Skip to content
1981
Volume 12, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 2046-9861
  • E-ISSN: 2046-987X

Abstract

Research into the initiation of romantic relationships through first dates has aided in a deeper understanding into the important norms that make for a successful first romantic encounter through variables such as the role of attachment, attractiveness and goals involved in these encounters. Yet there remains an underappreciation of the communicative processes in the social dynamics across different cultural contexts in these first romantic encounters using non-student samples. Of particular importance is the role of how partners balance the information needs of presenting themselves as a suitable partner while simultaneously assessing the suitability of their date as a potential mate. By doing so, a social exchange paradigm is often implemented in the process to find love. Through social penetration theory (SPT) as a predictive lens, I compare how couples on the first seasons of (2013–present) ( = 12) and (2019) ( = 10) moved through the stages of intimacy as a result of mutual communication. Textual analysis suggests that cultural variation in the communicative act of self-disclosure was less of a predictor than was the desire to form an intimate bond.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • National Research Foundation (Award Thuthuka Grant)
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jptv_00132_1
2024-12-26
2025-02-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altman, I. and Taylor, D. (1973), Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Altman, I., Vinsel, A. and Brown, B. B. (1981), ‘Dialectic conception in social psychology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation’, in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, pp. 10760.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arriaga, X., Agnew, C., Capezza, N., Allsop, K. E. and Goodfried, W. (2018), ‘The social and physical environment of relationship initiation: An interdependence analysis’, in S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel and J. Harvey (eds), Handbook of Relationship Initiation, Washington, DC: Psychology Press, pp. 197216.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baxter, L. A. (1993), ‘The social side of personal relationships: A dialectical perspective’, in S. W. Duck (ed.), Social Context and Relationship, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 13965.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baxter, L. A. (1994), ‘Thinking dialogically about communication in personal relationships’, in R. Collville (ed.), Uses of ‘Structure’ in Communication Studies, Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 2338.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baxter, L. A. (2006), ‘Relational dialectics theory: Multivocal dialogues of family communication’, in D. Braithwaite (ed.), Engaging Theories in Family Communication: Multiple Perspectives, London: Sage Publications, pp. 13045.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baxter, L. A. and Braithwaite, D. (2007), ‘Social dialectics: The contradictions of relating’, in B. B. Whaley and W. Samter (eds), Explaining Communication Contemporary Theories and Exemplars, NJ: Lawrence Elbraum, pp. 27591.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baxter. L. A., Maxwell, J. A., Balesa, K. L, Finkele, E. J., Impett, E. A. and Eastwick, P. W. (2022), ‘Initial impressions of compatibility and mate value predict later dating and romantic interest’, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 119:45, pp. 110, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2206925119.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Carpenter, A. and Greene, K. (2016), ‘Social penetration theory’, in C. R. Berger and M. E. Roloff (eds), International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc, pp. 15.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, Y.-W. and Nakazawa, M. (2010), ‘Influences of culture on self-disclosure as relationally situated in intercultural and interracial friendships from a social penetration perspective’, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 38:2, pp. 7798, https://doi.org/10.1080/17475750903395408.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Creeber, G. (2006), ‘The joy of text? Television and textual analysis’, Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies, 1:1, pp. 8188.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dubrofsky, R. and Hardy, A. (2008), ‘Performing race in flavor of love and the bachelor’, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25:4, pp. 37392, https://doi.org/10.1080/15295030802327774.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Eastwick, P. W., Saigal, S. D. and Finkel, E. J. (2010), ‘Smooth operating: A structural analysis of social behavior (SASB) perspective on initial romantic encounters’, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1:4, pp. 34452, https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610373402.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Griffin, E. (2003), A First Look at Communication, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Günaydin, G., Selcuk, E. and Hazan, C. (2013), ‘Finding the one: A process model of human mate selection’, in C. Hazan and M. I. Campa (eds), Human Bonding: The Science of Affectional Ties, New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 10331.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hendrie, C. and Isolde, S. (2019), ‘Courtship-feeding in the First Dates restaurant is highly predictive of a second date’, Appetite, 141:3, pp. 14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104329.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Henningsen, D. D. and Henningsen, M. L. M. (2020), ‘Examining first date goals across different types of date initiation’, Marriage & Family Review, 56:5, pp. 44969, https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2020.1728003.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Honeycutt, J. and Cantrill, J. (2001), Cognition, Communication, and Romantic Relationships, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kerr, L. G., Borenstein-Laurie, J. and Human, L. J. (2020), ‘Are some first dates easier to read than others? The role of target well-being in distinctively accurate first impressions’, Journal of Research in Personality, 88:1, pp. 18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104017.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Knapp, M. L. (1978), Social Intercourse: From Greeting to Goodbye, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Knapp, M. L., Vangelisti, A. L. and Caughlin, J. (2020), Interpersonal Communication in Human Relationships, London: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kramer, R. S. S. and Mulgrew, J. (2018), ‘Displaying red and black on a first date: A field study using the First Dates television series’, Evolutionary Psychology, 16:2, pp. 17, https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918769417.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuckartz, U. (2014), Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice & Using Software, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Leary, M. (2019), Self-Presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behavior, London: Brown & Benchmark.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mangus, S. M., Bock, D. E., Jones, E. and Folse, J. A. G. (2020), ‘Examining the effects of mutual information sharing and relationship empathy: A social penetration theory perspective’, Journal of Business Research, 109, pp. 37584.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Manning, J. (2019), ‘Thinking about interpersonal relationships and social penetration theory: Is it the same for lesbian, gay, or bisexual people?’, in C. J. Liberman, A. S. Rancer and T. A. Avtgis (eds), Casing Communication Theory, Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hun, pp. 293303.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Molefe, M. and Ngcongo, M. (2021), ‘“You don’t mess with Black Twitter!”: An Ubuntu approach to understanding “militant” Twitter discourse’, Communicatio, 47:3, pp. 2649, https://doi.org/10.1080/02500167.2021.2001553.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mongeau, P. A. and Henningsen, M. (2014), ‘Stage theories of relationship development: Charting the course of interpersonal communication’, in L. A. Baxter and D. O. Braithwaite (eds), Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives, New York: Sage Publications, pp. 36376.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mongeau, P. A., Serewicz, M. C. M. and Therrien, L. F. (2004), ‘Goals for cross-sex first dates: Identification, measurement, and the influence of contextual factors’, Communication Monographs, 71:2, pp. 12147, https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775042331302514.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mongeau, P. A., Jacobsen, J. and Donnerstein, C. (2007), ‘Defining dates and first date goals: Generalizing from undergraduates to single adults’, Communication Research, 34:5, pp. 52647, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207305235.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mongeau, P. A., Henningsen, M. and Blackburn, O. (2022), ‘Developmental theories of relationships: Uncertainty, stage model, and turning point approaches to relationships’ lifespan’, in L. A. Baxter and D. O. Braithwaite (eds), Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives, New York: Sage Publications, pp. 32840.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pennington, N. (2021), ‘Extending social penetration to Facebook’, Journal of Social Media in Society, 10:2, pp. 23543.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Petronio, S. (2002), Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure, New York: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Petronio, S. (2010), ‘Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation?’, Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2:3, pp. 17596.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Poulsen, F. O, Holman, T. B., Busby, D. M. and Carroll, J. S. (2012), ‘Physical attraction, attachment styles, and dating development’, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30:3, pp. 30119, https://doi.org/10.1177/026540751245667.3.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rayner, P., Wall, P. and Kruger, S. (2004), Media Studies: The Essential Resource, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Romaniuk, O. (2020), ‘The first impression matters: The art of male romantic communication in American media dating culture’, Discourse and Interaction, 13:1, pp. 6791, https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2020-1-67.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Serewicz, M. M. C. and Gale, E. (2007), ‘First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship’, Sex Roles, 58:3, pp. 14964, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9283-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sprecher, S., Treger, S. and Landa, N. (2019), ‘Men and women’s plans for romantic initiation strategies across four settings’, Current Psychology, 40:7, pp. 3499509, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00298-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Taylor, D. A. and Altman, I. (1987), ‘Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes’, in M. E. Roloff and G. R. Miller (eds), Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 25777.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Tidwell, N. D., Eastwick, P. W. and Finkel, E. J. (2013), ‘Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed-dating paradigm’, Personal Relationships, 20:2, pp. 199215, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01405.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ting-Toomey, S. (2005), ‘The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory’, in W. B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 7192.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Vertoont, S. (2017), ‘Would you date The Undateables? An analysis of the mediated public debate on the reality television show The Undateables’, Sexualities, 21:5–6, pp. 82539, https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460717699782.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. The Bachelor (2002–present, USA: Warner Bros).
    [Google Scholar]
  45. First Dates South Africa (2019, South Africa: BBC Lifestyle).
    [Google Scholar]
  46. First Dates UK (2013–present, UK: Channel 4).
    [Google Scholar]
  47. The Undateables (2012–20, UK: Channel 4).
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/jptv_00132_1
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test