Daygame hired gun FR and tinder country gal

 autoparts store felt attraction and so fecided to run stripper game, mistake is falling into same frame of hitting on her and she said she doesnt date customers.

shows that sticking to solid game never goes wrong and controling your desires and applying señf discipline to avoid doing what every other typical dude stuff do..

EDMR works had appraoch anxiety.

reviewed 9amf 10 game and qualification w MR M 

Sinns Advanced comfort and hired gun game

Listened to  Secrets of sexual tension by Vin Di carlo aswell as Strupper Shark by Julian Foxx.

now its time to create a stack , will post my online game based on  Braddocks text and phone game.

controling your desires is like Tao of Steve and eliciting iois , Brad P talks about his inner game program. 

basically levels to the girls desire and pull back to want it more.

attractive momemtum with positive persistence withon yourself first then proling the desire as foreplay to engage her and bait her.

Ran online game on tinder in country gal and it was solid w phone game. may follow up  Sunday. 

AMS and Corey wayne is waterred down lazy version of actual game game. Game takes time and its diificult thqts why STACK and Structure  is important.

Revoew of Franco old email consults has some gems on female psychology. 

Right now Im on bulking stage for fitness.

NLP works on you

I got a session with a youtube Canadian coach and she helped me control my dynamics and she really had me thinking  and its working.

ive been reading yet theres no substitution to course in person.

i met a retired nlp trainer and he was so cool to tell me i am a visual and emotional person  and that's why my words and sentences are dun on and grammr is shit.

this is my next step is working on my grammar and also reading more on  NLP .

what type you like? good girls or fun girls

I had some sex with some girls this past 2 weeks.

its been really good, ye it has affected my life routine.

i had a talk with franco from franco seduction and he told me that i am very good at freaks and adventuress

my goal is to find good girls HSE

which to me is a new view of the world. i have an idea what she looks like and might act yet im trying to figure it out.

meaning no negs no mystery method

i literally use a combo of mystery method plus swingcatt with captain jack and sinn same night lays frames

I have definitely have this down yet what i really want is hotter quality women.

so i will be reading more into  HSE good girls book. and also working on my communication skills.

inner vs outer game by todd is fascinating and other daily vids

this is a video that I go to a lot .
watch it its good.

how to get a girlfriend  the smart way vid by todd is good
how to flirt  3
how to never run out of things to say
art of manifesto

mark mansons book is based on stoicism in relation and applicable to our current society

I found stoicism to be fascinating .

im more andmore becoming an atheist at best

why do hurricanes come and kill people , why are things unfair.

why do psychopaths always win and go to the top .

beign stoic at this point is more a survival and finding happiness .

no chanting no mumbo jumbo

this is realism at best.

listening to mark mansons on soundclpoud was fascinating as this is a reflection on his finding of pickup

his inner game led him to where he is at now.

his book worm effrots and reading list …. his LRs
his success

his simplicity

yet the thought processs like many people who traveled the mysterys pickup artists . brad ps
mehows  sinns lovesystems etc etcccccc

shit was shallow and so

mark decided to become "normal"

Mark stays away from anything pua

in his interview he even says he started with dating blog and then his project took off

his brand

I do like his approach on things .

he was very simple about things

so I do recommened looking into it .

communication styles in humans . NLP helps

so communication styels are different in women when dating.
you have your structure but some women have their EGO

some women see things as needy and some see as loving.

some women see abandonment and som esee independence.

what I learned is communication is key as scheduling meetups  and light communication

vs pursuing too hard is needy to them

and also not doing anything is stupid = death.

NLP says you are respobsible \

todd says its your responsibility and your fault the woman doesn't go along with you

that is why screening and reading the person is good . and also trying to communicate under the radar is good .

be open  be friendly be cheerful be normal listen  and screen
be a spy .
 I am reading on  NLP presopositions  and so I will explain more as I learn , not only for myself but for game .

map is not the territory meaning  where you open whether on the app or the daygame , that is not the territory. the mind is endless and beleifs are different in people .

meaning of the commicatio is the response you get . meaning you need to accommodate and change your way in orde rfor the other person to understand what you mean.

also this is sales.

so I will also be reading sales book as well.

im taking babay steps on learning  NLP and will move to  NLP for sales.

sales is applied here when you talk to women. you are selling the dream and selling their emotions a ride and experience.

GOAL dictates your ways in dealing. modeling for a goal and a win

I learned that you cant have pride.

pride sucks its worth shit. its EGO.

look at psychopaths , they do things for a purpoise or a goal. look at studies.

they are receptive to goals positive reward they are focus on that and ignore the negative shocks.

also when the goal you already achieved its human nature to want change and eveolve pshcyologically.
nobody stays stagnant

also  when you screen you always want to know the person.
that way you know when they move they act. you can follow along.

like snake is suits says you have to be a mirror a great person in their lives . something valuabel as a person who you are there with them and not being a naive idiot taken for granted . yet you go along.


sociaopath is
great point of sociopath is psychological normal emotional impulse pretender of a tought guy based on environment that mimics form of psychopathy. but not so  ,
"learned problem not biological temperament" learned to be tough guy mean...

vs

psychopathy

-psychopaths are able to control their behavior when needed.
biological predispodition do preform antisocial behavior.frontal lobe deficient.
-ability and brain process is different.
-people have decent life then this person is unusual given their environment.


*joseph newman


https://woncinema.blogspot.com/2011/11/joseph-newman-psychopathy-2404.html

the game of seduction 3.0 and LR crazy nurse.

first it was myserty method then its was natural rsd or mark mansons entropy game.

now so far is todd valentines model of really good nsights that were grey areas of how we iew the world in terms of relationship and dynamics between women and men.

I watched todds video on flirting  and one on inner vs outer game.

it was amazing.

it fits well better than any other way in a non weird way or try hard.

meaning flirting is effortless doesn't need to show off or dhv .

value of you as a man in her eyes , the material thing is more a side effect of good things. like extra credit.

its social value of her way of feeling around you .

so I listened to this video of todd and he explained flirting which is a better verison of verbal attraction game by rsd ryan in 2008.and it isn't hard like negs of myserty method or boring like full comfort like typical guys.

I listend to it and went on a date and also revived a girl who I like and is bisexual.

he has great points.

I then remember the model I learned from jeffy old autopsy comonined with mark mansons connection game and sinns nsame night lays along with nlp patterns.

this time my inner game has been much much better cause I don't take pills for anxiety or anything anymore.

I handle stress more like modeling a psychopath like mentioned in snake in suits book.

I also learned to model in sales to accommodate and close.

well I went on a date with LR crazy nurse nympho
we met in starbuck were there an hour and she talk and I remember 60 yrds of cahllanege. first I screened her and remember bradps intro of make her wait and then show up.

we met and I took intitiaitve and led , I pace and lead like franco says in his book. I screeedn her for kino and took it away.

saffron pua says give abit and take it back away.
I did thiss many many times and then when she spoke which I love bitches who talk a lot.

I had in the morning taken a caffine pill with something .. and also piracetam .
so I was in focused mode.

tods videos are aso insightful its amazing. he says to stay out of your head. and so I did I was in her head a lot.

then I lead.

I was like captina jack and ready to pull her. we were in there for one hour yet during there I would whisper in her ear that "your making her so horny I want to kiss you so badly too bad I cant in public"

when I would talk I would hodl her hadn and take it away

I also acted like a mirror .

and always used us.

I got in her head and she spoke

then I said lets get out of here. she said yes

I used pleasufible denialibility and told her in parking lot.
"hey I know a lot of people just want sex and think its all about that for me its about sharing a connection, lets go since its a nice day follow me " directive

I remember gary broadsky says " you can direct her with good vibe and its contagious "

and so she did , she got out of her car and I started to talk and talk and told her im thirsty and we went in and the place was ready

we chilled and layed down and we made out a lot and she gave me a lot of LMR , I would freeze out and lie my intent . I then used plausible deinability to escalate..
she verbally told me no

I stopped and never took it personal
cause I was in her head
and knew she was saying once thing and wanting the opposite.
LMR with seual tease and take it away. again and again and I started doing kung fu penis 2008 eltopo style. and then she got so aroused . I kept telling her how wet she was for me .

we had sex and it was good. when I was sexual tease her and warming her up for sex , she was all emotional like captin jack says kisses turn off her logic.

her pussy was wet and I would play abit and take it wawy and stop. did that 3-4 times and then she escalated on me .

after we fucked I gave her freaky sex .

she was on her phone and started talking to me about other guys and how dumb they are.
how she uses them and tools them .
yet they are cute and attractive and how her friends don't do eskimo kisses.

anyways shes gotten messages from men to go on dates . today she was telling me about her date with a guy who was no show and unmatched her,.

anyways point of story is that
screening your target is good

getting in her head is good .

leading is good

logistics like jeffy says in a old video is good. timebridging.

post sex is good to hug and talk and let her vent and share dopamines.

she didn't want to leave at all and she mentioned something and I completed it with an  NLP patttern

also inner game is important cause if you deal with a type of woman that is a LSE HD ardcore freak of giving type. then you cant change her into a housewife or transform her into a girlfriend.

she is like a lady tiger , she told me shes a nympho.

so myserty would call it foolsmate.

I had set up 4 dates
one flaked  another one unmatched me. another one wanted to  'talk about it"

im now gaming new ones.

I plan to do daygame as well

my goal is fitness and discipline.
as well as goals to move forward.

Investing Relationships model cheat sheet

https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/relationships-investment-model

there are some artciles , i foudn one and will search on it on my old iphone where i had it it was about  lasting relationships and the women who investe alot of time and money and both of them were invested she stayed.

the ones where she was given she left .

anyways will repost this soon , yet below is something we should look at  from notes and studying behaviour


https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/relationships-investment-model

Relationships: Investment Model

by  Joseph Sparks

Share by email

The Investment Model was put forward by Rusbult et al. (2001), as a development of Social Exchange Theory. The rationale for developing SET further was that many couples stay together despite the costs outweighing the rewards, so there must be some other factors that keep them together. Rusbult's Investment Model investigates what these other factors might be.

Investment of Romantic Relationships

According to Rusbult's proposal, there are three major factors that maintain commitment in relationships: satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives and investment size.

Satisfaction level and comparison with alternatives are based on the idea of comparison levels from Social Exchange Theory. People will have a high level of satisfaction with relationships if they have more rewards (companionship, attention, emotional support) and fewer costs (arguments, time). They also tend to be committed to relationships if, when asking themselves, 'Is there a better alternative to satisfy my needs?' the answer is ‘no’. Alternatives can include staying on their own and not engaging in romantic relationships at all, as well as finding a new partner.

However, for Rusbult et al., the most important factor that maintains commitment to a relationship is investment. Investment refers to the number of resources, both tangible, like money or possessions, and intangible, like happy memories, that people will lose if they leave relationships. The model proposes two types of investment: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic investment comprises the things we put directly into the relationship, such as effort, money, possessions, self-disclosure. Extrinsic investment refers to the things that are brought to people's life through the relationships, such as children, friends  and shared memories.

Because both intrinsic and extrinsic investments can potentially be lost if relationships end, Rusbult et al. concluded that the bigger the investment, the more likely people are to stay in relationships. Therefore, it is the investment size that influences commitment to relationships, rather than just the level of satisfaction or existence of potential alternatives.

In addition to the factors influencing partners’ commitment, Rusbult et al. also identified maintenance mechanisms partners use to keep relationships going.

These mechanisms are:

• Accommodation – acting in a way that promotes relationships, rather than keeping a tally of costs and rewards.
• Willingness to sacrifice – putting partner's interests first.
• Forgiveness – willingness to forgive partner's mistakes, both minor and serous ones.
• Positive illusions – being unrealistically positive about partner's qualities.
• Ridiculing alternatives – minimising the advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light.

Research Examining the Investment Model

There are numerous research studies supporting the Investment Model. Impett, Beals and Peplau (2002) conducted a longitudinal study using a large sample of married couples over an 18 months period. They found that stability of the relationships positively correlated with commitment shown by the partners.

Rhahgan and Axsom (2006) studied a group of women and found that all three factors identified by Rusbult et al. (satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment) featured in participants' decision to stay with their partner.   

Similar trends were found in Le and Agnew’s (2003) study. They conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies, featuring 11,000 participants in total, and discovered that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment greatly contributed to commitment; and that commitment was a defining feature of long-lasting relationships.

Evaluation of the Investment Model

One strength of the Investment Model is that it is supported by numerous research studies. For example, Le and Agnew (2003) found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment greatly contributed to commitment. This supports the model’s claims about the factors contributing to commitment and about commitment being the most promising feature in successful long-term relationships, and thereby increases the reliability of the model.

The Investment Model provides a plausible explanation for why people stay in abusive relationships. According to the model, if a partner feels that the investment they made into relationships will be lost if they leave, they are more likely to stay in a relationship even when the costs are high (such as physical or emotional abuse) and rewards are few. Research into abusive relationships supports this idea. For example, Rusbult and Maltz, in their study of 'battered' women, found that women were more likely to return to an abusive partner if they felt they had invested in the relationship and they didn't have any appealing alternatives. This shows that the Investment Model can be applied to a wide range or relationships experiences that the SET and Equity Theory fail to explain, thus increasing the Investment Model’s application to everyday relationships.

The majority of research into the Investment Model is correlational, so psychologists are unable to conclude that investment causes commitment in relationships. This limits the predictive validity of the model, as it would fail to predict which types of investment and how much investment will lead to long-term commitment to a relationship. Lack of predictive validity also makes the Investment Model less scientifically rigorous, as the ability to predict people's behaviour, in this case, whether or not they will stay committed to the relationship, is one of the main goals of psychology as a science.

Some psychologists point out that most evidence for the Investment Model comes from interviews and questionnaires, which are known to be subjective and unreliable. However, other researchers argue that, because satisfaction, investment and commitment are subjective values and depend on people's perception, using self-report techniques is an appropriate way to test the Investment Model. Therefore, data obtained through self-report techniques may provide a more realistic picture of reasons for relationship satisfaction and how it is related to investment and commitment, therefore making Investment Model more valid.

Issues and Debates: Investment Model

Even though the importance of investment was clearly demonstrated by research, some psychologists think that Rusbult’s idea of relationship investment is oversimplified. For example, Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) argue that it is not just things we bring to the relationships that could count as investment, but also a couple's plans for their future. In their view, partners will be committed to staying in the relationships because they want to see these plans realised. This shows that investment in romantic relationships is a complex phenomenon, consisting of many different factors, which makes the Investment Model reductionist.

Culture bias doesn't seem to be an issue for the Investment Model. Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis of 52 studies found support for the Investment Model across individualist and collectivist cultures, such as in the USA (individualist culture) and in Taiwan (collectivist culture). Furthermore, the Investment Model, as an explanation of relationship maintenance, is also shown to be valid for different sub-groups, such as friendships; homosexual relationships; and cohabiting couples, etc. This suggests the universality of the Investment Model, making it applicable to wide range of relationships.

The fact that the evidence for the Investment Model is found across cultures may suggest that the human need for investment and commitment to relationships developed through the process of natural selection to help people survive and reproduce. For example, parents who are committed to their relationship and invest in it will have a higher chance of ensuring their children's survival and therefore of passing on their genes. This means that the Investment Model supports the nature side of the nature-nurture debate

The Maintenance Of Romantic Relationships: Psya3 Relationships

The Maintenance Of Romantic Relationships

Social Exchange Theory – AO1 Theory (Thibaut And Kelly 1959)

One theory for the maintenance of romantic relationships is Social exchange theory. This views relationship behaviour as a series of exchanges based on rewards, costs and profit. Each person attempts to maximise their rewards while minimising their costs. The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate. Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex. Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship e.g. effort, financial investment or time. This can also be problems, arguments, abuse, and loss of other relationship opportunities faced by the individual due to maintaining the current relationship. The costs subtracted from rewards equals in a perceived loss or profit for the individual. This theory proposes relationships are maintained with further commitment as long as the individual perceives a profit occurring. This theory proposes individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges. This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available. This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the gains of that (e.g. less arguments, more time with friends, freedom etc) If a person judges the current relationship offers poor value based on this comparison level they may be motivated to end it or maintain it provided the expected profits exceed this comparison level.

Equity Theory (Walster 1978) – AO1 Theory For Psya3: The Maintenance Of Romantic Relationships

Another theory for the maintenance of romantic relationships is Equity theory. This is similar in that it sees behaviour within relationships as a series of exchanges with people trying to maximise their rewards and minimise costs however the goal is not for profit but to achieve perceived fairness (equity). This theory proposes under-benefiting or over-benefiting both cause inequity within the relationship leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution. The greater the perceived inequity the greater the dissatisfaction and distress. Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity. This is provided the “loser” feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship. This can be done by changing they amount put into the relationship (Input), changing the amount taken from the relationship (Output) or changing their perception of Inputs and Outputs. (Practical applications in counselling IDA). Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable. If someone puts in little they may get little back while those who put in more may get more in return. Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios. People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The Investment Model (Rusbult 1983) AO1 Theory (Psya3: The Maintenance Of Romantic Relationships)

A third theory explaining the maintenance of romantic relationships is the Investment Model by Rusbult (Investment Theory). Research has focused on whether individuals decide to remain in a relationship or whether they choose to leave with the term “commitment” used to describe a relationship continuing. The level of satisfaction a member receives by being in the relationship strengthens this commitment while possible alternatives weaken it. A third measure introduced by Rusbult was “investment” which further increases this commitment. Similar to social exchange theory, satisfaction is derived when the costs of the relationship are subtracted from the rewards with the remaining outcomes compared to a personal comparison level by the individual of what they feel is acceptable. If the outcomes surpass this comparison level then the individual will be satisfied while not meeting it will likely result in unhappiness.
The quality of alternatives available may also lead an individual to end one relationship and start another while a lack of alternatives may lead the individual to continue to maintain the current relationship. The benefits of not being in the relationship may also be weighed up and if  having no relationship is perceived as more attractive than being in an unhappy relationship this may also motivate them to end their current relationship.
Rusbult proposed that the level of investment by individuals also contributed to the stability and maintenance of the relationship. Investment can be seen as anything an individual puts into the relationship and this can vary from money to time, effort, shared friends to even emotional energy and possessions. Therefore the higher the investment an individual has put into the relationship the more chances of it being maintained. Rusbult tested this theory by asking college students (IDA – lacks generalisation to wider population) in heterosexual relationships (IDA – bias towards heterosexual relationships only – cannot explain gay/lesbien relationships and thus lacks wider generalisation!) to complete questionnaires over a 7 month period. They kept a record of how happy they were within their relationships, the possible alternatives as well as their level of investment and commitment. Results found that satisfaction, comparison against alternatives and investment all contributed to commitment and breakup. High levels of commitment and investment contributed heavily to committed relationships while the possibility of alternative relationships appeared to influence individuals to end relationships.

• 
  

REPOSTED: its better to take than receive to have them in love SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE

• 
  

  
  

  
  

References

• Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1991). Can't buy me love: Dating, money, and gifts. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 521-527.
• Coleman, M. D. (2009). Sunk costs and commitment to dates arranged online. Current Psychology, 28, 45-54.
• Goei, R., & Boster, F. J. (2005). The roles of obligation and gratitude in explaining the effect of favors on compliance. Communication Monographs, 72(3), 284-300.
• Hendrickson, B., & Goei, R. (2009). Explaining the effects of favor and status on compliance with a date request. Communication Research, 36(4), 585-608.
• Horan, S. M., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Investing in affection: An investigation of affection exchange theory and relational qualities. Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 394-413.
• Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222-244.

Jeremy Nicholson M.S.W., Ph.D.

The Attraction Doctor

Friend me on Faceook

Make Them Love You by Taking (Not Giving)

In dating, is it more persuasive to give or receive?

Posted May 20, 2011 SHARE

Welcome back to The Attraction Doctor
You've probably been told to do nice things for the people you want to attract. Maybe you've even been advised to buy presents, cook dinners, pay for dates, or perform thoughtful gestures to win the affection of a lover. These were common customs in the "courtship" of earlier generations - and are common tactics among animals too.
But, just because the tactic of giving is common, does not mean it is always the most effective. We have all heard stories of extensive favors and gifts leading to unrequited love. Stories of women who bestowed every concern and nicety, only to be left alone by an ungrateful partner. Or, stores of men who financed expensive and exciting dates, only to be told "let's just be friends" (LJBF) when they tried to escalate the romance. In contrast, "takers" such as self-centered bad boys and demanding divas sometimes seem to have an endless parade of adoring lovers.
So, what is the deal with giving and taking?

Research on Giving and Receiving

According to research, giving certainly has an effect, ON THE GIVER. Those who care, give, or help in an unsolicited manner feel more positive, alive, and have higher self-esteem (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). The giver also feels more committed to the recipient of their giving (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2010). This may be partially due to the phenomenon of "sunk costs", which results in "a greater tendency to commit to an endeavor after a prior investment of time, money, or effort" (Coleman, 2009). Essentially, we value something more when we have invested in it or worked to obtain it.
The effects of giving on the receiver, however, are much more mixed. On one hand, receiving a gift can generate feelings of gratitude in romantic partners, increasing their liking and attraction towards the giver, and improving compliance with later requests (Hendrickson & Goei, 2009). On the other hand, receiving a gift might also generate negative feelings of obligation and not lead to reciprocity (Goei & Boster, 2005). Furthermore, in a dating context, gifts can also be seen negatively in terms of power and control, feelings of "being purchased", exploitation, trying to impress, guilt, or having ulterior motives (Belk & Coon, 1991). Overall, the effects of receiving a gift (taking) are complicated and varied.

What This Means for Your Love Life

Whether it is "better to give or receive" depends on who you're trying to influence. If YOU want to feel good, connected with your partner, and committed to them, then by all means give to them. On the other hand, if you want THEM to feel good, connected and committed to you, then you might be better off taking from them.
This may be counter-intuitive, but it stands to reason. Someone who gives to you has invested, committed, and devoted resources to you as a recipient of their giving. They have incurred "sunk costs". Therefore, they may be more committed and attached when they give (and you take), versus when they receive from you.
So, how do you put this into practice in your love life?
1) Say yes to gifts and favors - Many individuals refuse gifts and favors, while they simultaneously toil away to impress their partner. They expect that their selflessness (all giving, no taking) will result in gratitude, attraction, and love. Instead, they sometimes find their partners un-invested and uncommitted. Don't be a martyr. Let your date or partner give to you, do for you, and invest in the relationship too. As they do more for you, you'll find that they value you more and become more attached.

2) Give then take - When you do a favor, don't be afraid to ask a favor in return. Get what you want too. Your giving generates reciprocity and gratitude in others, but only when the favor is allowed to be paid back. Otherwise, it can fester into obligation and negativity. No one wants to "owe" someone else. So, when you do something nice, allow your partner to reciprocate. This will let the partner "pay off the debt", feel good about himself/herself, and increase commitment to the relationship too.
3) Give when you get - Give when your date or partner earns it. When they do right by you, or give you a gift, make sure to reciprocate. This displays your gratitude and appreciation. It also increases their satisfaction with the relationship and makes future giving, sharing, and caring more likely.

Conclusion

If your goal is to attract and keep a partner, in some instances it might be better to "take" than "give". Let them invest a bit, work to earn you, and become more committed in the process. Don't always be the one to pick up the check or the dinner pan, and you might just find an improvement in how your partner sees you.
One final stipulation though - this is not a license to be self-centered or stingy (those will ruin a date too). Rather, it is a reminder to keep a bit of equal exchange and let your date invest in the process as well. Ultimately, it is ok to give others the gift of feeling good (by letting them give to you). After all, you're worth the investment too.

Go to www.AttractionDoctor.com
Dr. Jeremy Nicholson
The Attraction Doctor
Previous Articles from The Attraction Doctor

• Just Asking for It! Part I (asking for a date)
• Just Asking for It! Part II: Why Dating Partners Say Yes
• Dating Conversation for Long-Term Plans or One-Night Stands

References

• Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1991). Can't buy me love: Dating, money, and gifts. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 521-527.
• Coleman, M. D. (2009). Sunk costs and commitment to dates arranged online. Current Psychology, 28, 45-54.
• Goei, R., & Boster, F. J. (2005). The roles of obligation and gratitude in explaining the effect of favors on compliance. Communication Monographs, 72(3), 284-300.
• Hendrickson, B., & Goei, R. (2009). Explaining the effects of favor and status on compliance with a date request. Communication Research, 36(4), 585-608.
• Horan, S. M., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Investing in affection: An investigation of affection exchange theory and relational qualities. Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 394-413.
• Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222-244.

©

About the Author

Jeremy Nicholson, M.S.W., Ph.D., is a doctor of social and personality psychology, with a focus on influence, persuasion, and dating.

 

More Posts

Why People Sell Themselves Short in Relationships

How low self-esteem leads to bad relationship decisions—and what to do about it.

Is Your Relationship Sacred? Why It Might Matter

The benefits of maintaining the sanctity of romantic relationships.

Is It Attractive to Be Selective, Popular, or Hard-to-Get?

Using scarcity in love: Being selective, popular, or playing hard-to-get.

Continue Reading

advertisement

ychological Persuasion Techniques Used by Sexual Predators

• 8 Things to Do When Your Partner No Longer Responds to You
•