I am a statistician at heart and believe most things can be reduced to numbers. I've been getting a lot of numbers lately when I go out to bars or clubs or what have you, but when/if the girl responds varies considerably. I am sure there are whole forums on "text message game" but I think that the text you send a girl after meeting at a bar and maybe hooking up once can probably be distilled to "not sexually suggestive", "sexually suggestive", or "a simple question". So I created this simple study to measure how effective each is. Below is the outline for my study. I apologize if it sounds overly "sciency"; My background is in technical writing so that is just how I write. Let me know what you think, but go easy on me. This thing was created in one sitting and hasn't really been polished. I look forward to your feedback!

Study question: What are the factors that influence return text time (RTT) in American female young adults?

Background and Hypothesis: The appearance of aloofness is highly sought after in heterosexual intergender social relationships. Attentiveness and eagerness is meta-perceived as overly attached, which is undesirable in a hedonistic sub culture that values a “no strings attached” approach to dating. Many young females appear to be especially weary of male attention that was initiated largely in nightlife* setting due to a media-imputed stereotype that men, in that context, are only interested in sex. This might very well be true and the impression may be positively reinforced if she has already initiated or accepted sexual advances with the man in question. Nevertheless, young females are typically willing to give their personal phone number to a soliciting male for several plausible reasons: 1) interest in initiating another interaction (sexual or non-sexual); 2) a perceived obligation to please the man, or; 3) the desire to expand her social network, something strongly encouraged by the culture.

As it is not typical for young women to initiate a second interaction for the aforementioned socio-cultural reasons, the man will initiate, usually via text message. This study seeks to understand how long the woman will wait to respond once she becomes aware of said message: this is the return text time (RTT). Suspect factors that influence this decision are: 1) content of text message contextually interpreted by her present state, 2) quality of former interaction(s) with the suitor; 3) initial and present impressions of the suitor as a viable sexual partner.

Methodology: The relative contributions of the three proposed variables to RTT can be parsed and assessed by controlling for two and gauging the deviation of third from some predetermined average text message response time for the population, defined as English speaking, American females ages 17 to 29. First, this would require an average response time to be calculated. Although there are a variety of confounding variables, a large data set will generate a robust population statistic from which deviations can be measured. The variables tested are inherently subjective which makes them less amenable to controlled experimentation; however, the former can be standardized more readily than the latter two. I propose to construct a protocol to assess variable (1) as an independent variable for RTT.

The results must be interpreted in light of the other important variables mentioned as well as other lesser important, but not statistically negligible confounding factors. An endless variety of permutations on (1) can be created and RTT can be measured. The six variations to be used in this study are: 1) early week, “I enjoyed hanging out with you. We should do it again soon”; 2) mid week, “I enjoyed hanging out with you. We should do it again soon”; 3) late week or weekend “I enjoyed hanging out with you. We should do it again soon”; 4) mid week, “Heyy sexy! whats goin on??; 5) late week or weekend, “Heyy sexy you should come party w me”; 6) mid week, “Hey, can I ask you a question?”.

Sub-variables 1-1 through 1-3 measure the efficacy of a text message that is not sexually suggestive with an element of intertemporal variation. Text messages should be sent at approximately the same time at the three points during the week to control for sub-intertemporal variation: arbitrarily, 4PM. Sub-variables 1-4 and 1-5 measure the efficacy of a text message with a strong element of sexual suggestiveness also with intertemporal variation. Finally, sub-variable 1-6 includes an interrogatory element that requires a simple response or no response. No particular context is given and therefore this sub-variable can also be used to indirectly assess variables (2) and (3). Presumably, if the woman responds, she was pleased with her former interaction with the suitor and is interested in reinitiating a dialogue.

Measurement of RTT will be initiated when the text message is sent. After 24 hours with no response, a “No response” will be logged, which can be amended if necessary with the appropriate time. Follow up text messages should be constructed with the intent of initiating a second interaction. RTT to these follow ups should be recorded until a second interaction is accepted. Subsequent failure to initiate this encounter should be noted with data. RTT of the first response text message will be measured as function of the sub variables 1-1 through 1-6.