loneliness or low mood and with lower liking, and companionship, not severity, predicted attraction to the group 3. That does not match the classic lab finding, but it does not show the lab effect is absent either. Other replications of it exist that we did not assess, and the field studies are one paper, correlational, in one national context 3. They concern groups and should not be stretched to couples.

Now put these next to the sales claim, which is about one person making another work: staying somewhat out of reach so that she chases 4. In the box and origami studies, the effort was the person’s own and ended in something they finished. In the initiation studies, it was a cost paid to join a group. In none of these did one person deliberately withhold access from another to see whether the other would value them more 1. The usual explanation for the classic findings is justifying one’s own costly effort: if I paid a lot, it must have been worth it. That may not apply when someone else imposes the cost 1.

So these findings do not show that making someone chase you, wait or work harder makes them like you more. Our review presents this as a gap in the evidence, not as proof that the tactic fails or works; it argues from the cited studies, not from a direct test of dating tactics 1.

This course does not teach making someone work for your attention. It is manufactured instability, and it treats her time and feelings as something to arrange. Honest effort of your own, such as showing up as you said you would, is different. It is yours, and it does not depend on her chasing anything.

Why it matters

The idea that people value what they work for sounds sensible, and it echoes the sales picture of a woman who keeps chasing 4. Checking what the studies covered shows they do not support it 1.

What it looks like

Example

Rafael, 35, is told that people value what they work for, so Simone, 33, should have to work for his attention. He asks, “Was anyone in those studies making someone else work?” He learns it was people’s own effort on boxes and group initiations. He drops the idea and texts Simone the plan he already had: “I’m going to the pottery sale Saturday. Want to come?”

The same moment, handled the other way

Counterexample

Rafael answers Simone late on purpose and lets a plan lapse, so she has to work for his attention.

None of the cited studies tested that, and in one paper the closest direct tests found playing hard to get lowered liking 5. The course would not teach it either way: it treats her effort as something to extract.

The one thing to remember

The rule

Put effort into your own plans and follow-through, and never make someone work for your attention.

Try it now

Item 1 of this lesson’s set: What did people value?

Open the exercise set

In the real world (optional)

If you like, think of something you made yourself and something you waited a long time for, and notice which of your feelings belong to the thing and which to the waiting.

What this doesn’t tell you

The evidence is thin on both sides. We have no direct test of one person making another work harder in dating. The effort findings come from boxes, origami, Lego and group initiations, mostly lab work, with the field studies one paper 2 3. The tests that come closest point the other way. In two studies, playing hard to get lowered liking even where it raised wanting, and among people not already committed to pursuing, it lowered both 5. So there is no evidence that making someone work harder makes them like you, and some evidence of a cost.

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. PlausibleLab findings that effort raises valuation do not show that making someone chase you, wait or work harder makes them like you more.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The effort-valuation findings concern a person's own effort on a task or in joining a group (the IKEA effect, severity of initiation). None of the sources here tests one person deliberately withholding access to another. The mechanism, justifying one's own costly effort, may also not apply when the cost is imposed by someone else. Lessons should present this as a gap in the evidence, not as proof the tactic fails or works, and should not teach it as a tactic.

    What it does not show

    • Argument from the content of the cited studies, not a direct test of dating tactics.
    • Direct studies of 'playing hard to get' belong to the uncertainty-selectivity topic and are not assessed here.

    Who it applies to

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

    Sources

  2. PlausiblePeople value things they made themselves more than equivalent things made by others, but only when they finish the task.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. In four experiments, people who assembled boxes, folded origami or built Lego valued their work more than others did; the effect disappeared when the creation was destroyed or left unfinished.

    What it does not show

    • One paper from one research group; four consumer-product tasks.
    • About valuing one's own finished creation, not valuing a person.
    • Mostly adult volunteers recruited in the US; sample details not checked here.

    Who it applies to

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

    Source

  3. PlausibleIn two Dutch field studies of real group initiations, harsher initiation went with frustration, loneliness or low mood and lower liking, and companionship rather than severity predicted attraction to the group, which does not match the classic lab finding that harsher initiation raises liking.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Aronson and Mills reported in a 1959 lab experiment that a more embarrassing entry test raised liking for a dull group. Two Dutch field studies of real initiations found harsher treatment linked to frustration, loneliness or low mood and lower liking, while companionship predicted attraction.

    What it does not show

    • The 1959 original is a single lab study with a staged group; its abstract (introduction only) was not seen and its result is taken from secondary summaries.
    • Field studies are one paper (two samples), correlational, and one national context.
    • Other replications of the lab effect exist and were not assessed here; this does not show the lab effect is absent in general.

    Who it applies to

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

    Sources

  4. 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

  5. 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

More practice

The rest of the set, Make them chase? Effort and liking: exercises: 3 items, about 5 minutes. Decide what the evidence supports, and how well. Open the exercise set.