Chapter 1 Exercises: Why Study Seduction? The Science Behind the Game

These exercises are designed to help you move from reading about attraction science to actually thinking like an attraction scientist — and thinking like a critical consumer of such science. Some of these activities will be most productive in conversation with others; some require independent reflection. None have single correct answers.

Discussion Questions

Discussion Question 1: The Word "Seduction"

The chapter opens with the observation that "seduction" is a loaded word that provokes different reactions in different people. Before your class discussion, do a brief informal survey: ask five people outside this class what first comes to mind when they hear the word "seduction." Record their responses without prompting them in any direction.

Bring your collected responses to class and discuss:

• What patterns do you notice across the responses you gathered?
• Did age, gender, or other demographic factors seem to correlate with different reactions?
• What does the range of responses tell you about the cultural meaning of seduction?
• The chapter argues that the word's "baggage" is itself scientifically interesting — it reveals something about social norms and assumptions. Do you agree? What specifically does it reveal?
• The textbook uses "seduction" as an ironic or inverted frame — a way of taking apart the concept rather than endorsing it. Does this framing work for you? What alternative title might have captured the same critical intent?

Discussion Question 2: The Okafor-Reyes Disagreement

Chapter 1 introduces a genuine intellectual disagreement between Dr. Adaeze Okafor and Dr. Carlos Reyes about how to frame a cross-cultural study of attraction. Okafor is skeptical of starting with evolutionary hypotheses; Reyes argues that evolutionary frameworks generate testable predictions that purely cultural approaches don't.

Discuss the following:

• Whose position do you find more convincing at this stage of the course, and why? Be specific about what evidence or reasoning leads you there.
• The chapter frames their disagreement as productive rather than merely adversarial. What makes a scholarly disagreement productive rather than just being two people talking past each other?
• Okafor argues that "every methodological choice is a theoretical choice in disguise." What does she mean? Can you think of an example from everyday life where a seemingly neutral measurement choice actually embeds assumptions about what is important?
• Reyes says that "refusing to engage with biology doesn't make it go away." Is he right? What would it look like to engage with biology in a way that doesn't slide into biological determinism?

Discussion Question 3: The Three Questions as Analytical Tools

This chapter introduces three questions that will structure the entire textbook: What does the evidence say? Who is it about? What are the ethical implications?

Apply these three questions to a specific attraction-related claim you have encountered in popular culture — in a magazine, on social media, in a movie or TV show, or in a conversation. The claim can be anything: "opposites attract," "men prefer physically attractive women," "playing hard to get works," "looks matter more in the digital age," etc.

• Walk through each of the three questions methodically. What do you find?
• Did applying the three questions change your view of the claim? If so, how?
• Which of the three questions felt hardest to answer, and why?

Written Reflection

Personal Reflection: Your Own Assumptions About Attraction

This is a private written exercise — your instructor may ask you to submit it confidentially, or may simply ask you to reflect on it without submitting. The goal is intellectual honesty with yourself, not performance of correct views.

Spend 400–600 words responding to the following:

Think about the assumptions you brought into this class about how attraction works. Where did these assumptions come from — personal experience, media, conversations with friends and family, other courses?

Now: which of these assumptions do you feel confident in, and which do you hold more tentatively? Which, if any, were challenged or complicated by what you read in Chapter 1?

The chapter argues that attraction science has historically centered the experiences of a narrow demographic — Western, educated, relatively affluent, predominantly white, predominantly heterosexual. How does this observation land for you? Does the research that has historically dominated attraction science describe your experience? If not, what has been missing?

Finally: the chapter is explicit that this is not a pickup guide and that the "seduction" framing is critical and inverted. How do you feel about that framing? Did you arrive hoping for practical tips, and if so, what do you think now? If you arrived expecting a critical social science course, what drew you to it?

There are no wrong answers here. The goal is to notice your own prior assumptions clearly enough that you can track how they develop or change as the course proceeds.

Group Activity: Evaluating a Media Claim About Attraction

Time required: 30–45 minutes in class or group setting Group size: 3–5 students

Instructions:

1. Before meeting as a group, each member individually finds one recent (within the past two years) media item — a news article, social media post, podcast excerpt, YouTube video, or magazine feature — that makes a factual claim about attraction, dating, or seduction. The claim should be specific (not just "relationships are complicated") and should reference, even loosely, some kind of research or evidence.

2. Share your items with the group. Each person presents their item in about two minutes: what does it claim, and what is the source it cites (if any)?

3. As a group, choose two of the items to analyze in depth. For each chosen item, work through the three questions from the chapter: - What does the evidence actually say? (You may need to look up the cited study if one is named, or discuss what evidence would ideally exist.) - Who is this research about — and who is missing? (What can you infer about the likely sample from the article? What populations does the claim implicitly address?) - What are the ethical implications? (What follows, and what doesn't follow, from this claim?)

4. Each group prepares a brief report (5 minutes of class presentation or one page of written summary) covering: (a) which claim your group found most well-supported and why; (b) which claim your group found most problematic and why; (c) one specific technique — other than the three questions — that might help someone evaluate media claims about attraction.

Research Task: Find a Study

Goal: Practice locating and reading primary research in attraction science.

Using your university library's database access (PsycINFO and Google Scholar are both good starting points), locate a peer-reviewed journal article on a specific topic related to attraction. The article should be published in a peer-reviewed journal (not a magazine or website), and should be from the last fifteen years. Choose a topic that genuinely interests you — some options are listed below, but you are not limited to these:

• Similarity and attraction
• Physical attractiveness judgments
• Online dating behavior
• Same-sex attraction patterns
• Cultural variation in mate preferences
• The role of humor in attraction
• Proximity and the mere exposure effect

Once you have found an article, write a 300–400 word summary addressing:

1. What was the study's research question?
2. Who were the participants (sample size, demographics, how recruited)?
3. What method was used (experiment, survey, behavioral observation, neuroimaging)?
4. What did the study find?
5. What are two limitations the authors acknowledge, or that you identify?
6. Does this study seem likely to replicate? What about its design gives you confidence or concern?

Bring your summary to class for a brief (2-minute) share-out. The goal is not to find the "best" study — it is to practice the skill of reading one carefully.