Projection of Romantic and Sexual Desire in Opposite-Sex Friendships

Abstract

In two studies, the authors examined the projection of romantic and sexual desire in opposite-sex friendships. In both studies, perceivers who strongly desired their friends projected this desire onto their friends, believing that their desire was more reciprocated than was actually the case. In turn, projection of desire appeared to motivate perceivers into enacting relationship initiation behaviors, which predicted changes in targets’ romantic and sexual desires over time (Study 2). Projection was elevated for perceivers who saw themselves as high in mate value, and targets appeared to be influenced by perceivers’ overtures primarily when they believed perceivers were high in mate value. This research suggests that, for perceivers high in mate value, romantic and sexual desire creates biased perceptions that initiate self-fulfilling prophecies.

Keywords

sexual attraction romantic attraction cross-sex friendships projection relationship initiation

Romantic love involves a strong desire to have one’s feelings reciprocated, and experiences of unrequited love are fraught with emotional distress (Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993). The desire for reciprocation may be so strong that it biases interpersonal perception. Given the ubiquitous influence of motivation on cognition (Kruglanski, 1996; Kunda, 1990), people may often perceive that their romantic desire is reciprocated even when it is not. This type of wishful thinking may explain why, when recounting experiences of unrequited love, many people believed their desires were initially reciprocated by the targets of their affection, even while most targets denied reciprocation (Baumeister et al., 1993; Sinclair & Frieze, 2005).

Such wishful thinking also occurs in the context of opposite-sex friendships. Romantic and sexual desire are pervasive in opposite-sex friendships (Kaplan & Keys, 1997). Although this romantic desire is often one-sided (Kaplan & Keys, 1997), those who want a romantic or sexual relationship with an opposite-sex friend often project their own desires onto their friend, believing that their affections are more reciprocated than is actually the case (Henningsen & Henningsen, 2010; Koenig, Kirkpatrick, & Ketelaar, 2007).

The projection of romantic and sexual desire in opposite-sex friendships is examined in the current research. In addition to replicating prior findings (Henningsen & Henningsen, 2010; Koenig et al., 2007), the current research examines behavioral consequences of projection. The current research also addresses methodological issues that can threaten the validity of research on projection.

Behavioral Consequences of Projecting Romantic Desire

People may be reluctant to pursue sexual or romantic relationships with their friends due to fears of rejection (see Vorauer & Ratner, 1996) or concerns about jeopardizing the friendship by making unwanted advances (Halatsis & Christakis, 2009). Functional perspectives on social cognition propose that cognitive biases exist because they help perceivers satisfy their goals (Fiske, 1992; Haselton & Buss, 2000; Lemay & Clark, 2008; Maner et al., 2005). Consistent with this perspective, we propose that when perceivers develop romantic or sexual attraction toward a target person, the projection of these desires onto the target person may provide perceivers with the confidence they need to set aside these worries and pursue the target person. This pursuit may involve diverse behaviors such as expressing romantic desire, maintaining close physical contact, playfully teasing or flirting, and enhancing physical appearance (Buss, 1988; Clark, Shaver, & Abrahams, 1999). Although perception of others’ sexual desires has been shown to predict enactment of these behaviors (Bouffard & Miller, 2014; Choi & Hur, 2013), prior research has not examined whether projection bias can drive these behaviors.

When perceivers enact romantic initiation behaviors, targets may become more romantically attracted to them. Many of these behaviors communicate perceivers’ romantic interest and availability to targets, or enhance perceivers’ attractiveness, which may elicit romantic attraction in targets (see Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Indeed, the initiation behaviors described above tend to be seen as instrumental for relationship initiation, and their endorsement is associated with successful relationship initiation (Buss, 1988; Clark et al., 1999). To the extent that they are effective, perceivers may create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Self-fulfilling prophecies occur when initially inaccurate perceptions lead people to enact behaviors that elicit responses from others that confirm those perceptions (Merton, 1948; Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977). Through such a mechanism, illusions, including projections of one’s own desire, may become realities. We predict that projection of romantic and sexual desire initiates a self-fulfilling prophecy because this projection leads perceivers into enacting relationship initiation behaviors that ultimately elicit greater sexual and romantic desire in targets. In other words, perceivers’ projection of sexual and romantic desires can cause targets to increase in their reciprocation of these desires.

A model of how projection of desire may serve as a catalyst for self-fulfilling prophecies is presented in Figure 1. Perceivers’ perceptions of targets’ desire are expected to be partially rooted in targets’ actual desire. This accuracy effect is depicted as Path B in Figure 1. In addition, we expect that perceivers often project their own desire onto targets (Path A). In turn, perceptions of targets’ desire are expected to predict perceivers’ enactment of relationship initiation behaviors (Path C), which may predict increases over time in targets’ desire for perceivers (Path D).

Figure 1.

Model of projection of romantic and sexual desire as a catalyst for self-fulfilling prophecies in cross-sex friendships.

Moderators of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

The self-fulfilling prophecy of romantic desire may vary as a function of perceivers’ mate value. Mate value refers to one’s global desirability as a romantic partner. Perceivers’ self-perceived mate value may moderate their projection of desire. Those who see themselves as high in mate value may more confidently assume that targets reciprocate their romantic desire, as this is congruent with their view of themselves as desirable. In contrast, perceivers who see themselves as low in mate value may have more difficulty believing that targets reciprocate their high desire because being desired by others, especially desirable others, is incongruent with their image of themselves as undesirable. This prediction is consistent with findings suggesting that people’s beliefs regarding how they are viewed by others are partly biased by their perceptions of themselves (Kenny & DePaulo, 1993). Hence, the strength of the projection bias (Path A in Figure 1) may increase along with perceivers’ self-perceptions of mate value.

Targets’ perceptions of perceivers’ mate value may also moderate the self-fulfilling prophecy. Targets who think that perceivers have high mate value may be receptive to perceivers’ initiation efforts, developing greater romantic and sexual desire in response. In contrast, targets who think that perceivers are low in mate value may be resistant to perceivers’ overtures. These targets may not develop greater desire for perceivers, despite learning of perceivers’ interests and availability, because they believe perceivers lack other important qualities. Hence, the effect of perceivers’ relationship initiation behavior on targets’ subsequent romantic desire (Path D in Figure 1) may depend on targets’ perceptions of perceivers’ mate value.

Ancillary Goals: Replication and Methodological Improvements

The primary goal for the current research was to test the novel prediction that projection of romantic desire guides relationship pursuit and initiates self-fulfilling prophecies in cross-sex friendships. A secondary goal was to replicate prior research demonstrating that this projection can explain gender differences in perceptions of desire (Henningsen & Henningsen, 2010; Koenig et al., 2007). Men exhibit a sexual over-perception bias in which they exaggerate women’s sexual interest (e.g., Abbey, 1982; Bleske-Rechek et al., 2012; Koenig et al., 2007). Women, on the other hand, have been found to have relatively accurate perceptions of men’s sexual interest or underestimate their interest (e.g., Abbey, 1982; Haselton & Buss, 2000). According to error management theory (Haselton & Buss, 2000), men may have developed a sexual over-perception bias because it helps them avoid missing a mating opportunity. However, projection serves as a plausible explanation of this bias. Men have greater sexual and romantic desires for their opposite-sex friends relative to women (Bleske-Rechek et al., 2012; Kaplan & Keys, 1997). As a result of projection, they also see those friends as having greater desire in return (Henningsen & Henningsen, 2010; Koenig et al., 2007).

While testing projection in this context, we sought to address two methodological limitations of most prior studies on projection. First, projection has been operationalized as an association between perceivers’ own desire and their perceptions of their friend’s desire (Henningsen & Henningsen, 2010; Koenig et al., 2007), which have been measured using nearly identical self-report measures completed by the same person. Common-method variance (i.e., tendencies to complete similar measures in a similar manner) could have inflated the projection effect (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Controlling for perceivers’ responses on an identical measure of desire (but toward a different target) could help rule this out as an alternative explanation (see Lemay & Clark, 2008). Second, projection effects are usually assessed with measures administered at the same point in time. Reversed causal effects could explain these findings. Instead of perceivers’ desire impacting perceptions of the target’s desire through projection, perceptions of the target’s desire could shape perceivers’ desire. To address this issue, longitudinal studies may establish that perceivers’ desire predicts changes in their perceptions of the target’s desire at a later point in time, consistent with projection, which could not be explained by reversed causal effects.

Current Research

The current research includes two dyadic studies on cross-sex friendships, including a cross-sectional study (Study 1) and a short-term prospective study (Study 2). We sought to replicate findings suggesting the existence of a projection bias in perceiving the sexual and romantic desire of opposite-sex friends, which explains gender differences in perceptions of opposite-sex friends’ desires. We sought to extend this research by testing novel predictions that projection of desire creates a self-fulfilling prophecy by motivating perceivers to enact relationship initiation behaviors (examined in both studies) that predict changes in their friend’s romantic and sexual desire over time (examined in Study 2). We also tested novel predictions that this process would be especially strong when perceivers are perceived, by themselves and their friends, to be high in mate value. These studies also addressed two methodological issues that often complicate projection research, including shared method variance (Study 1) and lack of temporal precedence (Study 2).

Study 1

The first study was a cross-sectional study designed to test the prediction that people project sexual and romantic desire onto opposite-sex friends, which then motivates them to enact relationship pursuit behaviors. In addition, predictions were tested regarding the role of projection in explaining gender differences in perception of sexual and romantic interest, and analyses were conducted to address potential shared method variance artifacts.

Method

Participants

Both members of 127 pairs of platonic cross-sex friends (N = 254) participated in the study (M age = 19 years, SD = 1.55).¹ Participants were recruited from introductory psychology courses from a large Mid-Atlantic university to participate in exchange for class credit. Participants brought a cross-sex friend to the study who received class credit or $12 for participating. A large portion of the sample was Caucasian (51.2%), followed by Asian American (19.6%), African American (19.2%), Hispanic, mixed-race (3.2%), and Middle Eastern (0.4%).

Procedure

Participants and their opposite-sex friend completed a battery of questionnaires via a computer. The questionnaire included the measures described below in addition to measures that are not relevant to this manuscript. This research was approved by the local institutional review board. Participants and their friends were seated on opposite sides of a computer laboratory to ensure confidentiality. After completing the measure of mate value, participants completed the other measures described below in a randomized order.

Measures

Romantic desire toward friend

Participants completed the short-form version of the Passionate Love Scale (Hatfield & Sprecher, 2011; for example, “This person always seems to be on my mind”; Cronbach’s α = .94). Participants also completed four items from the Eros subscale of the Love Attitudes Scale (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; for example, “I was attracted to this person immediately after we first met”; Cronbach’s α = .78). Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sexual interest was measured using a four-item scale adapted from Birnbaum and Reis (2012; for example, “To what extent would you be interested in having sex with your study partner?”; Cronbach’s α = .94). Participants completed an analogous set of four items created for this research to assess romantic interest (Cronbach’s α = .87; for example, “To what extent are you interested in dating your study partner?”). Response options for these scales ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Scores on these four measures were highly correlated. Hence, they were standardized and averaged to create an index of romantic desire for the friend (Cronbach’s α = .86).

Perception of friend’s romantic desire

Perceptions of the study partner’s romantic desire for the self was assessed with reworded versions of the measures of romantic desire described above, including perceptions of passionate love (e.g., “I am always on this person’s mind”; Cronbach’s α = .94), Eros love (four items; for example, “This person was attracted to me immediately after we first met”; Cronbach’s α = .77), sexual interest (e.g., “To what extent is this person interested in having sex with you?”; Cronbach’s α = .94), and romantic interest (e.g., “To what extent is this person interested in dating you?”; Cronbach’s α = .87). Scores were standardized and averaged to create an index of perceived romantic desire (Cronbach’s α = .86).

Romantic initiation behavior

Participants completed 18 items adapted from prior research on strategic romantic initiation behaviors and mate attraction tactics (Clark et al., 1999; Schmitt & Buss, 1996). Items assessed various tactics, including direct disclosure of sexual or romantic interest (e.g., “Told him/her that I was interested in a romantic relationship with him/her”), attempts to initiate physical intimacy (e.g., “Tried to kiss him/her”), nonverbal communication (e.g., “Looked deep into his/her eyes”), flirtation (e.g., “Flirted with him/her”), and appearance enhancement (e.g., “Tried to make myself look more attractive around him/her”). Using response scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (nearly all the time), participants indicated the frequency of enacting these behaviors during the typical week (Cronbach’s α = .92).

Mate value

Participants completed the five-item Mate Value Scale (Edlund & Sagarin, 2014), which measured self-perceived desirability as a romantic partner (e.g., “Overall, how good of a catch are you?” An additional item was added to the scale to assess perception of one’s own physical attractiveness. Participants responded using 7-point response scales (1 = very bad catch, 7 = very good catch; Cronbach’s α = .88).

Romantic desire toward third party

Participants selected another opposite-sex friend and completed the measures of romantic desire described above with regard to this person. Scores on these four measures were similarly correlated, and were standardized and averaged to create an index of romantic desire toward a third party (Cronbach’s α = .92).

Results

Analysis Strategy

Most analyses were two-level multilevel models with the two friends modeled as nested within their friendship dyad. A compound-symmetry error structure was used to model the interdependence of the two friends’ responses on the outcome variables (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Given the restricted degrees of freedom, slopes were modeled as fixed. Unstandardized and standardized coefficients are presented. The section below describes “perceivers,” who are people discerning their friend’s desire, and their friends, who are “targets” of perceivers’ perceptions and actions. These labels are used only to aid in interpretation of the effects. Each member provided data relevant to perceiver and target roles.

Accuracy and Projection in Perception of Friend’s Romantic Desire

The first set of analyses tested predictions regarding accuracy and projection in perceptions of friends’ romantic desire. Perceivers’ perception of the target friend’s romantic desire was regressed on the target friend’s romantic desire (the accuracy effect; Path B in Figure 1) and on perceivers’ romantic desire for that friend (the projection effect; Path A in Figure 1). This model was tested once for each indicator of desire and the composite index of romantic desire. Results (see Table 1) suggest both accuracy and projection bias. Target friends’ romantic desire predicted perceivers’ perceptions of that friend’s romantic desire, suggesting accuracy. Independently of this accuracy effect, perceivers’ romantic desire for their friend predicted their perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire, suggesting projection. In other words, perceivers who desired their friends believed their friends desired them in return, independently of their friend’s actual sentiments. Evidence for accuracy and projection was found for each of the indicators of romantic desire and in the analysis using composite indices. Evidence for projection was also found for both males and females. (Gender differences in perceptions are addressed in the next section.) Projection effects were stronger than accuracy effects across most analyses. Given that the patterns were similar across the individual indicators of desire, the results described below involved the more reliable composite measures to conserve space and reduce complexity.

Table 1.

Results of Analyses Examining Accuracy and Projection in Perceptions of Friend’s Romantic Desire (Study 1).

Predictor	b	β	t	95% CI
Predicting perceived friend passionate love
Friend’s passionate love (accuracy)	.20	.21	4.44***	[.11, .29]
Perceiver’s passionate love (projection)	.57	61	12.58***	[.48, .66]
Predicting perceived friend Eros love
Friend’s Eros love (accuracy)	.18	.19	3.56***	[.08, .28]
Perceiver’s Eros love (projection)	.53	.55	10.50***	[.43, .63]
Predicting perceived friend sexual interest
Friend’s sexual interest (accuracy)	.31	.37	7.02***	[.22, .40]
Perceiver’s sexual interest (projection)	.37	.43	8.24***	[.28, .45]
Predicting perceived friend romantic interest
Friend’s romantic interest (accuracy)	.24	.30	5.07***	[.15, .34]
Perceiver’s romantic interest (projection)	.23	.27	4.64***	[.13, .32]
Predicting composite index of perceived friend romantic desire
Friend’s romantic desire composite (accuracy)	.31	.31	6.04***	[.19, .38]
Perceiver’s romantic desire composite (projection)	.49	.49	9.57***	[.37, .57]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

***

p < .001.

Discrepancies in perception

Given these projection effects, perceivers with strong romantic desire for their friend may overestimate their friend’s desire for them, and those with low desire may underestimate their friend’s desire. Additional analyses were conducted to test this prediction. Perceivers’ perceptions of the target friend’s desire and the target friend’s actual desire were both included as part of the same stacked outcome variable. A dummy variable was used to compare them (1 = perceivers’ perceptions of friend’s desire; 0 = friend’s actual desire), which was specified as interacting with perceivers’ desire for their friend. In light of prior research suggesting that men are more likely to exaggerate sexual desire relative to women (e.g., Abbey, 1982; Haselton & Buss, 2000), these analyses were conducted separately by gender. For each index of romantic desire, these analyses suggested that perceivers’ romantic desire was associated with discrepancies in perceptions of the friend’s romantic desire. Results for the composite index of romantic desire are plotted in Figure 2. When perceivers highly desired their friend (1 SD above the mean), they tended to overestimate their friend’s romantic desire for them, relative to their friend’s self-reported desire, male perceivers b = .46, t = 4.56, p < .001; female perceivers b = .21, t = 1.69, p = .094. In contrast, when female perceivers were low on romantic desire for their friend (1 SD below the mean), they tended to underestimate their friend’s romantic desire for them, relative to their friend’s self-reported desire, b = −.55, t = −5.66, p < .001. Male perceivers who were low on desire for their friend had perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire that did not deviate, on average, from their friend’s self-reports, b = −.01, t = −.12, p = .91. Hence, projection appeared to result in perceivers overestimating their friend’s desire when their own desire for their friend was high and underestimating their friend’s desire when their own desire was low, but the overestimation effects were stronger for male perceivers and the underestimation effects were stronger for female perceivers.

Figure 2.

Friend’s romantic desire and perception of friend’s romantic desire as a function of perceivers’ romantic desire for male (upper panel) and female (lower panel) perceivers (Study 1).

Explaining gender differences in perceptions of romantic desire

We predicted that projection would explain gender differences in perceptions of friends’ romantic and sexual desires. Males may perceive greater desire in their opposite-sex friends relative to females because males have greater desire and project this higher desire onto them. To test these predictions, we first regressed the composite index of perceivers’ romantic desire on perceivers’ gender (1 = male; 0 = female). Males reported greater romantic desire for their opposite-sex friends than females, b = .40, t = 3.91, p < .001. Next, we regressed the composite index of perceivers’ perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire on perceivers’ gender while controlling for the friend’s romantic desire. Male perceivers believed that their opposite-sex friend had more romantic desire for them than did female perceivers, b = .29, t = 2.64, p = .01, controlling for the friend’s actual desire.² Finally, we added perceivers’ own romantic desire for their friend as an additional predictor. Perceivers’ own romantic desire predicted perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire, b = .49, t = 9.06, p < .001, and perceivers’ gender no longer predicted perceptions of their friend’s desire, b = .02, p = .812. These results suggest an indirect effect of perceivers’ gender on perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire via perceivers’ own romantic desire. Using Monte Carlo analysis to generate 95% confidence intervals (CIs; based on 20,000 re-samples; Selig & Preacher, 2008), this indirect effect was significant, 95% CI [.09, .31]. These results indicate that male perceivers perceived their opposite-sex friends to have greater romantic desire because they had greater desire for those friends, which they projected.

Controlling for shared method variance

To be sure that the projection effects described above were not explained by method variance artifacts, the models were tested again after controlling for perceivers’ analogous romantic desire for third parties, which should be equally contaminated by shared method variance given that the measures are identical. In these models, all of the effects displayed in Table 1 remained significant, ps < .001, and were very similar in size. For example, perceivers’ composite perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire were predicted by perceivers’ composite romantic desire for their friend, β = .47, t = 8.74, p < .001 (projection), and their friend’s composite romantic desire for perceivers, β = .31, t = 6.13, p < .001 (accuracy), and not by perceivers’ composite desire for third parties, p = .23. Hence, the projection effects remained even after controlling for another measure of romantic desire that should be equally contaminated by shared method variance.

Projection as a Function of Self-Perceived Mate Value

We predicted that perceivers who believed they were high in mate value would exhibit stronger projection effects. To test this idea, we regressed the composite index of perception of the friend’s romantic desire on perceivers’ own romantic desire (projection), the friend’s romantic desire (accuracy), perceivers’ self-perceived mate value, and product terms representing the Projection × Mate value and Accuracy × Mate value interactions. Mate value moderated the projection effect (own romantic desire), b = .17, β = .15, t = 2.66, p = .008, 95% CI [.04, .29], but not the accuracy effect (friend’s romantic desire), p = .36. Predicted values are plotted in Figure 3. Consistent with the prediction, the projection effect was greater when perceivers were high in self-perceived mate value (1 SD above the mean), β = .61, t = 8.63, p < .001, relative to when they were low (1 SD below the mean), β = .31, t = 3.95, p < .001.

Figure 3.

Effect of perceivers’ romantic desire on their perception of friend’s romantic desire (projection) as a function of perceivers’ self-perceived mate value (Study 1).

Relationship Initiation Behaviors

We predicted that perceivers with strong romantic desire for their friend would enact more relationship initiation behaviors in part because of their tendency to project their romantic desire onto their friend. This translates into an indirect effect of perceivers’ romantic desire on their relationship initiation behaviors via their perception of friend’s romantic desire (Paths A × C in Figure 1). Results of models predicting enactment of relationship initiation behaviors are presented in Table 2. In the first model, enactment of relationship initiation behaviors was regressed on perceivers’ romantic desire and their friend’s romantic desire. Perceivers’ romantic desire predicted their enactment of relationship initiation behaviors, but their friend’s romantic desire did not. In the second model, perceivers’ perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire was included as an additional predictor, which significantly predicted their romantic initiation behavior (Path C in Figure 1). The effect of perceivers’ romantic desire was reduced in this model, suggesting that perceivers’ perceptions of their friend’s desire partly explained the effects of their own desire on relationship initiation behaviors.

Table 2.

Results of Analyses Predicting Perceivers’ Romantic Initiation Behavior (Study 1).

Predictor	Model 1				Model 2
Predictor	b	β	t	95% CI	b	β	t	95% CI
Friend’s romantic desire composite	.04	.05	1.15	[−.03, .10]	−.03	−.05	−0.99	[−.10, .03]
Perceiver’s romantic desire composite	.48	.68	14.71***	[.41, .54]	.37	.52	10.25***	[.30, .44]
Perceiver’s perception of friend’s desire	—	—	—	—	.23	.32	5.98***	[.15, .30]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

***

p < .001.

Using the Monte Carlo method described above, the indirect effect of perceivers’ romantic desire on their relationship initiation behaviors via their perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire was significant, 95% CI [.06, .14].³

Summary

These results provide strong initial support for our predictions. Perceivers appeared to project their own feelings of romantic desire onto their opposite-sex friends. When they desired their friends, they overestimated the extent to which their friends desired them in return. Projection bias was especially strong when perceivers believed they were high in mate value. Consistent with the self-fulfilling prophecy model, projection of romantic desire predicted perceivers’ enactment of relationship initiation behaviors. Projection of desire also explained why males perceived more interest in their opposite-sex friends relative to females.

Study 2

Study 2 was a short-term prospective study involving weekly assessments over the course of a month. Goals for this study included (a) replicating the findings from Study 1 using a more statistically powerful design; (b) demonstrating prospective projection effects; and (c) testing the predictions that perceivers’ initiation behaviors are associated with increases in targets’ desire over time, particularly for perceivers who are seen as high in mate value.

Method

Participants

The study consisted of 102 pairs of cross-sex friends (aged = 21-57 years; M = 23.03 years, SD = 3.55).⁴ Participants and their friends were recruited from introductory psychology courses from a large Mid-Atlantic university to participate in exchange for class credit or $20. In addition, participants were recruited from the local community via flyers posted at local businesses and advertisements on university bulletin boards and websites to participate in exchange for $20. Half of the sample consisted of Caucasians (57.4%), with the other half consisting of Asian Americans (27.9%), African Americans (14.7%), and Hispanics (10.3%).

Procedure

As in the previous study, participants and their opposite-sex friend completed a battery of questionnaires via computer. In addition, participants were emailed a follow-up survey once a week for 4 weeks following the initial laboratory session. The questionnaires contained the measures described below in addition to measures that are not relevant to this investigation. This research was approved by the local institutional review board. After completing the measure of mate value, participants completed the other measures described below in a randomized order.

Measures

The measures used in this study were identical to the ones used in Study 1 with a few exceptions. Participants did not complete items assessing romantic desire toward third parties, and some measures were shortened (i.e., the Passionate Love Scale was reduced to five items, and initiation behavior items were shortened to 11 items), given that they were completed five times. Participants also completed a modified version of the Mate Value Scale to assess perceptions of their friend’s mate value. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .79 to .93 for all measures.

Results

Analysis Strategy

Analyses followed recommendations for multilevel models involving dyadic repeated-measures data (Kenny et al., 2006). The models estimated the covariance in the reports completed by the same person and within the same dyad. Given the restricted degrees of freedom, slopes were modeled as fixed. Unstandardized and standardized coefficients are presented. Two versions of each predictor were included in most models. To capture participants’ chronic or “trait” levels on the predictor variables, we averaged their reports across the multiple assessments. This variable represents only between-subjects variation. To capture transitory or “state” deviations from these typical levels, we created another variable in which time-varying predictor variables were centered on participants’ typical levels. These person-centered variables reflect only within-person change over time relative to each participant’s trait level (see Enders & Tofighi, 2007).

Accuracy and Projection in Perception of Friend’s Romantic Love

The first set of analyses tested predictions regarding accuracy and projection. Perceivers’ perception of their friend’s romantic desire was regressed on the friend’s reports of their romantic desire (accuracy; Path B in Figure 1) and on perceivers’ own romantic desire for that friend (projection bias; Path A in Figure 1). Both state and trait versions of these predictors were included in the model. This model was tested once for each indicator of romantic desire and the composite index of romantic desire. Results of these analyses, which are presented in Table 3, suggest accuracy and bias. Target friends’ reports of their romantic desire predicted perceivers’ perceptions of that friend’s romantic desire, suggesting accuracy. This was the case for both trait and state desire in most analyses, suggesting that perceivers were able to detect their friend’s typical level of desire and, to a lesser extent, they were able to detect when their friend changed in their desire from one assessment to the next. Independently of these accuracy effects, perceivers’ own romantic desire for their friend, both trait and state, predicted their perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire, suggesting projection. Perceivers who chronically desired their friend, and those who increased in desire relative to their typical levels, tended to believe that their friend desired them in return, independently of their friend’s actual sentiments. Evidence for accuracy and projection bias was found for each of the individual indicators of romantic desire and in the analysis using the composite indices. Projection effects were stronger than accuracy effects. Given that the patterns were similar across the individual indicators of desire, as in Study 1, the results described below involved the more reliable composite measures to conserve space and reduce complexity.

Table 3.

Results of Analyses Examining Accuracy and Projection in Perceptions of Friend’s Romantic Desire (Study 2).

Predictor	Trait				State
Predictor	b	β	t	95% CI	b	β	t	95% CI
Predicting perceived friend passionate love
Friend’s passionate love (accuracy)	.21	.21	5.74***	[.14, .28]	.05	.02	1.37	[−.02, .11]
Perceiver’s passionate love (projection)	.63	.61	17.13***	[.56, .70]	.51	.21	15.26***	[.44, .57]
Predicting perceived friend Eros love
Friend’s Eros love (accuracy)	.23	.22	5.98***	[.15, .30]	.07	.03	1.80^†	[−.01, .14]
Perceiver’s Eros love (projection)	.59	.57	15.55***	[.51, .66]	.37	.17	10.10***	[.30, .44]
Predicting perceived friend sexual interest
Friend’s sexual interest (accuracy)	.26	.29	7.02***	[.19, .33]	.08	.04	2.25*	[.01, .15]
Perceiver’s sexual interest (projection)	.47	.52	12.75***	[.40, .55]	.36	.16	10.44***	[.30, .43]
Predicting perceived friend romantic interest
Friend’s romantic interest (accuracy)	.25	.24	6.23***	[.17, .32]	.16	.08	4.42***	[.09, .24]
Perceiver’s romantic interest (projection)	.45	.44	11.44***	[.37, .53]	.33	.15	8.84***	[.25, .40]
Predicting composite index of perceived friend romantic desire
Friend’s desire composite (accuracy)	.29	.28	7.61***	[.22, .37]	.12	.04	3.28**	[.05, .20]
Perceiver’s desire composite (projection)	.63	.60	16.69***	[.56, .71]	.61	.22	16.31***	[.54, .68]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

†

p < .08. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discrepancies in perception

Given these projection effects, perceivers with strong desire for their friends may overestimate their friend’s desire for them, and those with low desire may underestimate their friend’s desire. Additional analyses were conducted to test this prediction, using the “stacked” outcome modeling approach described in Study 1. Once again, these analyses were conducted separately for male and female perceivers given prior research suggesting that men are more likely to exaggerate sexual desire relative to women (e.g., Abbey, 1982; Haselton & Buss, 2000). Results for the composite index of romantic desire are plotted in Figure 4. Comparisons between perceptions of the friend’s desire and the friend’s reported desire are presented in Table 4. When male and female perceivers had high trait desire (1 SD above the mean on trait desire), they exaggerated their friend’s desire for them, relative to their friend’s self-reported desire. Male perceivers who felt fleeting desire for their friend (1 SD above the mean on state desire) also exaggerated their friend’s desire. In contrast, male and female perceivers who did not generally desire their friend (1 SD below the mean on trait desire), and female perceivers who were feeling especially low desire at the moment (1 SD below the mean on state desire), tended to underestimate their friend’s romantic desire for them, relative to their friend’s self-reported desire. Hence, this projection effect appeared to result in perceivers overestimating their friend’s desire when their own desire for their friend was high and underestimating their friend’s desire when their own desire was low. However, consistent with findings from Study 1, male perceivers exhibited greater overestimation effects relative to female perceivers when desire was high, and females exhibited greater underestimation effects relative to males when desire was low. In part, this pattern is due to gender differences in the friend’s desire, as discussed below.

Figure 4.

Friend’s romantic desire and perception of friend’s romantic desire as a function of perceivers’ trait and state romantic desire for male (upper panels) and female (lower panels) perceivers (Study 2).

Table 4.

Comparisons Between Perceivers’ Perceptions of Friend’s Romantic Desire and Friend’s Self-Reported Desire at Low and High Levels of Perceivers’ Romantic Desire (Study 2).

Perceivers’ desire	Trait desire		State desire
Perceivers’ desire	b	t	b	t
Male perceivers
Low desire	−.06	−1.32	.10	2.55*
High desire	.52	15.37***	.36	9.10***
Female perceivers
Low desire	−.61	−13.50***	−.29	−5.17***
High desire	.24	3.58***	−.08	−1.51

Note. Low and high values are 1 SD below and above the mean, respectively. Positive values indicate overestimation of the friend’s desire. Negative values indicate underestimation.

†

p < .08. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Prospective model

We tested a model to examine prospective accuracy and bias effects. Perceivers’ state desire for their friend and their friend’s state desire for them were modeled as predictors of perceivers’ perceptions of their friend’s desire at the next assessment wave. The lagged criterion (perceptions of the friend’s desire at the current wave) was controlled. Given that these state variables may change from one week to the next, and this change may have independent effects, growth in these variables was also modeled (computed as a change score: next wave assessment – current wave assessment). Higher values indicate increases from the current wave to the next wave in desire.⁵ Results, presented in Table 5, suggest both prospective accuracy and bias effects. Perceivers were increasingly confident that their friends desired them when their friends increased in their desire for them since the prior week, suggesting accuracy. In addition, perceivers who desired their friend the prior wave and who increased in desire since the prior week perceived that their friend had more desire over time, suggesting projection.⁶

Table 5.

Results of Analyses Predicting Perceptions of Friend’s Romantic Desire (Composite Index) at the Next Assessment Wave (Study 2).

Predictor	b	β	t	95% CI
Friend’s state romantic desire (accuracy)	.08	.03	1.31	[−.04, .20]
Change in friend’s romantic desire (accuracy)	.09	.04	2.01*	[.002, .17]
Perceiver’s state romantic desire (projection)	.68	.24	9.91***	[.54, .81]
Change in perceiver’s romantic desire (projection)	.57	.26	13.26***	[.48, .65]
Lagged criterion	−.09	−.04	−2.27*	[−.17, −.01]

Note. All predictors were assessed using composite measures of romantic desire. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

Explaining gender differences in perceptions of romantic desire

Once again, we tested whether projection of romantic desire would explain gender differences in perceptions of friends’ desire. First, we regressed the composite index of perceivers’ romantic desire on perceivers’ gender (1 = male; 0 = female). Males reported greater romantic desire for their opposite-sex friends than females, b = .58, t = 6.33, p < .001. Next, we regressed the composite index of perceivers’ perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire on perceivers’ gender while controlling for the friend’s romantic desire. Male perceivers believed that their opposite-sex friend had more romantic desire for them than female perceivers, b = .21, t = 2.23, p < .05, independently of the friend’s desire.⁷ Finally, after adding perceivers’ own romantic desire for their friend as an additional predictor, perceivers’ own romantic desire predicted perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire, b = .65, t = 15.74, p < .001, and perceivers’ gender no longer predicted perceptions of their friend’s desire, b = −.05, p = .57. These results suggest an indirect effect of perceivers’ gender on their perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire via perceivers’ own romantic desire. This indirect effect was significant according to the Monte Carlo method described previously, 95% CI [.25, .50]. These results indicate that male perceivers perceived their opposite-sex friends to have greater romantic and sexual desire because they had greater desire for their friends, which they projected.

Projection as a Function of Self-Perceived Mate Value

We predicted that perceivers who believed they were high in mate value would exhibit especially strong projection effects. To test this idea, we added perceivers’ self-perceived mate value and interactions of mate value with projection and accuracy as additional predictors to the model of accuracy and projection described above. Mate value moderated the effect of perceivers’ state romantic desire (projection), b = .17, β = .05, t = 4.59, p < .001, 95% CI [.09, .24]; the effect of friend’s state romantic desire (accuracy), b = −.21,β = −.06, t = −5.51, p < .001, 95% CI [−.28, −.13]; and the effect of friend’s trait romantic desire (accuracy), b = −.10, β = −.08, t = −2.64, p < .01, 95% CI [−.17, −.02] on perceivers’ perceptions of their friend’s desire. Predicted values are presented in Figure 5. The effect of perceivers’ state desire on their perceptions of their friend’s desire was greater when perceivers believed they were high in mate value (1 SD above the mean), b = .73, β = .26, t = 15.02, p < .001, relative to when they believed they were low in mate value (1 SD below the mean), b = .46, β = .16, t = 9.73, p < .001, suggesting greater projection for perceivers with high self-perceived mate value. In contrast, effects of friend’s state and trait desire on perceivers’ perceptions of their friend’s desire—the accuracy effects—were weaker when perceivers believed they were high in mate value, b = −.03, β = −.01, t = −.69, p = .49, and b = .18, β = .20, t = 3.56, p < .001, respectively, relative to when perceivers believed they were low in mate value, b = .31, β = .11, t = 6.31, p < .001, and b = .35, β = .34, t = 7.42, p < .001, respectively, suggesting weaker accuracy for perceivers with high self-perceived mate value.

Figure 5.

Projection (top panel) and accuracy (middle and bottom panels) in perceptions of friend’s romantic desire as a function of perceivers’ self-perceived mate value (Study 2).

Predicting Relationship Initiation Behaviors

We used the same modeling described in Study 1 to test whether perceivers with strong romantic desire for their friend enact more relationship initiation behaviors in part because of their tendency to project their desire. Results of models predicting enactment of relationship initiation behaviors are presented in Table 6. Perceivers enacted more relationship initiation behaviors when they had high trait or state desire for their friend. These effects were reduced after controlling for their trait and state perceptions of their friend’s desire in Model 2, both of which predicted initiation behaviors. The Monte Carlo method described earlier was used to test the indirect effects of perceivers’ trait and state romantic desire on their relationship initiation behaviors via their trait and state perceptions of their friend’s romantic desire (Paths A × C in Figure 1). The indirect effect was significant for effects of both trait desire, 95% CI [.06, .16], and state desire, 95% CI [.08, .15]. These results are consistent with the prediction that perceivers with strong romantic desire for their friend would enact more initiation behaviors partly because they project their desire.

Table 6.

Results of Analyses Predicting Perceivers’ Romantic Initiation Behavior (Study 2).

Predictor	Model 1				Model 2
Predictor	b	β	t	95% CI	b	β	t	95% CI
Friend’s trait romantic desire	.12	.16	4.95***	[.07, .16]	.07	.09	2.73**	[.02, .12]
Friend’s state romantic desire	.13	.07	4.95***	[.08, .19]	.11	.06	4.24***	[.06, .16]
Perceiver’s trait romantic desire	.54	.71	22.69***	[.49, .59]	.43	.56	12.82***	[.36, .49]
Perceiver’s state romantic desire	.38	.19	13.91***	[.32, .43]	.26	.13	8.64***	[.20, .32]
Perceiver’s trait perception of friend’s desire	—	—	—	—	.17	.22	4.46***	[.10, .25]
Perceiver’s state perception of friend’s desire	—	—	—	—	.19	.11	7.21***	[.14, .24]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

p < .01. ***p < .001.

Effects of Relationship Initiation Behavior on the Friend’s Romantic Desire

We examined whether perceivers’ relationship initiation behavior predicted changes in the friend’s romantic desire (Path D in Figure 1). Perceivers’ state relationship initiation behaviors were modeled as a predictor of their friend’s romantic desire at the following assessment wave. The lagged criterion (the friend’s romantic desire at the same wave as relationship initiation behaviors) was controlled. Consistent with our predictions, perceivers’ relationship initiation behaviors predicted changes in the friend’s romantic desire, b = .18, β = .05, t = 3.23, p < .01, 95% CI [.07, .29].

We expected that this effect would be especially strong when the pursued friend believed that perceivers were high in mate value. Hence, we tested a second model that included friend’s chronic perceptions of the perceiver’s mate value and a product term representing the interaction between perceivers’ state initiation behaviors and friend’s perceptions of the perceiver’s mate value. This interaction was close to conventional significance levels, b = .11, β = .03, t = 1.95, p = .052, 95% CI [0, .23]. Predicted values are presented in Figure 6. Perceivers’ state initiation behaviors predicted improvements in the friend’s subsequent romantic desire when perceivers were seen as high in mate value (1 SD above the mean), b = .22, β = .07, t = 3.45, p < .01, but not when they were seen as low in mate value (1 SD below the mean), p = .66.⁸

Figure 6.

Effects of perceivers’ state relationship initiation behavior on friend’s subsequent romantic desire as a function of friend’s perceptions of perceiver’s mate value (Study 2).

Omnibus Tests of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Finally, we tested the serial indirect effect of perceivers’ romantic desire on their friend’s subsequent romantic desire via perceivers’ perceptions of their friend’s desire and, in turn, their pursuit behavior (Paths A × C × D in Figure 1). This effect was tested using the product-of-coefficients test of serial mediation described by Taylor, MacKinnon, and Tein (2008). Across the whole sample, this indirect effect was significant, z = 2.52, p < .05, suggesting that perceivers’ desire indirectly predicted change in their friend’s desire via perceivers’ projection of desire and, in turn, their initiation behaviors. Additional analyses examined this serial indirect effect after substituting Paths A and D for the whole sample with effects that were conditional on low or high levels of perceivers’ self-perceived mate value and friends’ perception of perceivers’ mate value, respectively. The conditional serial indirect effect was not significant when perceivers were seen by their friends as low in mate value, regardless of whether perceivers saw themselves as low or high in mate value, ps > .69. The conditional serial indirect effect was significant when perceivers were seen by their friends as high in mate value, regardless of whether perceivers saw themselves as low or high in mate value, zs = 2.85 and 2.93, p < .01. Hence, perceivers’ romantic desire seemed to indirectly promote romantic desire in their friends via projection and, in turn, relationship initiation behaviors, particularly when perceivers were seen as high in mate value.

Summary

These results replicate and extend findings from Study 1. Participants appeared to project trait and state romantic and sexual desire onto their friends. When they desired their friends, they overestimated the extent to which their friends desired them in return. Moreover, those with high desire and those who increased in desire from one week to the next perceived more desire from their friend over time, independently of whether friends actually increased in their desire. Projection was greater when perceivers believed they were high in mate value. Consistent with the self-fulfilling prophecy model, projection predicted perceivers’ enactment of relationship initiation behaviors, which predicted increases in their friend’s desire over time, particularly when perceivers were seen as high in mate value. The serial indirect effect was also consistent with this model. Perceivers’ romantic desire indirectly predicted changes in their friend’s romantic desire via projection and, in turn, relationship initiation behaviors. In addition, projection explained gender differences in perceptions of friends’ desire.

General Discussion

The current research suggests that people project their sexual and romantic desires onto their opposite-sex friends (see also Henningsen & Henningsen, 2010; Koenig et al., 2007). When people strongly desired their friend, they overestimated their friend’s sexual and romantic desire, relative to their friend’s reports. This finding is consistent with prior research demonstrating that people assume reciprocity of their liking (Kenny & DePaulo, 1993) and care (Lemay, Clark, & Feeney, 2007) for others.

Findings from both studies suggest that perceivers who strongly desired their friend engaged in relationship initiation behaviors, in part, because they exaggerated the extent to which their desire was reciprocated by their friend. Findings from our second study indicate that these initiation behaviors were effective, as they predicted temporal increases in the friend’s romantic and sexual desire. Hence, initially biased perceptions appeared to motivate behavior that resulted in targets confirming those perceptions, the hallmark of a self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton, 1948). The serial indirect effect implied by this self-fulfilling prophecy was significant in Study 2, demonstrating that perceivers’ romantic desire indirectly predicted change in targets’ desire via projection-guided initiation behaviors. These findings are consistent with the functional view that biases often help perceivers achieve their goals (Fiske, 1992; Haselton & Buss, 2000; Lemay & Clark, 2008; Maner et al., 2005). In addition, they are consistent with research suggesting that projection of care guides relationship maintenance decisions (Lemay & Clark, 2008; Lemay & Neal, 2014). The current research similarly suggests that projection of desire guides behaviors that help people achieve relationship initiation goals.

These findings converge with others in suggesting that illusory perceptions can lead people to behave in ways that ultimately confirm those perceptions. For example, several studies suggest that people who expect rejection from others respond to relationship difficulties in ways that can damage relationships (e.g., Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998; Murray, Bellavia, Rose, & Griffin, 2003; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). Conversely, people who anticipate acceptance from new social groups behave in friendlier ways that ultimately produce acceptance (Stinson, Cameron, Wood, Gaucher, & Holmes, 2009). The current research makes a novel contribution to this literature by demonstrating that projection can create illusory perceptions of reciprocal desire that incite romantic attraction in friends.

However, our findings also suggest individual differences in this process. Both studies demonstrated that the projection effect was moderated by perceivers’ self-perceptions of their own mate value. Those who perceived their own mate value to be low did not project their own desires onto their friend as strongly as those with high self-perceived mate value. This may be because the belief that one is desired by a desirable target is incompatible with low-mate-value perceivers’ negative perceptions of their desirability. These perceivers may be hesitant to assume reciprocation, and may instead look to the target’s behavior for evidence. Indeed, Study 2 demonstrated that perceivers who believed they were low in mate value exhibited greater accuracy in perceiving their friend’s desires, suggesting that these perceivers are more vigilant for behavioral signs of reciprocation. These findings are consistent with past research suggesting that people use their own self-views when inferring how they are perceived by others (Kenny & DePaulo, 1993). The current research suggests that this bias may also constrain or amplify the projection of romantic and sexual desire.

In addition, perceivers’ relationship initiation behaviors did not predict increases in targets’ romantic desire when perceivers were viewed by targets as undesirable romantic partners (i.e., low in mate value). This finding highlights that interpersonal attraction can be difficult to change, and depends on several factors that perceivers may not be able to modify via projection or initiation behaviors. For instance, perceivers may have little control over their physical attractiveness or earning potential, at least in the short-term, and these qualities can determine others’ romantic and sexual attraction (see Berscheid & Reis, 1998).

Despite the current findings, it is important to note that projection may not always have positive outcomes, even for perceivers who are consensually seen as desirable. In some cases, projection may lead the perceiver to engage in unwanted advances, such as sexual assault and coercion (Abbey, McAuslan, & Ross, 1998). Future research should examine the extent to which projection of desire contributes to these behaviors.

Males in this research over-perceived romantic and sexual interest in their friend, whereas females usually underestimated their friend’s interest. Error management theory (Haselton & Buss, 2000) posits that men over-perceive sexual interest in women to minimize the number of missed mating opportunities. However, we found, as have others (Henningsen & Henningsen, 2010; Koenig et al., 2007), that this pattern was the result of males’ greater propensity to harbor romantic and sexual desire for their friend, which they projected. In contrast, females commonly under-perceived their friend’s desire because they had low levels of desire for their friend, which they projected. After controlling for projection of desire, men and women did not differ on their perceptions of the other’s sexual and romantic desires. These results suggest that gender differences in desire along with projection of that desire, rather than males’ bias to avoid missing mating opportunities, explains gender differences in perceptions. Moreover, despite the fact that sexual over-perception bias has been discussed in the past as a phenomenon exclusive to males, the present research found that women also over-perceived sexual and romantic interest in their male friends when their own sexual and romantic interest was high, a pattern that is also consistent with projection. Our findings imply that sexual over-perceptions are better construed as an outcome of projecting desire rather than a direct consequence of biological sex, and these over-perceptions may function to facilitate pursuit of relationships for male and female perceivers with high desire.

There are some limitations to the current research. The samples were convenience samples comprised of mostly college students, and all variables were measured through self-report. However, perceivers’ self-reports were associated with targets’ self-reports, suggesting that these reports contained some truth. Although relationship initiation behaviors predicted increased romantic desire from the opposite-sex friend, few friends actually entered into a romantic relationship with each other in Study 2. Most likely, the 5-week time frame was too short to capture the extent to which relationship initiation behaviors result in romantic relationship formation. Researchers should consider collecting data over a longer period of time to examine this issue. We examined only opposite-sex friendships because we assumed that romantic and sexual desire would be more prevalent in this context relative to same-sex friendships, given the general prevalence of heterosexual attraction in the population studied. However, we would expect similar projection effects in samples of same-sex friendships involving individuals who have same-sex attractions.

Despite the aforementioned limitations, the current study has noteworthy strengths. Common-method variance, a potential threat to validity in many studies of social projection, was ruled out as an explanation for our findings in Study 1 by controlling for participants’ self-reported romantic desire for a third party assessed using identical measures. Furthermore, the longitudinal design of Study 2 allowed us to demonstrate a lagged effect consistent with projection, which rules out reversed causal effects as an explanation, and allowed us to demonstrate the self-fulfilling effects of projection.

Romantic and sexual desire for an opposite-sex friend is common, but attempting to initiate a romantic relationship can be risky. The confidence gained when projecting one’s own desires onto the friend, a projection that occurs primarily when people see themselves as desirable, may motivate people to take a leap of faith and pursue a romantic relationship. Such pursuit seems effective in eliciting returned romantic and sexual desire when the friend views the perceiver as desirable. In effect, projection leads perceivers to enact behaviors that make their exaggerated perceptions of reciprocal romantic and sexual desire a reality—a phenomenon commonly referred to as a self-fulfilling prophecy. These findings suggest that projection of desire may be a type of wishful thinking that serves the important social function of relationship initiation.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The online supplemental material is available at .

Notes

References

Abbey

(1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females’ friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830-838.

Abbey

McAuslan

Ross

L. T.

(1998). Sexual assault perpetration by college men: The role of alcohol, misperception of sexual intent, and sexual beliefs and experiences. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 17, 167-195.

Baumeister

R. F.

Wotman

S. R.

Stillwell

A. M.

(1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 377-394.

Berscheid

Reis

H. T.

(1998). Attraction and close relationships. In Gilbert

D. T.

Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vols. 1 and 2, pp. 193-281). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Birnbaum

G. E.

Reis

H. T.

(2012). When does responsiveness pique sexual interest? Attachment and sexual desire in initial acquaintanceships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 946-958.

Bleske-Rechek

Somers

Micke

Erickson

Matteson

Stocco

. . . Ritchie

(2012). Benefit or burden? Attraction in cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 569-596.

Bouffard

J. A.

Miller

H. A.

(2014). The role of sexual arousal and overperception of sexual intent within the decision to engage in sexual coercion. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1967-1986.

Buss

D. M.

(1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616-628. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616

Choi

Hur

(2013). Is reading sexual intention truly functional? The impact of perceiving a partner’s sexual intention on courtship initiation behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1525-1533.

10.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

Abrahams

M. F.

(1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 707-720.

11.

Downey

Freitas

A. L.

Michaelis

Khouri

(1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545-560.

12.

Edlund

J. E.

Sagarin

B. J.

(2014). The Mate Value Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 72-77.

13.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

(2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121-138.

14.

Fiske

S. T.

(1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social cognition from daguerreotype to laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 877-889.

15.

Halatsis

Christakis

(2009). The challenge of sexual attraction within heterosexuals’ cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 919-937.

16.

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.

17.

Hatfield

Sprecher

(2011). The Passionate Love Scale. In Fisher

T. D.

Davis

C. M.

Yaber

W. L.

Davis

S. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp 469-472). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

18.

Hendrick

(1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.

19.

Henningsen

D. D.

Henningsen

M. L. M.

(2010). Testing error management theory: Exploring the commitment skepticism bias and the sexual overperception bias. Human Communication Research, 36, 618-634.

20.

Kaplan

D. L.

Keys

C. B.

(1997). Sex and relationship variables as predictors of sexual attraction in cross-sex platonic friendships between young heterosexual adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 191-206.

21.

Kenny

D. A.

DePaulo

B. M.

(1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 145-161.

22.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

23.

Kessler

R. C.

Greenberg

D. F.

(1981). Linear panel analysis: Models of quantitative change. New York, NY: Academic Press.

24.

Koenig

B. L.

Kirkpatrick

L. A.

Ketelaar

(2007). Misperception of sexual and romantic interests in opposite-sex friendships: Four hypotheses. Personal Relationships, 14, 411-429.

25.

Kruglanski

A. W.

(1996). Motivated social cognition: Principles of the interface. In Higgins

E. T.

Kruglanski

A. W.

(Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles (pp. 493-522). New York: Guilford.

26.

Kunda

(1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.

27.

Lemay

E. P.

Jr. Clark

M. S.

(2008). How the head liberates the heart: Projection of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 647-671.

28.

Lemay

E. P.

Jr. Clark

M. S.

Feeney

B. C.

(2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 834-853.

29.

Lemay

E. P.

Jr. Neal

A. M.

(2014). Accurate and biased perceptions of responsive support predict well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 270-286.

30.

Maner

J. K.

Kenrick

D. T.

Becker

D. V.

Robertson

T. E.

Hofer

Neuberg

S. L.

. . . Schaller

(2005). Functional projection: How fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 63-78.

31.

Merton

R. K.

(1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.

32.

Murray

S. L.

Bellavia

G. M.

Rose

Griffin

D. W.

(2003). Once hurt, twice hurtful: How perceived regard regulates daily marital interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 126-147.

33.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

34.

Schmitt

D. P.

Buss

D. M.

(1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1185-1204.

35.

Selig

J. P.

Preacher

K. J.

(2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org/

36.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Phillips

(1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899-914.

37.

Sinclair

H. C.

Frieze

I. H.

(2005). When courtship persistence becomes intrusive pursuit: Comparing rejecter and pursuer perspectives of unrequited attraction. Sex Roles, 52, 839-852.

38.

Singer

J. D.

Willett

J. B.

(2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.

39.

Snyder

Tanke

E. D.

Berscheid

(1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666.

40.

Stinson

D. A.

Cameron

J. J.

Wood

J. V.

Gaucher

Holmes

J. G.

(2009). Deconstructing the “reign of error”: Interpersonal warmth explains the self-fulfilling prophecy of anticipated acceptance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1165-1178.

41.

Taylor

A. B.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Tein

J.-Y.

(2008). Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 241-269.

42.

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, 13, 483-506.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.33 MB