Dear Irrational (Does it Pay to Play Hard to Get?)
Dear Irrational,
I recently met a great guy – let’s call him George – and now I can’t stop thinking about him. Though we’ve only been on a couple dinner dates, he’s officially won me over.
Now here’s my problem: Smitten as I am, I’m ready to hop into bed with George this very minute, but I’m not sure that’s the best idea. After all, there must be some reason that all those books and magazines (not to mention my mother) champion the make-him-wait rule. But does it really work? I’ve never followed it in the past, but then, I can’t say I have the best dating track record either.
What do you think? Should I play hard to get, or no? Help!
Sincerely,
Unsure
——
Dear Unsure,
Your mother is right: making the guy sweat a little (no, not like that) is in your best interest if you want to maximize the chances f a long term relationship. The reason lies in cognitive dissonance, which refers to what we do when our beliefs and actions misalign: Can’t change the cold, hard facts? Then change your beliefs!
The classic experiment here comes from psychologists Leon Festinger and James Carlsmith, who had participants perform a boring task and then paid them either $20 or $1 to convince someone else that the task had been great fun. Everyone then rated the task, with the result that the $1 participants rated the task more positively than did the $20 crew. While the $20 group could explain away the dissonance between their action (“I told someone the task was riveting”) and their belief (“It actually bored me to tears”) via money (“I was paid to promote the task”), the $1 individuals could not because they could not justify misleading others for such a small amount of money– so they changed their initial belief (“I must really like the task, to have promoted it”) and they ended up rating the task more positively.
To give you an example that is closer to our social life, look at fraternities: loyalty to frats increases with the amount of hazing, since pledges tell themselves, “I did a lot of embarrassing stuff for my frat – it must really matter to me.”
So, going back to your dilemma, Unsure, cognitive dissonance suggests that if you really want a guy, you have to create a dissonance for him, so that he will say, “Wow, if I put in all this effort for the woman – I must love her.”
This means that instead of putting out early, you have George pursue you. Instead of splitting the check, you let him pick up the entire tab. Instead of calling him up and suggesting dates, you leave the calling and planning up to him. In other words, make him work, and he will rationalize it by deciding he loves you.
Good luck.
Irrationally yours,
Dan
p.s please don’t tell George about my advice, and who gave it to you
Aren’t you assuming first hand that a cognitive dissonance exist? How would your advice change under the assumption that George has no need to rationalize his emotions?
While in college, I knew many men who just liked the challenge of the conquest. If a woman plays hard to get, the man just works harder to win her over and once he met his goal, he moved on to the next challenge.
Therefore, you must learn more about George while you play hard to get. Eventually he will continue to court you or just move on.
Seth Godin seems to have tapped into this too…
“If you need to get your audacious proposal/clever ad/new project past your boss, go ahead and add some gratuitous brackets here and {there}.”
http://bit.ly/mLMw2
the correct strategy depends on whether George wants a relationship with someone who plays games, or would prefer an honest partner who behaves with integrity.
Isn’t that a bit of chicken and egg? I mean if George had no interest in this lady would he continue to persue her simply because she was playing hard to get?
If we assume that isn’t the case then he must have some attraction to her in the first place to put that effort in.
If that isn’t the case of course it must mean that us men really are slaves to the fairer sex
Dan, this is all good and well but what if George also reasoned in a similar vein? What if George also thought that he was perhaps too interested and that therefore, he should play hard to get – i.e. that he should split the check, let Unsure do all the planning etc-?
Besides, there is no reason to think that such a “hard to get” attitude will cause cognitive dissonance. On the other hand, it might just frustrate and disappoint the other party.
It ~could~ be that there are other predictably irrational processes at work which are especially effective for George to use with Unsure. Why else would she not already be so willing to have sex…?
Why not investigate and discuss these Dan?
If she just went with her emotions right off the bat, George would assume he will be able to have sex after every or any date with her. If she plays hard to get and maintains limits when she does have sex with George they can maintain a healthy relationship. A real relationship shouldn’t be about the amount of “sex” they couple has anyways, it should be about love and care for eachother.
I think Prospero would agree: “This swift business / I must uneasy make, lest too light winning / Make the prize light”
William Shakespeare; The Tempest – Act I. Scene II.
Dan,
You built a metaphor between an academic theory and the “mating game”, but it is a partial metaphor. In the mating game, if the the hard-to-get rope is stretched too much, it will break, and George will step away.
How does this fit your theory ? Are there studies of the breaking-point, the point where hard-to-get turns into too-hard-to-get ?
Is sex a thing George wants, because he expects to enjoy it, while Unsure would only want to give it to George in exchange for the nice things he’s done for her out of bed? And she should make sure it’s worthwhile? That’s not how I think of sex. It seems kind of creepy, actually.
Why aren’t they pursuing each other, if they both want sex? Don’t both of them expect to enjoy it? It’s entirely possible that Unsure isn’t ready for sex with George. Maybe she doesn’t know him well enough to be quite comfortable with him. (Sex is better with deep trust, and that takes time to establish.) That’s part of the reason there’s so much advice about waiting…there’s no cognitive dissonance in, “Sex is better with somebody you know better.” Couples that have been together for decades have awfully hot sex, even though the media tend to ignore them.
Some questions to consider:
1) If George and Unsure are wrong for each other, would Unsure prefer to find out about this before or after having sex with him? Some people would rather have sex than not. Some people find breakups easier if they haven’t had sex.
2) Would Unsure prefer to do the rest of the “getting to know you” process before or after starting to have sex? Some guys are on their best behavior when they are trying to get a woman to “put out,” and that can be misleading. But some people (men and women both) find sex so distracting it’s hard to think about anything else.
I’ve been quite interested in pick-up artists (PUA) techniques these past two years. First, because human behaviour and social interactions have always interested me and second, because I was very bad at picking-up girls – and I unfortunately still am (actually, fortune has not much to do with it…)
Playing hard to get is indeed one of the many techniques they use. Actually, most of their techniques to get compliance from the fairer sex are backed by science : one of their major resources is a book by social psychology professor Robert B. Cialdini from Arizona State University called “Influence, Science and Practice”. This book is basically a marketing book and the PUAs simply use it to market themselves.
I have read that book. And, although I haven’t read “Predictably Irrational”, from what I read and the videos I watched here and on TED.com, these two books seem to have a very similar approach on human behaviour. Furthermore, I think it would be worthwhile to take a closer look at the PUA community because I find that they have an interesting way of making use of their social skills.
You don’t find that answer the least bit sexist? It assumes that both Unsure and George wish to subscribe to traditional male/female roles. Personally I have less respect for a woman for whom I do everything for. If I’m paying for all the meals and doing all the calling and planning then I’m no longer seeing her as another person with whom I want a meaningful relationship. Instead she simply becomes a goal or a challenge. A little doll on a pedestal that I have to jump through certain predetermined hoops in order to possess.
As to waiting or succumbing to sex, it depends on the couple. Jumping into it immediately tends to be bad for the relationship because it puts the focus of the relationship on sex and tends to stall the development of social interactions. In other words you’re so busy thinking about how good the sex is that you forget to find out the little details about each other that allow you to successfully interact. However, every couple learns about each other at a different rate. For some it might only take a couple dates. For others it might take a couple months of dating. What’s important is that both feel comfortable with their partner.
I agree with many people that Unsure has to assess the degree to which the guy is seeking philos (oxytocin-involved intimacy-building/pairbonding) or eros (sex-hormone involved, wanting-system involved behaviour). If he is actually seeking intimacy and pair-bonding, then the threshold has already been reached. Physical intimacy will cement the bond by dispelling any uncertainty about the commitment, by the same dissonance-reducing mechanism you use to recommend playing hard-to-get (i.e. “well now we’re sleeping together, I guess now I’m committed.”)
However, if Unsure is unsure about his interest in pair-bonding, then she has to do more than just make him wait. Her signals have to be ambiguous. She has to signal status and availability, as well as interest in him that swells when he does things that please her, then wanes. Seduction involves tease as well as denial.
Isn’t this what happens anyway? She’s unsure and making him wait currently. She’s showing interest plus hesitation. Maybe her main issue is that she has a hard time distinguishing deceptive signals of pair-bonding interest from genuine ones. If that is her history, she had better wait, not only because him trying harder will make him want her more, but primarily because his efforts will serve as a costly signal stream he puts out, to help her better assess his degree of interest. But if this is overdone, he may experience it as rejection earlier than she would like him to.
The mating dance is an evolutionary arms race. One tactic alone cannot guarantee anything!
Wasn’t one of the principles behind predictably irrational behavior that if Unsure had 100 Georges, we might be able to accurately predict his behavior, but unfortunately any one George (like the one she has) is likely to behave completely — well, unpredictably?
Unsure — I’m not sure what you’ve gotten yourself into with this question. It seems to me what you have here is advice from at least 15 total strangers, plus an academic practiced in the art of manipulating human behavior — and whose preferred sample set are students … from MIT. I think I’d probably be more confused now than before sending the “Dear Dan” email.
Jason: there are two types of “sexist” statements: those that are true and those that are false. Personally I find the fact that a statement might or might not be “sexist” to be totally irrelevant compared to if it’s true or false.
Mark: the variation in the set is interesting, but not as interesting as what is a good bet. If you could get one lottery ticket and you had to choose between one that had a 1% chance of winning and another that had 2% chance of winning you should chose the second. You pointing out that the odds are bad doesn’t really help
Although the common approuch for analyzing this case is the one assuming this is a pure game of half-rational interests, I believe this is one of the more obvious cases of evolutionary-psycology;
Men seem to seek as much sex as they can get, but for their permanent spouse they prefer a loyal one. That means that if unsure wants long-term relations with George, she better act as someone not easily giving in (to any men she meets). This can convince George unsure is faithful, and that once with him, she will not go with other men (Which is a great gene-threat for any men, beacuase until the recent years he couldn’t prove the child was of his own).
What does it matter?
What I mean to say is, if a couple loves each other, doesn’t their love really just equate to relational modifications to their mean hormone and neurotransmitter levels?
In terms of what nature expects, well, nature expects children.
To put it another way, is “Unsure” really just in search of modifications to her hormone and neurotransmitter levels(obviously already in effect)? Or is “Unsure” perhaps unconsciously responding to Nature’s calling for children?
“Unsure” by the very nature of her query, is indicating that she is mainly concerned with the notions listed above.
If “Unsure” were to administer to herself doses of Oxytocin nasal spray, Ritalin and Methadone, wouldn’t she, in effect be just as smitten as she is by George’s influence?
What I am trying to say is, if we want to identify the distinctions between mental state modifications via chemistry and the requirements necessary for constructing the class of relationship that seems to be so elusive lately, then one has to be very clear about one’s motivations.
In other words, are you in search of chemistry modifications? Dopamine receptor amplification, endogenous endorphin elevation, Oxytocin induced pair-bonding?
Or,
Are you willing to enter into the level of naked engagements that forge an intimacy between two people that is far more durable, meaningful and loving? You know, the kind of relationships that make all of those with only chemical based relationships jealous.
If all that you can deal with is the strictly chemical format?
Then love is the drug, love is the drug for you!
Just like our dope-fiends, gamblers, tobacco smokers, carb-loading over-eaters, thrillseekers, etc, etc.
So to sum-up here, it is only when you have dealt with any and all chemical compulsions that you might have, that you are able to engage in a personal and intimate relationship with another soul. Perhaps becoming soul-mates.
None of us are born into this world completely free from these chemical dependencies. Nature outfits us all with a reward-seeking modality. So it is only when we master Nature’s and all other detractors to our actual intentions, that we become freed enough to choose the course we will travel and set our own unfettered destinations. In other words, we become who we really are.
You see, I believe that we are more than an assortment of calcium-channel-pumps, lipid bi-layer membranes, neuropeptides and intercellular hormonal signaling agents. That we are more than our biological processes.
To illustrate,
Often the main reasons that males find females attractive, are because nature wants it that way, not the male, like the greater a female’s symmetry, the better her genes are. That the larger her breasts are, the better to feed the baby. That her narrow waist means more room for the baby. That her ample hips mean better support for the baby. That her plump lips are indicative of high estrogen levels and fertility. That her dilated pupils are indicative of her being in estrus.
So you see, these are not the male’s calls, they are nature’s calls (shocking isn’t it?). What’s so wrong with defining for oneself what a person’s beauty is? Sure nature wants babies, but what if one decides that nature doesn’t rule their decisions anymore? What is nature going to do about it?
What is liking something anyway? Isn’t it just an electrical potential state in my brain? A few more or less of a particular kind of neurotransmitter here and there?
You get the idea, decide for yourselves what is beautiful. If you leave it up to nature, nature usually gets her babies and you get to take care of them, usually with someone you have grown to struggle and battle with over time. Is that what you want? Subjugation?
So once you have taken over the reigns from mother nature, take the reigns over from any other sources that infringe upon the vessel’s course that you are now the captain of. And remember that the only influence they had on you was some electrical potential and a few neurotransmitters, give or take.
Farewell my friends!
Lionel
I just commenced my studies and currently reading Economic Applications for Public Policy. Before i started the study, i always question myself that if human beings are so predictable and easily read, then we should throw all our microecons theories out of the window…and yes, i almost didn’t quite understand econs in the rationale way. after chancing upon this, i think i can throw better appreciate my micro econs theories better, beause behavioural econs can now answer the contradictions i have hanging in my head…i will be out looking for this book.
Oh btw, i never know why i still hang on to my stocks when i know the rationale thing to do is sell and minimise loss…? *lol*
I posted this over at Amazon.com but wondered whether you ever read the comments there so have posted this here too. Scuse my repititveness.
Hi Dan
I watched your TED talk the other day & am fascinated & look forward to reading your book. I am involved in the Online Dating industry and one of the big problems is that usually People Lie! Of course this does not really help their cause because they wont meet a good match by not honestly exposing who they are & of course they are always found out. I wondered how your theory about why people cheat would relate to this phenomena? And also what is the solution i.e, how could the business model of online dating change to promote more honesty particularly with male members of the sites?
Look forward to hearing your perspective,
Thanks
Ms Pemo Theodore
Apparently you spoke with my wife 18 years ago. I guess I should thank you, but I thought it was love.
If George has had no prior exposure to hard-to-get tactics, it is quite likely the results of Unsure’s using them would unfold, one after the other, exactly as they appear in the textbooks. However, if he had ever been exposed to them in the past (especially by a cruel or otherwise insincere person) he might mark it immediately as base manipulation and decide that Unsure is an unworthy partner.
Unsure’s best bet is to be upfront with George, to tell him that she likes him very much, but needs more time to get to know him better before they move to the next stage in their relationship. This will have much the same effect as feigned hesitancy in that George will have invested more of his time and effort than he might have for a given result, and his cognitive dissonance will resolve itself accordingly. Additionally, it has the benefit that Unsure will not have to run the risk that George may decide that he is being played for a fool.
There are versions of hard to get so don’t assume this simple one is the correct strategy. There’s an Arabian Nights story in which there are 3 sisters and one will be the prince’s bride. Each has a week with the prince. The beautiful one does not have sex with him because she wants him to desire her beauty even more. The ugliest one has sex with him every day because she wants to bind him to her with physical lust. The middling one has sex with him once on the first or second day and then not again. The prince chooses her because he knows her on more levels. (This may also reflect the actual patterns of real relationships, which are not sex-soaked but which can’t survive when young if there is no sex.)
So a more advanced strategy would be to say “I want to go to bed with you right now but then we have to cool it sexually.”
“Playing hard to get” is nothing more than rationalizing insecurity – men do NOT judge / think differently about a woman they sleep with early. They may, however, stop pursuing if the girl thinks it’s appropriate to play games.
Yes, a guy may not call a girl back after sleeping with her.. but here’s the difference. That has absolutely nothing to do with sleeping with her or not! Rather, it’s simply that the guy wasn’t actually interested in her, and this fact was going to reveal itself sooner or later REGARDLESS! You can’t trick someone into being interested in you for the long haul. For one, two weeks? Sure, play around, whatever. But what’s the difference – you’re just wasting your time anyway!
If the only reason someone’s around is because you’re playing games with their emotions, do you plan to fake your relationships for the rest of your existence? If the point is just to have two-month flings, go ahead and do whatever you want. But if you actually want to have a relationship, this is juvenile silliness.. because the person you’re trying to “hook” isn’t actually getting to know you! Why would you want to be around someone who is NOT willing to overlook your insecurities..
The key, as always, is just being genuinely relational.. it’s not simple, but it’s essential.
What about having “Unsure” giving a FREE! gift from time to time as a social token to show that she cares about George?
What does a gift do to the cognitive dissonance?
Pemo Theodore wrote:
“I posted this over at Amazon.com but wondered whether you ever read the comments there so have posted this here too. Scuse my repititveness.”
Don’t worry, he never reads comments here, either.
What if George has better options?
I’ll provide an example from my life. I recently met a girl named Cathy. Cathy is very attractive, feminine and smart. She was clearly interested and we went out a couple of times, though she played hard to get. In fact, I’m pretty sure she was a “rules girl”. Cathy is often the most attractive woman in the room at social events, and she probably thought I would continue pursuing her, but I had a different plan. Once I figured out she was a “rules girl” or something similar, I ruled her out as long-term material. Then the only question left to ask was “Is bedding her worth the effort?”. The answer was no, so I deleted her number. Why wasn’t Cathy worth the effort? I have Molly. Molly is more attractive, and more feminine than Cathy. Molly has sex with me whenever we go out. I also have Dana. Dana makes me work a little more every time I want to have sex with her, but it’s far less work than Cathy would require, and she is also more attractive. So why should I chase Cathy?
I DO judge women differently if they have sex with me the first night, but playing games is an automatic deal breaker. For a long-term partner, I want someone who isn’t easy and doesn’t play games.
“someone who isn’t easy and doesn’t play games”
… so … someone who genuinely isn’t that sexually attracted towards you at first, then? :p
Diane G
Pemo Theodore wrote:
“I posted this over at Amazon.com but wondered whether you ever read the comments there so have posted this here too. Scuse my repititveness.”
Don’t worry, he never reads comments here, either.
Thanks Diane I kinda gathered that now. No dialog in these blogs then, only a diatribe???
THANK YOU. Thank you for pointing out the fact that playing mind games, and keeping up with “the mating game” is not the same as developing a real relationship.
Congratulations, ladies, you may be able to trick a man into “respecting” you more by waiting, given that you’re operating within a male-centered mating game, but guess what: you’re losing. You may think that he’s the one chasing you, but you’re the one going online and asking questions about how to convince a guy that you’re not a “slut,” yet sexually attractive, yet marriage material, yet interested, yet not too interested, blah blah blah…
HELLO SEXUAL DOUBLE STANDARD.
What if men aren’t the only ones with a “biological” incentive to reproduce? Why do men have sex because it’s natural, while women have sex in order to hook a long-term mate? Newsflash: Maybe women want to have sex, too. Why is a woman disposable and ridiculed for treating sex the way that men do, while a man is praised and excouraged to pursue sex?
I have sex with a man when I feel I am ready, and that may be sooner or later. If he is someone who believes that women who “give it up” right away are “easy” and therefore unattractive, I am unlikely to have a connection with him, unlikely to sleep with him in the first place, and uninterested in being with someone who supports an unfair sexual double standard.
Ultimately, if there is a true connection there, based on more important things than adherence to sexual gender roles, it will work. If not, both parties are better off without the other.
WOMEN: Maybe it’s time to pay more attention to what YOU want both sexually and in a relationship, instead of worrying about about playing the game.
Diane G
Pemo Theodore wrote:
“I posted this over at Amazon.com but wondered whether you ever read the comments there so have posted this here too. Scuse my repititveness.”
Don’t worry, he never reads comments here, either.
11 September 2009, 11:29 pm
So I am wondering if Dan is doing any research with scientists about listening to feedback. Its obvious from the state of his blog that comments are never even read, let alone responded to. What’s the point in enabling comments if they just sit there in virtual reality with no ability to become a conversation with Dan?????
Pemo, have you noted the average quality of comments on the internet?
There’s another reason to play hard to get, aside from strict gender roles. It’s not really about playing hard to get, because that implies that you’re crafting some sort of game to hook him. Which – you’re not. He might seem like a great guy – but, ALL of them seem that way in the beginning (yeah, i have a bad dating record too).
What you’re doing is holding out on sex until the blinders (the part of you that thinks he is perfect and wonderful) are off. Once you know him for what he is, or you at least you have a good idea, you can have sex with him, (if it at all seems appealing at that point). It’s not about holding out, it’s about not going in blind.
Sex makes us irrational – easily attached, and not having it really helps with invoking your higher logic in relationships. While I’m not really into prescribed gender roles, I do think that this bit of old wisdom holds true – for both men and women.
Just my two cents.
Have you talked to Steve Pinker in order to blend some of his thinking about how the brain evolved into you research? It may be a good opportunity for both of you. I found both of your works to be quite interesting, and he may have some insight into your research.
I am sorry, that I interfere, but you could not paint little bit more in detail.