The news in brief
A study from Leuphana University of Lüneburg (543 participants responding to a fictional scenario, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships) compares three moments for sending a message after a first date: the next morning produces the highest relationship intentions; women appear more sensitive than men to this timing, close to the limit of statistical significance. These are reported intentions, not relationships followed over time.
What the study says
A team from Leuphana University of Lüneburg, in Germany, asked when it is best to write after a first date. The article, signed by Lars Teichmann and four colleagues, appeared online on 10 September 2025 in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (Teichmann et al., 2026). Three ideas were pitted against each other: write early, make the other person wait, or aim for a middle delay, the option the authors had chosen in advance in a public preregistration.
To choose the delays to test, they first surveyed 100 American and British adults. On average, a message about six hours after the meeting seemed ideal, less than twenty minutes seemed too early and more than forty hours too late, with large differences from one person to the next (Teichmann et al., 2026). The main experiment brought together, in April 2024 on the online platform Prolific, 543 heterosexual adults, 270 women and 273 men, with an average age of 40 and mostly born in the United Kingdom (Teichmann et al., 2026). One detail matters: nearly two thirds were already in a relationship (65.7%, Teichmann et al., 2026).
Each participant read a fictional scenario: a dinner in a good Italian restaurant, then a message from the other person, sent right after saying goodbye, the next morning or two days later. The content of the message was deliberately kept hidden, to isolate the effect of the delay.
The figures to remember
On a scale from 1 to 9, relationship intentions, the wish to commit to this person, reach 6.15 when the message arrives the next morning, against 5.80 if it arrives immediately and 5.50 after two days (Teichmann et al., 2026). The curve forms an inverted U, with a peak in the middle.
For the sense of closeness and the wish to get back in touch, the pattern is different: the first two delays are equivalent, and only the two-day silence lowers the scores. Closeness falls from 6.49 the next morning and 6.41 immediately to 5.77 after two days; the wish to get back in touch, from 6.86 and 6.80 to 6.12 (Teichmann et al., 2026). Here, the authors mostly see a downward slope.
Men report higher intentions than women on average, 6.23 against 5.39, and react less to the delay (Teichmann et al., 2026). Among women, the next-morning peak is clear; among men, only the gap between the next morning and two days stands out clearly. This difference between the sexes remains at the edge of statistical significance (p = 0.052), and crosses the threshold only when three inattentive participants are set aside (Teichmann et al., 2026).
Why the next morning
Two impressions explain most of it: the later the message, the less appreciated in return you feel, and the less reliable the sender seems (Teichmann et al., 2026). On the other hand, waiting does not make the other person more desirable in your eyes, and the delay does not clearly change how much you think about them (Teichmann et al., 2026).
Writing right away does make the sender seem more eager, especially in the eyes of women. But this impression is not linked to intentions: it therefore does not explain why the next morning comes out ahead (Teichmann et al., 2026). The authors admit that this advantage remains partly unexplained; they mention a share of stimulating uncertainty, still to be tested. Neither attachment style nor tolerance of uncertainty changed the effect.
How to read these results
These are stated intentions in response to an imagined situation. No relationship was followed over time: we do not know whether these gaps matter in a real meeting.
The message itself was absent, and the authors count this among the limits: in real life, a warm word sent late can be worth more than a cold message sent on time. The date in the scenario was also deliberately neutral, neither exceptional nor disappointing. Only three moments were compared, and the longest stopped at two days. The sample is English-speaking, heterosexual and mostly in a relationship, and dating norms vary across cultures.
The gaps are also modest, in the order of a few tenths of a point out of nine. They describe an average, not what each person will feel. A strong point: the study was preregistered and its data are public.
What this changes for the reader
In this experiment, letting two days go by did not make the other person more interested; it rather left them doubting whether you wanted to see them again. The famous three-day rule was not tested as such, but the authors think it would do even worse.
In practical terms, the next morning is a reasonable benchmark, not an obligation. If you had a good time, a simple and sincere message, sent without too much delay, has a good chance of being well received. If you prefer to write that same evening, the study shows a slight dip in intentions, but no less closeness and no less wish to meet again. And if you did not feel like seeing the person again, nothing obliges you to write out of calculation: the most important thing remains to be clear and respectful.
What our main page adds
Our main page adds the practical side. It recommends a coffee or a drink in a public place, for about an hour, rather than a restaurant, which is better kept for the second date, and basic precautions: tell a friend or relative, arrive and leave by your own means, never leave your drink unattended, check the person out before meeting them. It addresses nerves, which can be interpreted as excitement, and conversation: asking open and follow-up questions, which makes you better liked in studies of real conversations. It advises simply saying afterwards that you had a good time, and sending a brief, honest message in the opposite case rather than disappearing. See the “First date” page.
Going further
This news item is part of a broader topic, which our page The first date covers in detail.