What would "ego" and "chase" have to mean?
Lesson 1 of 6 in this module · about 6 minutes · Romantic communication
The idea
An advert’s words “ego” and “chase” name nothing you could see, so first ask which meaning each word needs and what behavior would show it.
Here is one advert, invented for this lesson. It is not from any real product.
Invented example, written for this lesson
“Ego down, chase up: our members’ first-date rule.” (invented)
Before asking whether it works, ask what it says.
“Ego” could mean self-esteem, pride, status, confidence or validation-seeking. Each makes a different claim, and the advert does not say which.
If it means status, several studies separate prestige (status from skill and shared knowledge) from dominance (status from intimidation). In small-group studies, prestigious people were liked and dominant people were not; in written scenarios, college women on average preferred high-prestige to high-dominance partners 1. That is about how status is gained, not about lowering anyone’s.
If it means self-esteem, the claim is that lowering someone’s self-regard raises their interest in you. The nearest evidence points the other way. Perceiving that someone is interested tends to go with more interest in them, while keeping a person guessing has mixed or negative results outside narrow experiments 2. Lab findings that effort raises value do not show that making someone work harder makes them like you 3. In this course, no one’s self-esteem is ever the thing to lower. A put-down is never a technique.
“Chase” could mean nine behaviors you can see. Six may show reciprocal investment:
- starts a text conversation
- reopens a conversation
- proposes a date
- proposes another day when the other person can’t make the first
- asks personal questions
- moves closer in conversation
Three may show distress:
- seeks reassurance after the other person withdrew
- becomes jealous
- keeps trying to win back approval
This sort is a course framework. It says “may” because context decides. The principle behind it is: “Behavioral persistence is not automatically desire.” In two studies, playing hard to get raised how much people wanted to pursue someone while lowering how much they liked them, and when people were not already committed it lowered both 4. Thinking about someone over and over is not, by itself, a sign of positive feeling. Reviews link repetitive thought to anxiety and low mood 5.
Reciprocal pursuit is useful information. Anxiety-driven pursuit is not the aim. This is a course principle, not a research finding.
Why it matters
Without definitions, an advert can count someone’s distress as success. Naming the behavior turns a slogan into a question you can check. The claim page for this advert applies that check to what it promises.
What it looks like
Example
Kwame, 31, sees the invented advert at lunch. He asks, “Which ego? Which chase?” He writes the observable version for himself. If chase means Sofia, 29, starts conversations and suggests plans, both people are contributing. If it means worried messages asking what she did wrong, that may show distress, which he has no wish to cause.
He keeps the plan he already had. He asked Sofia, from his running club, about the Sunday market, and he leaves room for her to suggest something too.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Kwame goes quiet for a week so that Sofia sends worried messages, and counts them as proof it works.
Messages sent after someone withdrew may show distress, not interest. Causing that on purpose is withdrawal used as a tactic, which this course never teaches.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Before you judge a claim, say what each key word would look like as behavior.
Do this before you decide whether a claim is true. If a word names nothing a person could do or say, the claim has not yet said anything you can check.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Which “ego”?
In the real world (optional)
If you like, take one dating claim you have seen online and write down what one of its words would look like as something a person does.
What this doesn’t tell you
The two-way sort is a course tool, not a research instrument. One message after a quiet spell can be ordinary. Behavior tells you about this conversation, not what anyone feels. The studies cited here are the nearest evidence, not a direct test of the advert’s claim.
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 caveatsStatus gained through skill and shared knowledge (prestige) and status gained through intimidation (dominance) are distinct: prestigious people were liked while dominant people were not, and in vignette studies women preferred high-prestige to high-dominance partners, favouring dominance only in athletic competition and for short-term ratings.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Gives lessons a way to separate confidence that invites others in (competence, openness) from intimidation. The group-hierarchy study did not measure attraction, and the mating-relevant result comes from one team's three vignette experiments.
What it does not show
- Cheng et al. studied small groups of previously unacquainted people, not romantic attraction.
- Snyder et al. used written vignettes with college women, so behaviour in real settings may differ.
- Prestige-versus-dominance labels are research constructs and real behaviour often blends them.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Snyder, J. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Barrett, H. C. (2008). The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates?, Personal Relationships.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsPerceiving that someone is interested goes with more interest in them, while keeping a person guessing about your interest has mixed or negative results outside narrow experiments.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Demonstrates: perceived interest from the partner was among the robust positive predictors of romantic interest in a preregistered study; online experiments found vagueness lowered appeal when the person seemed uninterested and explicit interest raised it; playing hard to get raised wanting but lowered liking, and only when the other person was already committed to pursuing; the one study that found uncertainty raising attraction was a single online student experiment. See uncertainty-selectivity-c2, c3 and c5, and reciprocal-liking-c1. Marketing framing: staying somewhat out of reach keeps her chasing (see dating-frameworks-c12).
What it does not show
- Perceived interest finding is correlational: the study cannot show which comes first
- Online and student samples; experiments with confederates or profiles, not live dating
- Hard-to-get effects depend on prior commitment of the pursuer
- No large registered replication of the uncertainty-increases-attraction finding found
- Deliberately withholding warmth is manipulative and is not taught
Who it applies to
Depends on the setting and the people involved.
Sources
- Eastwick, P. W., Joel, S., Carswell, K. L., Molden, D. C., Finkel, E. J., Blozis, S. A. (2022). Predicting romantic interest during early relationship development: A preregistered investigation using machine learning, European Journal of Personality.
- Birnbaum, G. E., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Mizrahi, M., Barniv, A., Nagar, S., Govinden, J., Reis, H. T. (2018). Are you into me? Uncertainty and sexual desire in online encounters and established relationships, Computers in Human Behavior.
- Dai, X., Dong, P., Jia, J. S. (2014). When does playing hard to get increase romantic attraction?, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
- Whitchurch, E. R., Wilson, T. D., Gilbert, D. T. (2011). “He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not . . .”: Uncertainty Can Increase Romantic Attraction, Psychological Science.
Evidence: 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
- Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., Ariely, D. (2012). The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love, Journal of Consumer Psychology.
- Aronson, E., Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.
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: Supported with caveatsThinking about something repeatedly is not a sign of positive feeling: reviews link repetitive thought and rumination to depression and anxiety, and its effects depend on content and context.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Nolen-Hoeksema and colleagues reviewed evidence that rumination worsens depression and problem solving and erodes social support. Watkins reviewed when repetitive thought is constructive (planning, recovery) versus unconstructive, depending on valence, context and abstract versus concrete thinking.
What it does not show
- Both sources are narrative reviews, not systematic reviews or meta-analyses, which is why the level is not well-supported.
- Reviews concern rumination on distress and problems, not on a person one is attracted to; applying it to attraction is an extrapolation.
- Much of the evidence is correlational and self-report, with an experimental subset.
- Constructive repetitive thought exists, so the claim is that preoccupation is not diagnostic of attraction, not that it is always harmful.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking Rumination, Perspectives on Psychological Science.
- Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought., Psychological Bulletin.
More practice
The rest of the set, What would "ego" and "chase" have to mean?: exercises: 6 items, about 8 minutes. Decide what the evidence supports, and how well. 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.
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.