Is there a psychological reason why people, maybe particularrly women, when they like you, they will do anything to be with you. Whereas if she doesn't, she requires more for her attention. Almost like a pricing, lower price if she likes you, higher if she doesn't?
You're touching on some interesting psychological dynamics around attraction and investment that do have research backing, though they apply to people of all genders rather than being specific to women.
The phenomenon you're describing relates to several psychological principles:
Reciprocity and Investment Theory: When someone is attracted to you, they're essentially seeing high value in the relationship, so they're willing to invest more effort for what they perceive as a worthwhile return. It's like being willing to pay more for something you really want versus something you're indifferent about.
Approach vs. Avoidance Motivation: When attracted, people are in "approach mode" - they're motivated to get closer and will lower their usual barriers. When uninterested, they're in "avoidance mode" and may actually raise barriers to discourage pursuit.
Cognitive Dissonance: Interestingly, people also tend to value more highly the things they work harder for. So someone who's initially neutral might actually become more interested if they end up investing effort, while someone already interested doesn't need that psychological mechanism.
Social Exchange Theory: People constantly weigh costs and benefits in relationships. If someone likes you, the perceived benefits are high, so they'll accept higher costs (time, effort, vulnerability). If they don't, the benefits seem low, so they require lower costs to make it worthwhile.
This dynamic definitely exists across genders - men do the same thing with people they're attracted to versus those they're not. The key insight is that it's really about perceived value and investment, not some inherent gender difference in behavior.
Who came up with Reciprocity and Investment Theory?
I should clarify - "Reciprocity and Investment Theory" isn't actually a single, formal theory with one originator. I was combining concepts from different psychological frameworks, which I should have been more precise about.
The concepts I was referring to come from several distinct theories:
Social Exchange Theory was developed by George Homans in the 1950s-60s and later expanded by Peter Blau. This examines how people weigh costs and benefits in relationships.
Investment Model Theory was created by Caryl Rusbult in the 1980s, which looks at how commitment develops based on satisfaction, investment, and alternatives.
Reciprocity as a psychological principle has been studied by many researchers, notably Robert Cialdini who wrote extensively about it in "Influence" (1984).
Equity Theory by John Stacey Adams (1963) also examines how people evaluate fairness in relationships and exchanges.
I incorrectly presented these as a unified theory when they're actually separate but related concepts that psychologists often draw on together to explain relationship dynamics. Thanks for catching that - it's important to be accurate about which researchers developed which specific frameworks.
expand on the two theories
I'll expand on the two most relevant theories for understanding the dynamics you described:
Social Exchange Theory (George Homans, Peter Blau)
Social Exchange Theory treats relationships like economic transactions where people constantly calculate costs versus benefits. Homans originally applied economic principles to social behavior, while Blau expanded it to include emotional and social rewards.
Core Principles:
- People seek to maximize rewards while minimizing costs in relationships
- Rewards include affection, status, information, money, or emotional support
- Costs include time, effort, emotional energy, or missed opportunities elsewhere
- People compare their current relationship outcomes to what they expect they deserve (comparison level) and what they could get elsewhere (comparison level for alternatives)
Applied to your observation: When someone is attracted to you, they perceive high potential rewards (emotional connection, companionship, physical attraction), so they're willing to accept higher costs (more effort, time, vulnerability). When uninterested, the perceived rewards are low, so they'll only engage if costs are also very low.
Investment Model Theory (Caryl Rusbult)
Rusbult's model specifically examines what makes people committed to relationships through three key factors:
The Three Components:
- Satisfaction Level - How happy you are with the relationship compared to what you expect
- Quality of Alternatives - How attractive your other options appear (other potential partners, being single, etc.)
- Investment Size - What you'd lose if the relationship ended (time already spent, shared memories, mutual friends, shared resources)
The Formula: High satisfaction + poor alternatives + high investment = strong commitment
Applied to your observation: Someone attracted to you starts with high satisfaction, which makes them willing to increase their investment (time, effort, emotional energy). This creates a positive feedback loop - more investment leads to stronger commitment, which leads to even more willingness to invest. Someone uninterested has low satisfaction from the start, so they keep investment minimal to avoid feeling trapped or losing resources they could use elsewhere.
Both theories help explain why attraction creates this "pricing" effect you noticed - it's fundamentally about how people value and allocate their limited resources based on expected returns.
Is there a theory on having many options? Also, is there a theroy on not expecting everything out of one person but rather only go to people for the best they give (such as not expecting a boyfriend/girlfriend to be able to be able to be the therapist, romantic, friend, hiker, etc)
Yes, there are several theories that address both of these concepts:
Choice Overload Theory & Paradox of Choice
Barry Schwartz developed the "Paradox of Choice" theory, showing that while some choice is good, too many options can lead to:
- Decision paralysis and procrastination
- Decreased satisfaction with chosen options
- Increased regret and "what if" thinking
- Higher anxiety and stress
Sheena Iyengar's research on choice overload demonstrates that people are actually less likely to make decisions when faced with too many options (famous jam study - people were more likely to buy jam when offered 6 varieties vs 24).
Applied to relationships: Having too many dating options can lead to commitment avoidance, constant comparison, and difficulty appreciating what you have. It can also create unrealistic expectations since you're always wondering if someone "better" is available.
Functional Specificity Theory & Social Network Diversification
This comes from social network theory and role theory, developed by researchers like Claude Fischer and Barry Wellman.
Core Concepts:
- Functional Specificity - Different relationships serve different functions optimally
- Role Specialization - People naturally excel at providing certain types of support
- Network Diversity - Having varied relationships leads to better overall well-being
Research shows people benefit from:
- Emotional support from family/close friends
- Informational support from colleagues/mentors
- Companionate support from activity partners
- Instrumental support from neighbors/acquaintances
Applied to your insight: This theory suggests that expecting one person (even a romantic partner) to fulfill all emotional, intellectual, recreational, and practical needs is unrealistic and potentially harmful. People have different strengths - your hiking buddy might not be great at deep emotional conversations, while your therapist isn't your adventure companion.
Benefits of this approach:
- Reduces pressure on primary relationships
- Allows people to contribute their authentic strengths
- Creates more resilient support systems
- Leads to more satisfying interactions since you're matching needs with people's natural abilities
This diversified approach actually strengthens romantic relationships by removing the impossible burden of being "everything" to someone.
Is choice overload theory a legit theory?
Choice overload theory is legitimate but more complex than originally thought. Here's what the research shows:
Initial Research & Skepticism
The original studies by Sheena Iyengar (the famous jam study) and Barry Schwartz's "Paradox of Choice" were groundbreaking, but early meta-analyses raised questions about the effect's reliability.
Current Scientific Consensus
A comprehensive 2015 meta-analysis by Chernev, Böckenholt, and Goodman analyzed 99 observations from 7,202 participants and found that choice overload is real and significant, but it's highly dependent on specific conditions ScienceDirectResearchGate.
Key findings:
- Choice overload occurs reliably under certain conditions, but the effect is moderated by four key factors: choice set complexity, decision task difficulty, preference uncertainty, and decision goal Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis - ScienceDirect
- The interesting question isn't whether choice overload occurs, but when it occurs (PDF) Choice Overload: Is There Anything to It
When Choice Overload Happens
The effect requires specific preconditions: people must not have clear prior preferences, there must not be a clearly dominant option, and it primarily affects people less familiar with the choice domain Overchoice - Wikipedia.
Moderating factors include:
- Decision complexity - More complex decisions are more prone to overload
- Preference uncertainty - People unsure of what they want are more affected
- Expertise level - People with expertise in the subject matter can more easily sort through options and aren't overwhelmed by variety Overchoice - Wikipedia
- Decision goals - Whether you're maximizing vs. satisficing affects the experience
Recent Developments
Recent research shows that choice overload occurs only when options aren't associated with brands - when the same options are presented without brand names, overload occurs, but not when well-known brands are present On the advantages and disadvantages of choice: future research directions in choice overload and its moderators - PMC.
Bottom line: Choice overload theory is scientifically valid but contextual. It's not a simple "more choices = bad" rule, but rather a nuanced phenomenon that depends on the decision-maker's expertise, the complexity of options, and the decision context. The theory has evolved from a broad generalization to a more sophisticated understanding of when and why choice abundance becomes problematic.
So what is Choice Overload Theory, Paradox of Choice, social network theory, and role theory? and who pioneered each?
Here are the four theories you asked about:
Choice Overload Theory
Pioneers: Sheena Iyengar & Mark Lepper (2000), later expanded by Alexander Chernev
Core concept: When people are presented with too many options, they can become paralyzed, make poorer decisions, or defer choosing altogether. The theory suggests there's an optimal number of choices - enough to feel autonomy but not so many as to overwhelm cognitive capacity.
Key finding: The satisfaction of choices follows an inverted U model - having no choice results in very low satisfaction, initially more choices lead to more satisfaction, but as choices increase further, satisfaction peaks then declines due to pressure, confusion, and dissatisfaction Overchoice - Wikipedia.
Paradox of Choice
Pioneer: Barry Schwartz (2004)
Core concept: While some choice enhances well-being, too much choice can decrease satisfaction and increase anxiety, regret, and decision paralysis. Schwartz distinguished between "maximizers" (who seek the absolute best) and "satisficers" (who seek "good enough") - with maximizers being more prone to choice overload.
Key insight: The freedom that choice provides can become a burden when options multiply beyond our cognitive comfort zone.
Social Network Theory
Pioneers: Multiple contributors, but key figures include:
- Georg Simmel (early 1900s) - foundational sociological concepts
- Jacob Moreno (1930s) - sociometry and network mapping
- Claude Fischer (1970s-80s) - personal networks research
- Barry Wellman (1970s-present) - modern network analysis
- Mark Granovetter (1973) - "strength of weak ties"
Core concept: People are embedded in webs of social relationships that provide different types of resources, support, and opportunities. The structure, diversity, and strength of these connections significantly impact well-being, opportunities, and life outcomes.
Key principles:
- Network diversity leads to better access to varied resources
- Weak ties often provide more novel information than strong ties
- Social capital flows through network connections
Role Theory
Pioneers:
- George Herbert Mead (1930s) - symbolic interactionism foundations
- Talcott Parsons (1950s) - structural functionalist approach
- Erving Goffman (1950s-60s) - dramaturgical approach
- Bruce Biddle (1970s-80s) - comprehensive role theory framework
Core concept: People occupy multiple social positions (student, parent, employee) and each position has associated expectations, behaviors, and norms (roles). Individuals learn these roles through socialization and perform them in social interactions.
Key insights:
- Role conflict occurs when different roles have competing demands
- Role specialization means different relationships serve different functions
- People constantly manage multiple role identities in different contexts
How they connect to your original question: Social network theory explains why having diverse relationships is beneficial (different people provide different resources), while role theory explains why it's unrealistic to expect one person to fulfill all roles (each relationship naturally specializes in certain functions).
For Approach vs. Avoidance Motivation: When attracted, people are in "approach mode" - they're motivated to get closer and will lower their usual barriers. When uninterested, they're in "avoidance mode" and may actually raise barriers to discourage pursuit. What about people who will make time but are always keep themsleves busy? So it might seem that youre bothering them but youre not
You're identifying a really nuanced psychological pattern that doesn't fit neatly into simple approach/avoidance categories. This behavior suggests several possible dynamics:
Ambivalent Attachment or Mixed Signals
Some people genuinely want connection but have conflicting feelings about vulnerability or availability. They're not in pure "avoidance mode" because they do make time, but they're also not in full "approach mode" because they maintain protective barriers.
Defensive Availability
This could be a form of emotional regulation strategy - they want the relationship but need to feel like they're not "too available" or desperate. Staying busy serves as:
- Social proof that they're desirable/in-demand
- Protection against rejection (if you pull away, they can say "I was busy anyway")
- Control over the relationship pace without directly rejecting you
Anxious-Avoidant Pattern
From attachment theory (John Bowlby, Mary Ainsworth), this resembles "fearful-avoidant" attachment - wanting closeness but being uncomfortable with it. They simultaneously:
- Approach (making time for you)
- Avoid (creating barriers that make it seem difficult)
Cultural or Learned Scripts
Some people learned that appearing "too eager" is socially undesirable, so they perform busyness even when they're genuinely interested. It's a learned social strategy rather than true disinterest.
Cognitive Dissonance Management
They might be attracted to you but uncertain about pursuing it seriously, so they create a scenario where they can engage without fully committing mentally. The "busyness" gives them an out if they decide to withdraw later.
The key insight: Their behavior suggests interest (they make time) but with emotional hedging (they make it seem costly). This is actually quite different from true avoidance, where someone wouldn't make time at all. It's more like "guarded approach" - wanting connection while maintaining plausible deniability about how much they want it.
Idk, that sounds like an insecurity standpoint. I mean it in the way that someone has a purpose and knows (in a sense) their duty to their future and the work to get there. But when they are needed, they will make time
Ah, you're talking about something completely different - that's a much healthier and more attractive dynamic. You're describing someone with strong personal agency and clear priorities rather than defensive behavior.
This is about purpose-driven living where someone:
- Has genuine commitments and goals they're actively pursuing
- Maintains focus on their long-term vision
- But values relationships enough to make time when it matters
This actually represents a secure attachment and healthy boundaries rather than insecurity. It's the difference between:
Performative busyness (insecurity-based): "I need to seem unavailable to protect myself"
Authentic engagement (purpose-based): "I have important work to do, but you matter to me so I'll prioritize you when you need me"
From an attraction standpoint, this is often more appealing because:
- It signals high value - they have meaningful pursuits
- Shows genuine choice - when they make time for you, it feels intentional rather than default
- Demonstrates emotional maturity - they can balance personal goals with relationships
- Creates natural scarcity without artificial games
This aligns with self-determination theory (Edward Deci & Richard Ryan) - people who are intrinsically motivated and autonomous in their goals tend to have healthier relationships because they're choosing to engage from a place of fulfillment rather than need.
You're right that this isn't insecurity - it's actually the opposite. It's someone who knows their worth and priorities but still chooses to invest in people who matter to them. That's a very different psychological dynamic than defensive availability.