Inversion: what makes mutual attraction harder?
Lesson 6 of 6 in this module · about 6 minutes · Romantic communication
The idea
Inversion is a general way of reasoning. Instead of asking how to get a result, ask what would make it harder, then avoid that. It is a method, not anyone’s slogan.
Instead of “What makes someone obsessed with me?”, ask “What behaviors make healthy mutual attraction harder?” The first question is the wrong one. It treats the other person’s feelings as something to engineer, and nothing you do can settle that. The second question gives you behavior of your own to notice.
Here are nine behaviors to look for in yourself:
- Pressure.
- Acting entitled to someone’s time or interest.
- Poor listening.
- Crossing boundaries.
- Seeking approval.
- Hiding your intentions.
- Not accepting a no.
- Taking over the conversation.
- Missing cues that the other person is winding down.
Some have evidence behind them. Several studies find that in get-to-know-you conversations, people who ask more questions, especially follow-up questions, tend to be better liked 1. One study reports that in initial conversations, taking turns sharing produced more liking than one person sharing while the other only listened 2. In one set of retrospective accounts of unrequited love, many people who had turned someone down described the other’s persistent efforts as intrusive and annoying 3. In one college study, approach behaviors went with a relationship forming, while surveillance and intimidation went with it not forming 4. Several studies find that saying no in the moment is costly, so people say yes more often than askers expect, and a yes can be partly about not wanting to hurt the asker 5. A yes under pressure tells you little.
The rest of the list is a course principle, not a research finding. These are things to notice in yourself, never labels for anyone. For the claim behind the control question, see the “dark psychology” claim page.
Why it matters
A question about control has no good answer. The inverted question gives you behavior you can change in your next conversation.
What it looks like
Example
Ravi, 35, walks Chiara, 33, to the station after a friend’s dinner party. Afterward he asks what would make mutual attraction harder. He notices he talked about his job for most of the walk and did not ask about her trip, though she slowed and checked her phone twice. Next time he plans to ask one follow-up question and notice when the other person winds down.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Ravi searches for “how to make her obsessed” and memorizes lines.
The question asks how to engineer someone’s feelings, which no line can do and this course does not teach. It also skips the part he controls, which is his own habits.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Ask what would make mutual attraction harder, and look for it in your own behavior first.
Pick one behavior from the list. Look for it in a recent conversation, without judging yourself. Change one small thing next time.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: The barbecue.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, think back to one recent conversation and notice one moment where you could have listened more or asked one more question.
What this doesn’t tell you
The nine behaviors are a course checklist, not ranked by research. The studies cited are get-acquainted conversations, college courtship and recollections 1 3 4. Avoiding these habits does not produce anyone’s attraction. It removes obstacles you control.
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 caveatsIn get-to-know-you conversations, people who ask more questions, especially follow-up questions that build on what was just said, tend to be better liked, and people do not expect this.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Across three studies of live conversations, people who asked more questions were better liked; when instructed to ask more, they were seen as more responsive, and responsiveness explained the liking effect. Follow-up questions were the main driver.
What it does not show
- Conversations were among strangers in online or lab settings, often US samples.
- The speed-dating strand of the evidence is disputed (see next claim).
- Instructed question counts are not the same as natural, motivated questions; quality and sincerity were not the focus.
- A 2025 correction to the paper was published (doi 10.1037/pspi0000491, confirmed on Crossref). The S7.1 abstract check reports that it describes an independent audit that confirmed the conclusions; its text was not read here, so this record relies on neither the correction nor the audit.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Minson, J., Gino, F. (2017). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Huang, K., Minson, J., Gino, F. (2019). It helps to ask: The cumulative benefits of asking follow-up questions, 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.
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: PlausibleIn one college study of courtship persistence, the kind of behaviour mattered: approach behaviours were linked to a relationship forming, while surveillance and intimidation were linked to it not forming.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The study counted approach, such as asking someone out, among courtship persistence behaviours, and approach went with relationships forming. So it does not show that persistence in general fails; it shows that intrusive kinds (surveillance, intimidation) went with relationships not forming. Persistence at a breakup resembled persistence earlier in the relationship.
What it does not show
- One sample of 300 US college students; correlational.
- It studied courtship persistence in general, not pursuit after a clear no; it says nothing about whether persisting after a refusal helps.
- Self-report, and an individual's result can differ.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Williams, S. L., Frieze, I. H. (2005). Courtship Behaviors, Relationship Violence, and Breakup Persistence in College Men and Women, Psychology of Women Quarterly.
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.
More practice
The rest of the set, Inversion: what makes mutual attraction harder?: exercises: 4 items, about 4 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.
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: Boldness and Creepiness Aren't Separated by What You Say. It's What You Do After.
Kinrys's argument that boldness differs from creepiness by what a man does after seeing the other person's reaction, per the title; supports noticing and adjusting.
Keep in mind. Coach's opinion in a commercial channel; the app must add that persistence after a no is never acceptable.