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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (1996). Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates. Sex Roles, 34, 321–336.
Bogel, K. A. (2007). The shift from dating to hooking up in college: What scholars have missed. Sociology Compass, 1(2), 775–788.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 154–158.
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.
Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and non-verbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 209–236.
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.
Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.
McFarland, D. A., Jurafsky, D., & Rawlings, C. (2013). Making the connection: Social bonding in courtship situations. American Journal of Sociology, 118(6), 1596–1649.
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.
Moore, M. M. (2002). Courtship communication and perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 97–105.
Moore, M. M. (2010). Human nonverbal courtship behavior—A brief historical review. Journal of Sex Research, 47(2–3), 171–180.
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.
Perper, T., & Weiss, D. (1987). Proceptive and rejective strategies of U.S. and Canadian college women. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 455–480.
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1989). Young singles’ scripts for a first date. Gender and Society, 3(2), 258–268.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cohen, M.T. It’s Not You, It’s Me…No, Actually It’s You: Perceptions of What Makes a First Date Successful or Not. Sexuality & Culture 20, 173–191 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9322-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9322-1