Should You Play Hard to Get with So Many Options?

“Men love the seemingly unattainable girl. The worst thing you can do is make it easy for them.” —Leandra De Andrade

Playing hard to get (whereby people pretend that they are less interested in someone than they really are) is a common traditional dating tactic. But is the tactic still valuable when so many romantic options are currently available?

Pros and Cons of Playing Hard to Get

“A bit of chase can make the whole thing more exciting. When both people are in the ‘game,’ it adds a spark. It becomes playful rather than manipulative, and that’s when it really works.”—A woman

Playing hard to get forces potential partners to make an effort over time, thereby increasing the agent’s desirability and making the partner's attitude more genuine. As in other aspects of life, when something is difficult to obtain, it is perceived as more valuable (here). Indeed, Gurit Birnbaum and colleagues (2020) claim that immediately reciprocating another person’s expression of interest is not always the most effective strategy for attracting partners; people who are too easy to attract may be seen as more desperate. Perceiving prospective partners as hard to get heightens their desirability, and encourages devoting more effort on further interactions (Birnbaum et al., 2020).

We cannot, however, deny the problematic aspects of playing hard to get, such as deception, manipulation, a lack of reciprocity, playing superficial games in serious matters, and increasing insecurity and uncertainty within the relationship.

Playing hard to get

Source: pexels-pavel-danilyuk-9143522

Moderation and Balance in Playing Hard to Get

“Happiness is not a matter of intensity but of balance and order and rhythm and harmony.”—Thomas Merton

Lori Hazel and colleagues (2023) argue that playing hard to get is optimal when there are moderate levels of perceived uncertainty over the individual’s interest as well as difficulty in attracting a suitable partner. Nevertheless, people are also more interested in partners who reciprocate a high level of attraction. To reconcile this apparent contradiction, Hazel and colleagues indicate that playing moderately hard to get, as opposed to being uniformly hard to get, may work better at attracting others .

Compared with highly available targets, moderately available targets are perceived as less arrogant and selfish, and as more trustworthy and attractive (Hazel et al., 2023). Moderately available (vs. highly available or unavailable) targets are preferred for dating and committed relationships (Jonason & Li, 2013).

Moderation is connected to the more general notion of balance. For Aristotle, it is not only emotional excess that is harmful but also emotional depletion: Neither too much nor too little is good for a person. The ideal situation is that of emotional balance expressing an appropriate reaction to the given circumstances. Thus, with younger people, the appropriate romantic attitudes should be of greater intensity.

Despite the value of romantic sincerity and openness, complete sincerity and openness are not always beneficial. Accordingly, at the beginning of the relationship, our behavior should be tactful in order to avoid hurting each other. It is not advisable, for example, to describe your entire sexual history on the first date.

Playing Hard to Get in Romantic Abundance

“Playing hard to get is less about playing games and more about managing your enthusiasm. It’s the art of not letting your excitement, however genuine, completely take over your time, energy, or sense of self.”—A woman

Romantic abundance, far greater today than in past societies, discourages investing time and effort on one person. When there are plenty of fish in the sea, the value of each is reduced. Indeed, our society encourages speed rather than slow development. As Meryl Streep said, “Instant gratification is not soon enough” for some.

The internet and social networks make the connection between people faster and more superficial, thereby significantly decreasing the value of investing time and effort on an enduring profound relationship. Hence, playing hard to get, which encourages such investment, is now less valuable (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019; 2024).

Indeed, Jonathan D'Angelo and Catalina Toma (2017) found that online daters who chose from a large set of potential partners (i.e., 24) were less satisfied with their choice than those who selected from a small set (i.e., 6) and were more likely to change their selection. Those who chose from a large pool were the least satisfied with their selected partner after one week.

Relationships Essential Reads

10 Ways to Know if Your Lover Is Really a Hater

The 'Talking Stage' of Relationships, Explained

Menelaos Apostolou and colleagues (2024) further found that more choices are better for finding an intimate partner, but too many choices can hold people back from finding the right one. More choices are also associated with more regrets about being in the current relationship and, accordingly, are linked to lower relationship satisfaction and ultimately a decreased willingness to stay in the relationship. This effect is significant only for male participants (Apostolou et al., 2024).

The Value of Time

“Playing hard to get is not about being dismissive or emotionally unavailable. It’s about maintaining your self-respect and balance, while still being warm and open.”—A woman

The moderate form of playing hard to get is valuable in increasing the time of the dating process, but it is still normatively problematic since it involves deception and manipulation. A more normative alternative, which may be termed the “in due course” approach, requires cool behavior similar to playing hard to get, yet without deceptive manipulation and still maintaining warmth and openness.

Thus, a woman may say that she sees good potential for enduring flourishing love but needs more time to develop the romantic bond before having sex or saying “I love you” (here). Racing too fast toward romantic prizes, such as sex or living together, may ruin the romantic bond, which needs time for development.

The “in due course” approach does not doubt the lover's sincerity but assumes that time is essential for nurturing profound love and, hence, we should not hurry love (here). A major problem of this approach is that it involves an intellectual persuasion, which is less powerful than the emotional persuasion used in playing hard to get.

The optimal balance in finding a partner may combine moderate playing hard to get with some encouraging words about the future. This valuable starting point may also appeal to honest people who hate the manipulation and deception of playing hard to get. Achieving such balance involves valuable romantic excitement.