4.3 Article

Playing Hard-to-Get: A New Look at an Old Strategy

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 368-383

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2022.2070117

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Playing hard-to-get can be an effective strategy for attracting prospective mates, but it may backfire if it leads them to withhold their attraction. This study aims to review research on the link between playing hard-to-get and romantic/sexual outcomes. The results suggest that this strategy can work if optimal levels of uncertainty and difficulty are achieved. However, additional factors such as commitment, aversion to uncertainty, and gender/attachment styles play a role in its efficacy.
According to dating folklore, playing hard-to-get is an effective strategy for attracting prospective mates. However, some research suggests that this strategy could backfire if it leads prospective mates to withhold their attraction in return. The present research aimed to review the scope of research on the link between playing hard-to-get - i.e., appearing uncertain in one's interest and/or difficult to attract - and romantic or sexual outcomes. A scoping search was conducted in the electronic databases of PsycINFO, Sociology Source Ultimate, Anthropology Plus, and Academic Search Ultimate using key words related to playing hard-to-get in the context of dating. A total of 18 studies were included in the review. Research suggests that playing hard-to-get may work if optimal levels of perceived uncertainty and difficulty are achieved. Additional variables were identified as being important when evaluating the tactic's efficacy. These include the pursuer's own level commitment to the pursued partner and aversion to uncertainty, and both the pursuer and pursued partners' gender and attachment styles. Directions for future research and the relevance of sociocultural norms in dating are discussed. Keywords: playing hard-to-get, dating, romantic relationships, mating strategy, attraction

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据