Advertisement

Sexuality & Culture

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 173–191 | Cite as

It’s Not You, It’s Me…No, Actually It’s You: Perceptions of What Makes a First Date Successful or Not

  • Marisa T. CohenEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Early communication plays an important role in influencing the perceptions one has of an individual. The first form of in-person communication individuals often have with potential romantic partners is during the first date. This date tends to take on the form of a “dance” involving carefully orchestrated conversation and self-disclosures. What is said is certainly important, as are the behaviors exhibited by each member of the dyad. This study examined how individuals interpreted what potential romantic partners say and do during, or immediately following, the first date to get a sense of how they perceive these actions and words. Special attention was placed on the participants’ interpretations of whether or not their date was attracted to them. A survey was given to 390 participants, and many interesting differences were found between the genders. Certain behaviors, such as steering the conversation to the topic of sex signaled to men that their date was attracted to them. However, women looked for different behaviors to infer attraction on the part of their partner, such as mentioning future plans and kissing them goodbye. With a better understanding of how certain phrases and actions influence others, people can be more aware of the signals sent to others upon their pivotal initial encounters.

Keywords

First dates Perceptions of behaviors Gender differences 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standard

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (1996). Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates. Sex Roles, 34, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bogel, K. A. (2007). The shift from dating to hooking up in college: What scholars have missed. Sociology Compass, 1(2), 775–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosson, J. K., Johnson, A., Niederhoffer, K., & Swann, W. (2006). Interpersonal chemistry through negativity: Bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others. Personal Relationships, 13, 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busby, D. M., Carroll, J. S., & Willoughby, B. J. (2010). Compatibility or restraint: The effects of sexual timing on marriage relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 766–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buston, P. M., & Emlen, S. T. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 8805–8810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. S., Knapp, S., & Holman, T. B. (2005). Theorizing about marriage. In V. L. Bengtson, C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 263–288). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Eaton, A. A., & Rose, S. (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using sex roles. Sex Roles, 64(11/12), 843–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grammer, K. (1989). Human courtship behavior: Biological basis and cognitive processing. In A. E. Rasa, C. Vogel, & E. Voland (Eds.), The sociobiology of sexual and reproductive strategies (pp. 147–169). New York: Chapmann and Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and non-verbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grammer, K., Kruck, K. B., & Magnusson, M. S. (1998). The courtship dance: Patterns of nonverbal synchronization in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McFarland, D. A., Jurafsky, D., & Rawlings, C. (2013). Making the connection: Social bonding in courtship situations. American Journal of Sociology, 118(6), 1596–1649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Metts, S. (2004). First sexual involvement in romantic relationships: An empirical investigation of communicative framing, romantic beliefs, and attachment orientation in the passion turning point. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 135–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Moore, M. M. (2002). Courtship communication and perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moore, M. M. (2010). Human nonverbal courtship behavior—A brief historical review. Journal of Sex Research, 47(2–3), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morr, M. C., & Mongeau, P. A. (2004). First-date expectations: Impact of sex of initiator, alcohol consumption, and relationship type. Communication Research, 31, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Perper, T., & Weiss, D. (1987). Proceptive and rejective strategies of U.S. and Canadian college women. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 455–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1989). Young singles’ scripts for a first date. Gender and Society, 3(2), 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Willoughby, B. J., Carroll, J. S., & Busby, D. M. (2014). Differing relationship outcomes when sex happens before, on, or after first dates. Journal of Sex Research, 51(1), 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St. Francis CollegeBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations