Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Men and women’s plans for romantic initiation strategies across four settings

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study, with a sample (N = 735) of both university students and non-student adults, examined the various strategies that men and women believe they would use to initiate romantic contact with an attractive other in four different settings: social gathering, bar/nightclub, class/workplace, and Facebook. We found that men to a greater degree than women reported they would use direct approaches (e.g., initiate a conversation) and women to a greater degree than men reported they would use the indirect strategy of having a friend introduce them and the passive strategy of waiting for the other to do something. Men’s greater expectation of being direct in relationship initiation (relative to women) was found across the settings. Shyness was associated with the lower likelihood of expecting to be direct in initiation strategies, although the strength of the association was stronger for men than for women and depended on both the particular initiation strategy and the setting. The findings offer insights into the dynamics of relationship development and how plans for initiation strategies may differ for men and women, including the differential influence of shyness on romantic initiation for men and women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This sample size was after eliminating 62 participants who had not completed the end of the survey that included the measures for this study. We also eliminated 12 participants who failed one or both of the two attention checks included in the online survey, one participant who indicated an age under 18, and one MTurk respondent from the Philippines. For more detail on these data deletions, request a supplementary file from the first author. We did not perform an a-priori power analysis to determine sample size. Still, our sample exceeded the minimum power criterion for detecting correlation coefficients, which Schönbrodt and Perugini (2013) suggested to be 250. Post-hoc estimations of statistical power further revealed that we had sufficient power to detect both within- and between-subjects main effects as well as their interaction at β > .99.

  2. It was difficult to make the Facebook scenario comparable to the face-to-face settings, in terms of emphasizing that an attractive person who the participant had noticed previously had arrived in the setting. Our decision was to present the attractive person as having sent a friend request.

  3. Our decision was to include only six items (from the longer 13-item scale) primarily because of concern over the length of the survey (which included measures on many topics) and potential participant fatigue. We chose the first six items listed in the scale. The items chosen had good psychometric properties in our data; item-to-total correlations ranged from .65 to .84, with a mean of .77. Other evidence also indicates that these particular items have good psychometric properties (e.g., Crozier 2005; Hopko et al. 2005).

  4. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .61 to .74; see Table 2.

  5. A four-category variable was created for source of data collection as a control variable (1 = those from the university; 2 = those obtained through Facebook; 3 = those from MTurk, and 4 = Other).

  6. One of the items unique to the Facebook setting was “accept the friend request.” Participants said they were very likely to do this behavior (M = 6.05, SD = 1.58), and no differences emerged between men (M = 5.94, SD = 1.53) and women (M = 6.11, SD = 1.61), t (729) = 1.44, p = .149, d = 0.11). Furthermore, shyness was not associated with the likelihood of accepting the friend request, r = −.04, p = .227. The correlations for men and women, respectively, were r = −.07, p = .241; and r = −.03, p = .522.

References

  • Arkin, R. M., & Grove, T. (1990). Shyness, sociability and patterns of everyday affiliation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 273–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arroyo, A., & Harwood, J. (2011). Communication competence mediates the link between shyness and relational quality. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 264–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 122–144). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, C. R., & Bell, R. A. (1988). Plans and the initiation of social relations. Human Communication Research, 15, 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bielak, T., & Moscovitch, D. A. (2013). How do I measure up? The impact of observable signs of anxiety and confidence on interpersonal evaluations in social anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37, 266–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bredow, C., Cate, R. M., & Huston, T. L. (2008). Have we met before? A conceptual model of first romantic encounters. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 3–28). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brook, C. A., & Willoughby, T. (2017). Shyness and social anxiety assessed through self-report: What are we measuring? Journal of Personality Assessment 101, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1388808.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, J. J., Stinson, D. A., & Wood, J. V. (2013). The bold and the bashful: Self-esteem, gender, and relationship initiation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 685–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic internet use and psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 30, 625–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 709–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crozier, W. R. (2005). Measuring shyness: Analysis of the revised Cheek and Buss shyness scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1947–1956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K. (1995). How basic can you be? The evolution of research on gender stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran, R. L., & Kelly, L. (1989). The cycle of shyness: A study of self-perceptions of communication performance. Communication Reports, 2, 50–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, A. A., & Rose, S. (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35-year review using Sex Roles. Sex Roles, 64, 843–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egland, K. L., Spitzberg, B. H., & Zormeier, M. M. (1996). Flirtation and conversational competence in cross-sex platonic and romantic relationships. Communication Reports, 9, 105–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fein, E. (1995). The rules: Time-tested secrets for capturing the heart of Mr. right. New York: Warner Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. M., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & White, A. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 102, 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., & Canterberry, M. (2011). Sexism and assertive courtship strategies. Sex Roles, 65, 840–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L., Gilbert, P., & Zimbardo, P. (2014). Shyness, social anxiety, and social phobia. In S. G. Hofmann & P. M. DiBartolo (Eds.), Social anxiety: Clinical, developmental, and social perspectives (3rd Ed.) (pp (pp. 95–115). Waltham: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hopko, D. R., Stowell, J., Jones, W. H., Armento, M. E., & Cheek, J. M. (2005). Psychometric properties of the revised Cheek and Buss shyness scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 185–192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ickes, W. (2009). Strangers in a strange lab: How personality shapes our initial encounters with others. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, T., Fritch, A., Nagasaka, T., & Gunderson, J. (2002). Towards explaining the association between shyness and loneliness: A path analysis with American college students. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 30, 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing a short-term, mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 606–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., Foster, J. D., McCain, J., & Campbell, W. K. (2015). Where birds flock to get together: The who, what, where, and why of mate searching. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 76–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, K., & Rolker-Dolinsky, B. (1987). The psychosexology of female initiation and dominance. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 63–87). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., Maner, J. K., Butner, J., Li, N. P., Becker, D. V., & Schaller, M. (2002). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Mapping the domains of the new interactionist paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinkenberg, D., & Rose, S. (1994). Dating scripts of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 26, 23–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch, L. K., & Miller, L. E. (2008). Uncertainty and relationship initiation. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 121–134). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurdek, L. A. (1993). The allocation of household labor in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual married couples. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, B. C. (1989). Reasons for having and avoiding sex: Gender, sexual orientation, and relationship to sexual behavior. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeSure-Lester, G. E. (2001). Dating competence, social assertion and social anxiety among college students. College Student Journal, 35, 317–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinger, G. (1980). Toward the analysis of close relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 510–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lueptow, L. B., Garovich-Szabo, L., & Lueptow, M. B. (2001). Social change and the persistence of sex typing: 1974-1997. Social Forces, 80, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundy, B. L., & Drouin, M. (2016). From social anxiety to interpersonal connectedness: Relationship building within face-to-face, phone and instant messaging mediums. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 271–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, J. C. D., & Cavallo, J. V. (2011). Breaking the rules: Personal control increases women’s direct relationship initiation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 848–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, P., & Ray, G. (1993). Shyness, self-confidence, and social interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 178–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murstein, B. I. (1970). Stimulus-value-role: A theory of marital choice. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 465–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ömür, M., & Büyükşahin-Sunal, A. (2015). Preferred strategies for female and male initiators in romantic relationship initiation: The role of stereotypes related to romantic relationships, rejection sensitivity and relationship anxiety. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5, 476–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Ross, C., Simmering, M. G., Arseneault, J. M., & Orr, R. R. (2009). The influence of shyness on the use of Facebook in an undergraduate sample. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 12, 337–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlman, D. (2008). Ending the beginning of relationships. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 517–539). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perper, T. (1985). Sex signals: The biology of love. Philadelphia: ISI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1367–1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, J. B., & Merluzzi, T. V. (1985). The role of expertise in processing social interaction scripts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 362–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles' contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28, 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77, 523–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassler, S., & Miller, A. J. (2015). The ecology of relationships: Meeting locations and cohabitors’ relationship perceptions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 141–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharlott, B. W., & Christ, W. G. (1995). Overcoming relationship-initiation barriers: The impact of a computer-dating system on sex role, shyness, and appearance inhibitions. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 191–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serewicz, M. C. M., & Gale, E. (2008). First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship. Sex Roles, 58, 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Harris, B. A. (1994). Interpersonal attraction. In A. L. Weber & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on close relationships (pp. 45–66). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1987). Barriers in the initiation of intimate heterosexual relationships and strategies. In H. Gochros & W. Ricketts (Eds.), An edited monograph on Social Work and Love (pp. 77–110). New York: Hayworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, N. (2005). The game: Penetrating the secret society of pick-up artists. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolhuizen, J. H. (1989). Communication strategies for intensifying dating relationships: Identification, use, and structure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 413–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., & Larkin, K. T. (1986). Situational determinants of social anxiety in clinic and nonclinic samples: Physiological and cognitive correlates. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 54, 523–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorauer, J. D., & Ratner, R. K. (1996). Who’s going to make the first move? Pluralistic ignorance as an impediment to relationship formation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 84, 793–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorauer, J. D., Cameron, J. J., Holmes, J. G., & Pearce, D. G. (2003). Invisible overtures: Fears of rejection and the signal amplification bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 793–812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, C. C., & Tracey, T. J. (2004). Relation of shyness with aspects of online relationship involvement. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 611–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, A., & Emerson, T. (2009). Mate selection in socially anxious and nonanxious individuals. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 341–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Samuel S. Fisher for his assistance with the data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA

    Susan Sprecher

  2. Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Stanislav Treger

  3. Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, 61761, USA

    Nicole Landa

Authors
  1. Susan Sprecher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stanislav Treger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicole Landa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Sprecher.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all of the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sprecher, S., Treger, S. & Landa, N. Men and women’s plans for romantic initiation strategies across four settings. Curr Psychol 40, 3499–3509 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00298-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00298-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation