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

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 to check access.

References

  1. Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (1996). Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates. Sex Roles, 34, 321–336.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 154–158.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moore, M. M. (2010). Human nonverbal courtship behavior—A brief historical review. Journal of Sex Research, 47(2–3), 171–180.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1989). Young singles’ scripts for a first date. Gender and Society, 3(2), 258–268.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marisa T. Cohen.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • First dates
  • Perceptions of behaviors
  • Gender differences