Does the setting in which a relationship initiation attempt occurs matter to its success? Identical initiations could yield differential success if enacted in different settings. Data from five independent samples highlight the role settings play in the perception of (hypothetical) relationship initiation attempts and (expectations of) their success. Study 1a sourced a wide variety of settings for real-world relationship initiations. A separate sample rated the identified settings on initiation appropriateness (Study 1b). Study 2 tested the appropriateness and associated outcomes of initiation settings while varying aspects of the interpersonal context (initiator attractiveness, Study 2a; initiator familiarity, Study 2b; sexual nature of proposition, Study 2c). Irrespective of initiator attractiveness, familiarity, or type of proposal, perceptions of initiations’ success were impacted by the settings’ appropriateness. This work is the first to empirically test whether perceptions and outcomes of initiation attempts differ as a function of the setting in which they occur.
AgnewC. R.HaddenB. W.TanK. (2020). Relationship receptivity theory: Timing and interdependent relationships. In MachiaL. V.AgnewC. R.ArriagaX. B. (Eds.), Interdependence, interaction, and close relationships (pp. 269–292). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108645836.014.
2.
ArriagaX. B.AgnewC. R.CapezzaN. M.LehmillerJ. J. (2008). The social and physical environment of relationship initiation: An interdependence analysis. In SprecherS.WenzelA.HarveyJ. (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 197–215). Psychology Press.
3.
BarghJ. A.MorsellaE. (2010). Unconscious behavioral guidance systems. In AgnewC. R.CarlstonD. E.GrazianoW. G.KellyJ. R. (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 89–118). Oxford University Press.
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
5.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
6.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 339–363. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2
Bleske-RechekA.SomersE.MickeC.EricksonL.MattesonL.StoccoC.SchumacherB.RitchieL. (2012). Benefit or burden? Attraction in cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(5), 569–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512443611
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204
11.
CameronJ. J.CurryE. (2020). Gender roles and date context in hypothetical scripts for a woman and a man on a first date in the twenty-first century. Sex Roles, 82(5), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01056-6
12.
CameronJ. J.StinsonD. A.WoodJ. V. (2013). The bold and the bashful: Self-esteem, gender, and relationship initiation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(6), 685–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613476309
13.
CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A.RenoR. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201–234). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5.
14.
ClarkR. D.HatfieldE. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v02n01_04
15.
ConleyT. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022152
16.
DionK.BerscheidE.WalsterE. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033731
17.
DitontoT. M.LauR. R. (2018). (Working toward) affective transfer in the real world. In LavineH.TaberC. S. (Eds.), The feeling, thinking citizen: Essays in honor of Milton Lodge (pp. 229–252). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351215947
18.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
19.
EastwickP. W.KeneskiE.MorganT. A.McDonaldM. A.HuangS. A. (2018). What do short-term and long-term relationships look like? Building the relationship coordination and strategic timing (ReCAST) model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(5), 747–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000428
20.
FeingoldA. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 981–993. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.981
21.
FraleyR. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_03
22.
Haj-MohamadiP.GillathO.RosenbergE. L. (2021). Identifying a facial expression of flirtation and its effect on men. Journal of Sex Research, 58(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1805583
23.
HaldG. M.Høgh-OlesenH. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(6), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.004
24.
HallJ. A.CodyM. J.JacksonG.FleshJ. O. (2008, May). Beauty and the flirt: Attractiveness and opening lines in date initiation [Paper presentation]. International Communication Association Conference in Montreal, Québec, Canada.
25.
HaseltonM. G.BussD. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.81
26.
HogbenM.ByrneD. (1998). Using social learning theory to explain individual differences in human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551917
KelleyH. H.BerscheidE.ChristensenA.HarveyJ. H.HustonT. L.LivingerG.McClintockE.PeplauL. A.PetersonD. R. (1983). Close relationships. Freeman.
29.
KihlstromJ. F. (2013). The person-situation interaction. In CarlstonD. E. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 786–805). Oxford University Press.
KleinkeC. L.MeekerF. B.StaneskiR. A. (1986). Preference for opening lines: Comparing ratings by men and women. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 15(11-12), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288216
32.
KnappM. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Allyn & Bacon.
KoenigB. L.KirkpatrickL. A.KetelaarT. (2007). Misperception of sexual and romantic interests in opposite-sex friendships: Four hypotheses. Personal Relationships, 14(3), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00163.x
35.
LemayE. P.Jr.ClarkM. S.GreenbergA. (2010). What is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired: Physical attractiveness stereotyping as projection of interpersonal goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209359700
36.
LoC.WalshA.MikulincerM.GaglieseL.ZimmermannC.RodinG. (2009). Measuring attachment security in patients with advanced cancer: Psychometric properties of a modified and brief experiences in Close Relationships Scale. Psycho-Oncology, 18(5), 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1417
37.
LorenzoG. L.BiesanzJ. C.HumanL. J. (2010). What is beautiful is good and more accurately understood: Physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of personality. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1777–1782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610388048
38.
PenkeL.AsendorpfJ. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113
39.
PryorJ. B.MerluzziT. V. (1985). The role of expertise in processing social interaction scripts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(4), 362–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(85)90036-8
40.
ReisH. T.ManiaciM. R.CaprarielloP. A.EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022885
41.
RidgewayC. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press.
42.
RosenfeldM. J.ThomasR. J.HausenS. (2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(36), 17753–17758. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908630116
43.
SasslerS.MillerA. J. (2015). The ecology of relationships: Meeting locations and cohabitors’ relationship perceptions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514525886
44.
ShaverP.HazanC. (1987). Being lonely, falling in love: Perspectives from attachment theory. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 2(2, Pt. 2), 105–124.
45.
SimonW.GagnonJ. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542219
46.
SimpsonJ. A.GangestadS. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870
47.
SprecherS.FelmleeD.MettsS.CupachW. (2015). Relationship initiation and development. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.SimpsonJ. A.DovidioJ. F. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 3. Interpersonal relations (pp. 211–245). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14344-008
48.
StinsonD. A.CameronJ. J.HoplockL. B. (2022). The friends-to-lovers pathway to romance: Prevalent, preferred, and overlooked by science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211026992
49.
UhlichM.GillathO.SchachnerD. A.ShaverP. R. (2022). Attachment security priming affecting mating strategies endorsement among college students. Evolutionary Psychology, 20(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049221111738
50.
ValsinerJ. (2000). Culture and human development. Sage.
WilsonT. D. (2022). What is social psychology? The construal principle. Psychological Review, 129(4), 873–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000373
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
