Sex Roles

, Volume 15, Issue 11–12, pp 585–600 | Cite as

Preference for opening lines: Comparing ratings by men and women

  • Chris L. Kleinke
  • Frederick B. Meeker
  • Richard A. Staneski


Opening lines were conceptualized as a method for expanding one's marketplace for dating and marriage partners. In Study 1, university students and employees rated opening lines used by men for meeting women. Respondents (n=600) in one survey rated opening lines for general situations. Respondents (n=431) in a second survey rated opening lines for specific situations, including bars, restaurants, supermarkets, laundromats, and beaches. In Study 2, university students and employees (n=831) rated opening lines used by women for meeting men in general situations. Factor analyses identified three categories of opening lines: cute-flippant, innocuous, and direct. Overall, respondents agreed that cute-flippant opening lines were the least desirable and that innocuous and direct opening lines were the most desirable. Within this general consensus, there was a consistent tendency for women to dislike cute-flippant opening lines more than men and to prefer innocuous opening lines more than men. These differences were related to sex role socialization. Discussion focused on reasons people persist in using cute-flippant opening lines and on an attributional analysis of responses to opening lines.


Beach Social Psychology Specific Situation Role Socialization General Consensus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbey, A. Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females' friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 42, 830–838.Google Scholar
  2. Bellack, A. S., & Hersen, M. (Eds.). Research and practice in social skills training. New York: Plenum, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. Byrne, D. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  4. Cary, M. S. The role of gaze in the initiation of conversation. Social Psychology, 1978, 41, 269–271.Google Scholar
  5. Curran, J. P. Skills training as an approach to the treatment of heterosexual-social anxiety: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 140–157.Google Scholar
  6. Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. L. Sharing intimacy: What we reveal to others and why. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.Google Scholar
  7. Greene, B. Direct male. Esquire, November, 1980, 18–20.Google Scholar
  8. Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. Ingratiation: An attributional approach. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  9. Kerckhoff, A. C. The social context of interpersonal attraction. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  10. Kleinke, C. L. First impressions: The psychology of encountering others. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.Google Scholar
  11. Kleinke, C. L. Effects of personal evaluations. In G. J. Chelune (Ed.), Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns, and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. Kleinke, C. L. Meeting and understanding people. New York: Freeman, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. Kleinke, C. L., Kahn, M. L., & Tully, T. B. First impressions of talking rates in opposite-sex and same-sex interactions. Social Behavior and Personality, 1979, 7, 81–91.Google Scholar
  14. Kleinke, C. L., Staneski, R. A., & Weaver, P. Evaluation of a person who uses another's name in ingratiating and noningratiating situations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1972, 8, 456–466.Google Scholar
  15. Knapp, M. L. Nonverbal communication in human interaction. New York: Holt, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  17. Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. Measuring a macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 1984, 18, 150–163.Google Scholar
  18. Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H. Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.Google Scholar
  19. Rubin, Z. Linking and loving: An invitation to social psychology. New York: Holt, 1973.Google Scholar
  20. Schlenker, B. R. Impression management. Montery, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1980.Google Scholar
  21. Staneski, R. A., Kleinke, C. L., & Meeker, F. B. Effects of ingratiation, touch, and use of name on evaluation of job applicants and interviewers. Social Behavior and Personality, 1977, 5, 13–19.Google Scholar
  22. Weiner, B., Frieze, I. H., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. Perceiving the causes for success and failure. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1971.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris L. Kleinke
    • 1
  • Frederick B. Meeker
    • 2
  • Richard A. Staneski
    • 3
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of AlaskaAnchorage
  2. 2.California State Polytechnic UniversityPomona
  3. 3.Old Dominion UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations