SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Why ‘playing hard to get’ may actually work:
We tend to like people who like us—a basic human trait that psychologists have termed “reciprocity of attraction.” This principle generally works well to start relationships because it reduces the likelihood of rejection. Yet, making the chase harder also has its advantages. So which one is the better strategy?
[...] But in a new study published this spring in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, the team now examined the effects playing hard to get, a mating strategy that is likely to instill a certain degree of uncertainty.
The researchers discovered that making the chase harder increased a potential mate’s desirability.
“Playing hard to get makes it seem as if you are more in demand—we call that having higher mate value,” says Harry Reis, a professor of psychology and Dean’s Professor in Arts, Sciences & Engineering at Rochester.
“People who are too easy to attract may be perceived as more desperate,” says coauthor Gurit Birnbaum, a social psychologist and associate professor of psychology at the IDC Herzliya. “That makes them seem less valuable and appealing—than those who do not make their romantic interest apparent right away.”
[...] Birnbaum advises to show initial interest in potential partners so as not to alienate them. At the same time, don’t reveal too much about yourself. People are “less likely to desire what they already have,” she explains. Instead, build a connection with a potential partner gradually, thereby creating “a sense of anticipation and a desire to learn more about the other person.”
Playing hard to get may work as long as potential partners feel that their efforts are likely to be successful—eventually.
Journal Reference:
Gurit E. Birnbaum, Kobi Zholtack, Harry T. Reis. No pain, no gain: Perceived partner mate value mediates the desire-inducing effect of being hard to get during online and face-to-face encounters, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (DOI: 10.1177/0265407520927469)
(Score: 4, Informative) by looorg on Wednesday June 10 2020, @01:10PM (5 children)
This seems to be filled with general and vague statements. It's hard to find any actual and interesting data or breakdowns. Did it work equally well for men and women? I find no such statements, breakdowns or data. I might have missed it but then it didn't really stand out, instead they seem overly focused on being vague and calling everyone "people". The only place where they mention men/women are in the breakdown of the participants -- so it was sort of interesting but then not on a result basis?
It also seem to be focused on building an actual relationship and not just fucking for fun or whatnot, even tho they later mention that these people are young and therefor probably more interested in adventure in which case I guess playing hard to get is somewhat counterproductive.
Ouch! So you can't even cheat for course credits ... Still it's impressive that they did spend time and effort to dig such information up.
Relatively? According to whom? Not sure I would want to be in the next study cause there they apparently want to replicate but with ugly ... oh sorry "less conventionally attractive" people.
It seems that Reis and Birnbaum are pushing out papers like this on a yearly basis -- based on the 'read more' links at the bottom of the article. So perhaps it's no surprise when half the reference list is filled with their own works. Self-referencing just isn't as impressive as when other people quote your work. Unless you are cutting edge, which I doubt this qualifies as.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday June 10 2020, @03:22PM
> general and vague statements
Social "science".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2020, @04:43PM
People seem to want what they can't have. I've definitely noticed women being barely able to contain themselves around me until I gave an indication that they could have me. At which point, most of the time, they'd lose interest.
IMHO though it's a maladaptive strategy. It may have worked previously to help mate with the best available partner, but these days these things lead to all sorts of maladaptive partnerings.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2020, @09:24PM (1 child)
So they only performed the experiments using Civil War re-enactors?
Couldn't they find attractive Unionists?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @01:55AM
They were trying to weed out the size queens looking for BBC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @01:47PM
I tried 'getting to know women first' and that just lead to a lot of wasted time.
When I moved to looking for women online, spending two weeks getting to know them, fucking, then going from there, it worked out a lot better than prior attempts at being friends, indicating interest and trying to court a date. And you know what? If they liked you in bed they tended to want to be around you more outside of bed.
I'm sure there are counter examples, and areas where the culture finds this strategy unnecessary, but certainly in the fast paced world of the big cities and modern internet/cellphone culture, that is the expected behavior today. There are rare exceptions if you have a somewhat insular culture of people you rub elbows with because of your narrow interests, but for anyone with broad interests and little repeat visitation to the same places week after week, you will find far more opportunities via other means.
One exception to this rule: Customer facing jobs (retail, convenience store, gas station, secretary, deliveryperson, cop, firefighter, etc.)