Gendered dating messages have consequences for both intended and unintended audiences

Abstract

Would-be-daters are surrounded by media messages that both target one gender and pit men and women against each other in the dating game (i.e., gendered relationship messages). How do these messages influence relationship initiation? In the present research, we focus on the consequences of being primed with gendered dating messages via actual book titles. We propose that such messages should have mixed consequences depending on (a) whether the reader’s gender is congruent with the message’s target gender and (b) the dating outcome. In two experiments, we tested how exposure to gendered dating messages influences emotions, motivation, and self-presentation. Individuals exposed to gender-incongruent messages exhibited higher self-protection motives. Conversely, those exposed to gender-congruent messages experienced reduced feelings of vulnerability, yet had the counterproductive consequence of creating less likeable self-presentations. Would-be-daters should be cautious in their exposure to both gender-congruent and gender-incongruent dating messages.

Keywords

Dating messages gender motivation relationship initiation self-presentation

Got a long list of ex-lovers

They’ll tell you I’m insane

Cause you know I love the players

And you love the game
—Taylor Swift, Blank Space Popular media is teeming with messages about love, romance, and dating. From pop songs, like the lyrics quoted above, to box office movies (e.g., Think Like a Man) and dating advice books (e.g., How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk), people are bombarded with messages that portray dating as a game wherein men and women are pitted against each other (see Holmes & Johnson, 2009). Although there is little doubt to the gendered nature of the expected and enacted courtship practices of men and women (e.g., Laner & Ventrone, 2000; McCarty & Kelly, 2015), little attention has been paid to the consequence of exposure to gender-based game-playing messages. Research on priming suggests that exposure to messages, in general, has consequences for not only attitudes, but emotion, motivation, and behavior (see Bargh, 2006). In the context of relationship initiation, which is already rife with conflicting emotions of hope and fear (Metts & Mikucki, 2008), such primes may have important consequences for whether people approach potential partners in a manner that fosters or stifles the possibility of relationship formation. In two experiments, we take the first step toward testing whether gender-based game-playing messages as portrayed in popular dating advice book titles influence the emotional, motivational, and behavioral experiences of potential daters.

Components of relationship initiation

To understand the critical components of relationship initiation, and thus, where we should focus our attention for possible consequences of gendered relationship messages, we turn to research on the emotional, motivational, and behavioral facilitators and obstacles to relationship initiation. First, the inherent risk in relationship initiation whereby daters have much to gain (e.g., acceptance, connection, sex) yet much to lose (e.g., rejection, manipulation, wasted time; e.g., Cameron, Stinson, Gaetz, & Balchen, 2010), creates a conflictual emotional landscape. On the one hand, daters are hopeful for the future of a potential romantic relationship, yet also fearful of potential rejection and the consequences of a poor match. Indeed, the predominant emotions experienced in initiation contexts include hope (Metts & Mikucki, 2008), anxiety, fear (Avtgis, West, & Andersen, 1998; Kunkel, Wison, Olufowote, & Robson, 2003), insecurity, and uncertainty (e.g., Sunnafrank, 1986). Although some anxiety might motivate would-be-daters to be on their best behavior, anxiety and uncertainty is typically quite high in early courtship. These strong and negative states represent vulnerabilities that can impede the initiation process by, for example, interfering with communication and perception (Vorauer, Cameron, Holmes, & Pearce, 2003).

Second, relationship initiation contexts can elicit a motivational conflict between individuals’ desire to seek out positive outcomes (e.g., connection motivation) and a desire to avoid negative outcomes (e.g., self-protective motivation; Gable, 2006; Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002; Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006). Forming romantic bonds requires that people manage self-protective concerns and focus on sharing appropriately intimate disclosures that foster connection (Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, & Bator, 1997; Collins & Miller, 1994; Eastwick, Saigal, & Finkel, 2010). Although we assume most people who wish to start new relationships must overcome both dating fears and self-protective motivations, such states can provide a healthy degree of caution whenever meeting new people. Indeed, not all potential matches are ideal and some might be particularly destructive. Some evidence reveals that when connection motivation outweighs self-protective concerns people perceive greater acceptance cues (Cameron et al., 2010) and behave more warmly, which engenders acceptance from others (Stinson, Cameron, Hoplock, & Hole, 2015a). This suggests that daters must favor connection motivation over self-protection, at least when such motives are appropriate for creating new social bonds.

Third, if daters wish to form new relationships, they must engage in behavior that will ultimately lead to acceptance. The behavioral dance during relationship initiation is complex (Goffman, 1971) and subject to a mutuality constraint that relationship formation occurs when two people choose each other (Penke, Todd, Lenton, & Fasolo, 2008). Therefore, daters must not only be concerned with realizing their own desires but with presenting themselves in ways that inspire the affections of potential partners. Thus, self-presentation, or the management of one’s impression upon others (Baumeister, 1982), is a crucial element to forming new relationships (Leary & Miller, 2000).

In sum, initiating romantic bonds requires both the confidence and desire to pursue potential dates, and the ability to attract the affections of a suitable target. To do so effectively, daters who wish to form new romantic relationships should strive toward (at least) these three goals: (1) reducing dating fears and/or building confidence, (2) reducing self-protective motivations in favor of enhancing connection motivations, and (3) engaging in positive self-presentations to engender liking. Thus, our investigation of the consequences of gendered dating messages focused on these emotional, motivational, and behavioral outcomes.

Gendered relationship messages

In an exploration of existing media about dating and relationships, Holmes and Johnson (2009) reported that most media reinforces gender stereotypes, exaggerates the differences between men and women (e.g., Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus), and portrays dating as a game. In this dating game, men are stereotypically depicted as trying to win short-term sex without commitment, whereas women are described in similarly stereotypical terms but with the contrasting goal of obtaining long-term stability and love. Such messages convey three main themes. First, there is only one winner, and in the context of a pairing between a woman and a man, this means either she or he wins the game. Second, men and women are portrayed in a very stereotypical manner that depicts them not only as different in their desires for a “relationship” but as completely oppositional. Third, the diverging goals of men and women pit short-term, sex-based relationships against long-term, love-based relationships. Although much of the research on the influence of exposure to such media messages has focused on the endorsement of traditional gender dating roles (e.g., Rivadeneyra & Lebo, 2008), we contend that the influence of these dating messages is not limited to attitudes. We propose and test that these gendered dating messages, at least as portrayed in dating advice book titles, should influence the actual emotions, motivation, and behavior of would-be-daters in first encounters.

Because gendered dating messages frame dating as an adversarial game between male and female competitors, their emotional, motivational, and behavioral impact should depend on whether the messages are received by their intended or unintended audience. In other words, just as motivational primes differentially influence people at high and low trait levels (e.g., Stinson, Cameron, & Robinson, 2015b), the diverging messages targeted at men and women should differentially influence women and men. We reasoned that men and women exposed to messages intended for their own gender, such as those found in book and movie titles geared toward a particular gender (gender-congruent; e.g., women reading a title like Why Men Love Bitches: From Doormat to Dreamgirl), are being armed with security-promoting perspectives. On the other hand, women and men exposed to messages intended for the other gender (gender-incongruent; e.g., women reading a title like Secrets of the Game: How to Meet and Attract Women) would arouse self-protective defenses.

We used risk regulation theory (Murray et al., 2006) as a framework for exploring the impact of gendered dating messages. Risk regulation theory is particularly relevant because it emphasizes the role feelings of (in)security play in directing people’s motivation and behavior in interpersonal contexts that afford opportunity for rewards (e.g., love, sex, affiliation) and costs (e.g., rejection, the strain of rejecting another person). Relationship initiation, a context that elicits both rewards and costs, sets the stage for a motivational conflict between approaching rewards (favored by those who feel secure) and avoiding costs (favored by those who feel insecure; e.g., Cameron et al., 2010). Thus, those feeling insecure in the dating realm should err on the side of caution and engage in self-protective strategies aimed at reducing the pain of what seems like their inevitable rejection. Unfortunately, favoring enhanced self-protection motives, aimed at protecting the self from potential rejection, impedes positive social behavior and ultimately creates the feared rejection (e.g., Stinson et al., 2015a). However, individuals who feel more secure on the playing field opt for approaching connection, and such motivations subsequently enhance positive social behavior (e.g., smiling) and, thus, enhance the likelihood of experiencing actual acceptance (e.g., Stinson et al., 2015a).

How would gendered dating messages influence the security of would-be-daters? We reasoned that straight men and women exposed to their own playbooks (gender-congruent messages) would experience an overall benefit to their emotional state (H1a), their motivation (H2a), and their self-presentation (H3a). However, we remained open to the possibility that these benefits might be driven by an enhancement of the positive (e.g., increased confidence) and/or by a reduction of the negative (e.g., decreased feelings of vulnerability) outcomes. In contrast, exposure to an opponent’s playbook (gender-incongruent messages) should alert individuals to their vulnerabilities on the dating scene (e.g., being played or taken advantage of), leading to emotional (H1b), motivational (H2b), and behavioral (H3b) disadvantages consistent with the reactions of those with dispositional feelings of insecurity that tend to impede relationship pursuits (e.g., Cameron et al., 2010).

The current research

Guided by a risk regulation theory framework, we evaluated the emotional, motivational, and behavioral consequences of gendered dating messages. In two experiments, we exposed naïve participants to titles from some of the most popular gender-targeted dating books on the market. Although these titles represent only a subsection of gendered dating messages, these pithy messages served as a realistic simulation of the exposure people might experience as they perused the self-help section of any bookstore. Previous research has demonstrated that book titles alone can impact psychological states (e.g., Stinson et al., 2015b). As such, these gendered dating messages should serve as primes (see Bargh, 1994), activating emotional responses and motivational mind-sets that direct interpersonal behavior—for better or for worse.

Experiment 1: Emotional consequences

In our first study, we tested whether exposure to popular gender-targeted dating book titles emphasizing game-playing would impact feelings of (in)security relative to control conditions (H1a and H1b). In sum, we suspected that gendered dating messages should instill a sense of confidence and/or reduce feelings of vulnerability in the intended audience but might exact an emotional cost upon members of the unintended audience.

Method

Participants

To estimate the sample size required to detect the predicted condition main effect, we conducted a power analysis using GPower* (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Although no one has investigated gendered dating messages in a similar manner, we anticipated that book titles would act as primes, and thus we drew from meta-analyses on priming, wherein average effect sizes are in the medium range (Cameron, Brown-Iannuzzi, & Payne, 2012; DeCoster & Claypool, 2004). Using a conventional medium effect size of Cohen’s f = .25, we calculated the necessary sample size as 158 (power of .80, α = .05). In a 7-day period, we were able to recruit 205 single undergraduate students who received partial course credit for their participation. Seventeen were dropped from the sample (16 participants took breaks and 1 did not complete the manipulation), leaving 108 women who preferred to date men and 80 men who preferred to date women in the final sample (M _age = 19.14 years, SD = 2.35). The majority were Canadian-born (98%) and reported English as a first language (97%).

Procedure

The study was administered online and described as investigating “current dating topics.” Participants were randomly assigned to the gender-congruent message condition (25 men; 36 women), the gender-incongruent message condition (29 men; 37 women), or the control condition (no message presented; 26 men; 35 women).

After completing demographic measures (e.g., gender) and personality measures (self-esteem, Rosenberg, 1965; Big Five traits, Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003) intended to mask our manipulation, participants in the two experimental conditions were asked to rank a set of five popular dating books titles from (1) most to (5) least interesting. The rankings ensured participants read the titles and served to justify their presence. The titles that comprised the manipulations were selected from a list of 39 popular dating books sold on amazon.com at the point in time when study materials were created. Based on the judgments of 15 (12 female; 3 male) undergraduate students who served as independent raters of how much each of the 39 titles (presented in randomized order) “pitted men and women against each other in a dating game” (1 = pits men and women against each other; 7 = treats men and women equally) and their presumed intended audience (1 = written for men; 7 = written for women), we selected the top five titles targeting women that pitted men and women against each other and the top five titles targeting men that pitted men and women against each other (see Table 1).

Table 1.
Means and SDs for titles selected for experimental conditions.

Intended audience Gendered game

Mean SD Mean SD

Women as intended audience titles

Men are like fish: What every woman needs to know about catching a man 7.00 0.00 1.93 1.10

Why men love bitches: From doormant to dreamgirl—A woman’s guide to holding her own in a relationship 7.00 0.00 1.40 0.74

How to make a man fall in love with you: The fail-proof, fool-proof method 7.00 0.00 2.07 1.28

Act like a lady, think like a man: What men really think about love, relationships, intimacy, and commitment 6.87 0.35 2.73 1.49

The manual: A true bad boy explains how men think 6.47 1.55 1.40 0.74

Men as intended audience titles

The game: Penetrating the secret society of pickup artists 4.13 1.36 2.47 1.25

The system: How to get laid today 2.13 1.13 3.27 1.91

The mystery method: How to get beautiful women into bed 1.07 0.26 1.93 1.10

Player’s handbook: The Nice Guy’s guide to getting girls 1.00 0.00 2.40 1.24

Secrets of the game: How to meet and attract women 1.00 0.00 2.53 1.25

Note. SD = standard deviation.

(In)security measures

Security and insecurity were assessed independently (for rationale, see Holmes & Cameron, 2005); all items were rated on 9-point scales (1 = not at all; 9 = extremely). To tap feelings of security, participants reported their feelings of empowerment (4 items; “right now I feel powerful; strong; influential; effective”; St. Germain, 2011), α = .86, and their dating confidence (6 items; e.g., “If I wanted to, I’m confident that I could find someone to go out with on a first date”), α = .92. Insecurity was assessed by participants’ reports of vulnerability (4 items; “right now I feel worried, unsafe, fearful, insecure”; St. Germain, 2011), α = .73, and their concern about being hurt in a romantic context (single item: “I’m worried that I’ll get hurt if I start dating someone”).¹

Book familiarity

To ensure the sample was naïve to the book titles, participants used a 5-point scale where higher numbers reflected greater familiarity (I have read it) and low numbers reflected none at all (first time I heard about this book was when I saw it in this study). Familiarity was very low (M = 1.21; SD = .51), with 61% of the sample reporting that they had never heard about any of the books before the study. Familiarity did not differ by condition or gender and controlling for familiarity did not alter results (also see Supplemental File) (Cavallo, Fitzsimons, & Holmes, 2009; Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1998).

Results and discussion

Although we intended to conduct a single 3 (condition: gender-congruent vs. gender-incongruent vs. control) × 2 (gender: men vs. women) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to test our predictions, patterns of correlations revealed that there were two distinct sets of dependent variables. Confidence and empowerment were moderately correlated (r = .33) as were vulnerability and hurt (r = .35) but these variables were otherwise uncorrelated (r’s ranged from −.14 to −.10). Thus, we conducted two 3 × 2 MANOVAs, one on each subset of dependent variables.²

A condition main effect would support our prediction that exposure to gender-congruent or gender-incongruent titles differentially influenced participants, regardless of their gender (H1). Although not explicitly predicted, a gender main effect would suggest that women and men report different levels of security and insecurity, regardless of message exposure. While unexpected, an interaction between factors would indicate that the consequences of gender-congruent and gender-incongruent titles differed for women and men, a finding that could reflect differing content of titles targeted at men compared to titles targeted at women.

The MANOVA on our indices power (M = 4.52; SE = .08) and confidence (M = 5.62; SE = .14) revealed that the messages did not influence feelings of security, F < 1, p = .839, η _p ² = .004, nor did participant gender, F(2, 180) = 2.13, p = .122, η _p ² = .023. However, the MANOVA on indices of insecurity revealed a condition main effect, F(4, 362) = 2.66, p = .032, η _p ² = .029. Probing this effect revealed that relative to the control condition, exposure to gender-congruent titles decreased vulnerability and concern about getting hurt (supporting H1a), whereas exposure to gender-incongruent titles did not significantly impact feelings of insecurity (failing to support H1b; see Table 2). Moreover, reflecting the existing literature (Del Giudice, 2011; McLean & Andersen, 2009), women reported greater insecurity than men, F(2, 180) = 11.38, p < .001, η _p ² = .112 (see Table 2).

Table 2.
Main effects for condition and gender in Studies 1 and 2.

Condition Gender

Dependent variables Gender-congruent Control Gender-incongruent F p η _p ² Men Women F p η _p ²

Insecurities (Study 1)

Vulnerability 2.12^a (1.08) 2.62^b (1.07) 2.59^b (1.28) 3.48 .023 .037 2.41 (1.21) 2.41 (1.14) 0.18 .672 .001

Hurt 4.00^a (2.37) 4.92^b (2.32) 5.09^b (2.60) 3.58 .024 .041 3.88 (2.27) 5.47 (2.40) 21.48 .000 .106

Motivation to avoid bonding (Study 2)

Self-protection motivation 4.74^a (1.45) 4.77^a (1.59) 5.42^b (1.60) 3.70 .026 .030 4.63 (1.57) 5.39 (1.52) 13.57 .000 .054

Singlehood satisfaction 4.53^a (1.73) 3.99^b (1.57) 4.59^a (1.67) 3.58 .029 .029 4.26 (1.72) 4.48 (1.58) 0.88 .349 .004

Self-presentational behavior (Study 2)

Positive self-descriptors 4.09^a (1.87) 4.74^b (2.15) 4.57^ab (2.03) 1.96 .143 .017 4.44 (2.07) 4.49 (2.07) 0.03 .875 .000

Negative self-descriptors 0.47^a (0.91) 0.18^b (0.43) 0.26^ab (0.57) 4.68 .010 .039 0.24 (.50) 0.37 (.71) 2.28 .132 .010

Likeable self-presentation 6.22^a (1.13) 6.71^b (1.13) 6.67^b (1.07) 3.82 .028 .033 6.51 (1.22) 6.55 (1.11) 0.09 .765 .000

Expressivity* 37.10^a (36.62) 52.62^b (39.67) 40.24^a (27.38) 4.17 .017 .035 42.37 (37.32) 44.26 (37.02) 0.13 .720 .001

Note. Values in columns represent means and SDs are in parenthesis. Values that have different superscripts within the same row differ from each other at p < .05. SD = standard deviation; MANOVA = multivariate analysis of variance.

Variable was not included within MANOVA analysis.

As expected, there were no significant interactions between gender and condition, suggesting that the process by which these gender-targeted messages operate—quelling existing insecurities for their intended audience (rather than bolstering confidence)—is similar for both men and women.³

Experiment 2: Motivational and behavioral consequences

In our second experiment, we tested whether gender-congruent messages would benefit dating motivations (H2a) and behavior (H3a) and whether gender-incongruent titles would impair dating motivation (H2b) and behavior (H3b). To assess the impact of our manipulation on motivation, we utilized several measures of relationship-specific motivation, tapping the desire to attain intimacy through disclosure and to form new relationships. To assess behavior, we asked participants to write an online dating profile. This task, validated in previous research (Stinson et al., 2015b), provides an ecologically valid method of self-presentation for individuals raised in a cohort that is accustomed to online dating (Sprecher, 2009). Moreover, like face-to-face self-presentations, online profiles are strategically constructed (Whitty, 2008), although online environments are known to facilitate enhanced self-presentation (e.g., Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008).

Method

Participants

A power analysis using the main effects of condition for vulnerability and hurt from Study 1 resulted in a suggested sample size of 241 participants to detect the predicted main effect for condition with a power of .80 (α = .05). In a 14-day period, we were able to recruit 260 undergraduate students. Twelve were eliminated because they reported being in a long-term romantic relationship, leaving 128 single women who preferred to date men and 120 single men who preferred to date women (M _age = 19.10 years, SD = 2.05). The majority were Canadian-born (89%) and all reported English as a first language.

Procedure

With the exception of the dependent measures, the procedure was identical to that described in Study 1 (cell sizes: gender-congruent* = 28 men; 32 women; gender-incongruent = 20 men, 34 women; control = 72 men; 62 women).⁴

Self-presentation behavior

Immediately after ranking the book titles, participants were prompted to create a mock online-dating profile. Four coders (2 female, 2 male) blind to study design, judged how likable (1 = unlikeable; 9 = likeable) and desirable (1 = undesirable; 9 = desirable) participants appeared in their profiles. Inter-rater reliability was high (Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC’s) = .81 to .91), so coders’ responses were aggregated. Ratings of desirability and likability were highly correlated, r = .91, and thus collapsed to form an index of likeable self-presentation. A separate group of three coders (2 female, 1 male) then counted the number of positive self-descriptions (e.g., “I’m a fun person”) and the number of negative self-descriptions (e.g., “I’m sometimes self-centered”). Inter-rater reliability was high (ICC’s .92 and .90, respectively) so coders’ responses were again aggregated. Overall word count was also recorded as an indicator of general expressivity.

Motivation toward bonding

To assess motivations toward making connections with others, we utilized three measures intended to capture a desire to bond with others. Because eliciting liking and connecting with another person involves some degree of self-disclosure (Aron et al., 1997; Collins & Miller, 1994; Eastwick et al., 2010), we tapped into participants’ dating motivations with an assessment of their desired levels of disclosure on a hypothetical date. First, in a modified version of Andersen, Reznik, and Manzella’s (1996) relationship motivation measure, participants were asked to imagine meeting an attractive preferred-sex person for a first date and to rate their dating motivations (1 = not at all; 9 = extremely). Four items assessed connection motivation through self-disclosure (e.g., “How much would you be willing to share your feelings with your date?”), α = .81. Second, with similar logic, participants were asked to select 5 questions from a list of 18 questions that they would ask on a first date (intimacy of conversation topics, Stinson et al., 2015b). Nine of these questions were closeness-generating questions and nine were small talk questions from the closeness-generating procedure (Aron et al., 1997). Greater intimacy is indicated by the selection of more closeness-generating questions, represented as a sum. Third, to further tap motivation to form social bonds, participants indicated their interest in initiating a new romantic relationship (dating motivation) on a 9-point scale (1 = not at all; 9 = extremely).

Motivation to avoid bonding

To assess the desire to avoid intimacy and bonding with others, we used two measures. First, in a modified version of Andersen et al.’s (1996) relationship motivation measure, and again within the context of a hypothetical first date, participants responded to 3 items assessing self-protection motivation to avoid the types of disclosures that foster social connection (e.g., “How much would you want to avoid being vulnerable with this person?”), α = .76. Second, participants indicated their satisfaction with being single (singlehood satisfaction) on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all satisfied; 7 = very satisfied). This item was intended as an indicator of motivation to avoid forming romantic bonds, or at the very least as an indication of the amount of drive to change one’s current relationship status (Stinson et al., 2015b).⁵

Results and discussion

Before testing our predictions that gendered dating messages should benefit motivation and behavior for members of the intended audience (H2a and H3a) and impair motivation and behavior for the unintended audience (H2b and H3b), we explored the correlations between variables presumed to measure the same broad construct to ensure the appropriate use of MANOVA. This analysis revealed four sets of intercorrelated variables,⁶ and subsequently, we used a 3 (condition: gender-congruent vs. gender-incongruent vs. control) × 2 (gender: men vs. women) MANOVA on each of the four sets of dependent variables. Because the intimacy of topics and expressivity variables were uncorrelated with all others, we analyzed them separately in 3 (condition: gender-congruent vs. gender-incongruent vs. control) × 2 (gender: men vs. women) univariate ANOVAs, setting the cutoff for significance at p = .025 via Bonferroni correction.⁷

Motivation toward bonding

The multivariate analysis revealed no clear main effect of condition on connection motivation (M = 5.61, SE = .10) and dating motivation (M = 5.59, SE = .17), F(4, 482) = 2.00, p = .093, η _p ² = .016. The separate univariate ANOVA on the intimacy of topics selected was similarly unaffected by message condition, F < 1, p = .688. However, there was an overall gender main effect for motivation toward bonding, F(2, 240) = 8.46, p < .001, η _p ² = .066. Women reported lower connection motivation (M = 5.30, SD = 1.36) than men (M = 5.91, SD = 1.40), F(1, 241) = 10.07, p = .002, η _p ² = .040 and reported less interest in initiating a new romantic relationship (M = 5.03, SD = 2.33) than men (M = 6.14, SD = 2.47), F(1, 241) = 11.04, p = .001, η _p ² = .044.

Motivation to avoid bonding

Our multivariate analysis revealed an overall effect of condition for motivation to avoid bonding, F(2, 478) = 3.44, p = .009, η _p ² = .028. As presented in Table 2, decomposing this main effect revealed that exposure to gender-incongruent messages increased self-protective motives according to both measures of motivation to avoid bonding, supporting H2b. Unexpectedly, exposure to gender-congruent messages also increased satisfaction with being single, a measure we initially thought would indicate a desire to avoid forming romantic relationships with others. In retrospect, this measure might be confounded with a greater interest with forming multiple, short-lived, and less committed romantic entanglements (e.g., only going on first dates, or dating multiple persons). Results also revealed an overall gender main effect, F(2, 239) = 6.93, p = .001, η _p ² = .055, consistent with literature suggesting that women generally experience greater social avoidance (Gable, 2006) and mirroring our effects for motivation toward bonding (see Table 2).

Self-presentation behavior

Nine participants did not complete the dating profile-writing task and were thus excluded from analyses on self-presentation.⁸ We expected a self-presentational benefit for members of the intended audience and a detriment for members of the unintended audience (H3a and H3b). The multivariate analysis revealed an overall main effect for condition, F(6, 462) = 2.53, p = .020, η _p ² = .032. Decomposing the overall effect revealed an unexpected pattern: Participants exposed to gender-congruent messages included more negative and less positive self-descriptors. Not surprisingly, these participants also created profiles that engendered less liking compared to those in the control condition. Relative to the control condition, exposure to gender-incongruent messages did not affect participants’ self-presentations. In addition, the univariate 3 × 2 ANOVA on expressivity revealed a main effect of condition, F(2, 232) = 4.17, p = .017, η _p ² = .035. Unexpectedly, exposure to book titles for either intended or unintended audiences reduced participants’ expressivity relative to the control.⁹

Across all analyses and as expected, no interactions between condition and gender were observed, indicating that men and women reacted similarly to the gender congruency of dating messages.

Exploratory mediation analyses

To further explore why those in the gender-congruent condition made less favorable impressions in their dating profiles, we conducted three mediation analyses with expressivity (i.e., total word count), positive self-descriptors, and negative self-descriptors as mediators for the relation between condition and likeable self-presentation. As outlined in Hayes and Preacher (2014), we performed bootstrapping analyses (5,000 samples) for multicategorical independent variables using the MEDIATE macro for SPSS. Accordingly, we recoded our condition variable into two dummy coded variables: D1 (gender-incongruent = 1, control = 0, gender-congruent = 0) and D2 (gender-congruent = 1, control = 0, gender-incongruent = 0). As presented in Table 3, all three mediators (expressivity, positive self-descriptors, negative self-descriptors) at least partially explained how condition affected the likeability of participants’ self-presentation. An omnibus test of the total effects for all three mediation models was significant, R = .18, F(2, 235) = 3.81, p = .024. Although the total aggregated effect of D1 across all models was not significant, B = −.04, SE = .10, p = .827, the total effect of D2 was, B = −.49, SE = .18, p = .008, suggesting that it was the manipulation of gender-congruent profiles, driving the effect.

Table 3.
Unstandardized coefficients for direct and indirect effects of gender (in)congruency on likeable self-presentation through expressivity and content (Study 2).

Direct effect Indirect effect

Mediator B SE p B LL UL

Expressivity (word count) D1 .13 .18 .467 −.17 −.36 −.06

D2 −.35 .17 .041 −.14 −.33 −.01

Positive self-descriptors D1 −.01 .15 .946 −.03 −.26 .21

D2 −.26 .14 .071 −.23 −.46 −.01

Negative self-descriptors D1 −.02 .19 .915 −.02 −.10 .01

D2 −.41 .19 .025 −.07 −.21 −.01

Note. D1 = gender-incongruent versus control; D2 = gender-congruent versus control; 95% confidence intervals; LL = lower limit, UL = upper limit; SE = standard error.

Indirect effect statistics for each mediator, separately, are presented in Table 3. Overall, people in the gender-congruent condition disclosed less, included fewer positive self-descriptors and more negative self-descriptors, which helps explain why others perceived them as less likeable and desirable. In other words, our results suggest an ironic effect, wherein messages that alleviate the insecurities of their target audience actually impede disclosure and positive self-presentation, leading them to present themselves as less desirable dating partners. Although participants in the gender-incongruent condition were also less expressive, the positive and negative content of their profiles and the overall quality of their self-presentations were not negatively impacted.

General discussion

We set out to test whether gendered dating messages, as portrayed in dating advice book titles, had any measurable impact—harmful or helpful—on the emotions, motivations, and behaviors of their audience. Although our findings paint a rather mixed and complicated picture of how these messages impact would-be-daters, our results provide the first empirical evidence that gender-targeted popular dating messages may have some consequences for their readers. However, the quality of their influence depends on the outcome of interest and whether the reader belongs to the audience for whom the message is intended. Our results suggest that those browsing the self-help aisle may want to be cautious when viewing dating messages intended for a gender other than one’s own. Restricting one’s exposure to dating messages targeted at one’s own gender may reduce insecurities (H1) and avoid increases in self-protective dating motivation (H2).

Yet, intended audiences should beware an inadvertent consequence of this exposure. Despite reduced feelings of insecurity, those exposed to messages intended for their own gender created less favorable profiles (H3)—an outcome that could essentially render emotional benefits meaningless if their poor self-presentations prevent them from attracting interested partners. We speculate about four possibilities driving this unexpected effect. First, participants might have put less effort into their self-presentations due to their increase in satisfaction with being single. As the “high-power gender,” participants reading gender-congruent titles might simply be more interested in staying in a higher power position instead of forming new romantic bonds. Second, by tipping social motivations to favor connection, instead of self-protection goals, these titles may have increased evaluative concerns. After all, wanting to connect with another person increases the stakes of rejection—even if one is willing to face the risk—and the resultant evaluative concerns people experience can have the ironic consequence of disrupting self-disclosure and positive self-presentation (Vorauer, Martens, & Sasaki, 2009; Vorauer & Turpie, 2004), similar to “choking under pressure” (Baumeister, 1984). Third, participant’s motivational focus on connection could have benefitted their intention to pursue romantic bonds while undermining their persistence at the task instrumental to pursuing it (i.e., writing a likeable profile; Fishbach & Choi, 2012). Fourth, our titles may have inspired participants to “play the game” by deliberately conveying disinterest to potential partners in hopes of increasing their perceived mate-value. Although not an entirely irrational strategy—uncertainty about another’s interest is known to enhance one’s own romantic intrigue (Whitchurch, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2011)—playing hard to get often backfires (e.g., Birnbaum, Ein-Dor, Reis, & Segal, 2014; Dai, Dong, & Jia, 2014; Matthews, Rosenfield, & Stephen, 1979). Even though our current investigation cannot disentangle these potential mechanisms, the array of possibilities speaks to the complexity underlying the consequences of prevalent gendered dating messages and highlights the need for further study.

The potential for detrimental consequences of these gendered dating messages was not limited to their intended audiences. Being an “unintended audience” member might be quite common as people have ready access to a variety of media and may intentionally seek out media not intended for their gender. For example, people might be inclined to learn about the dating strategies of their potential partners, in an effort to understand, and perhaps undermine, their games. Our results revealed that exposure to messages intended for another gender increased self-protective motivation. Although the increased self-protective motivation coincided with reduced expressivity, it did not result in less favorable impressions as previous research has found (Cameron et al., 2010; Stinson et al., 2015a). Future research should investigate whether these patterns are also true of the nonverbal behavioral responses (e.g., smiling) assessed in prior research and whether these self-presentational results translate to live interaction.

Although many of our predictions were supported, some predictions were not. Given the novelty of our research topic, we were open to the possibility that gendered dating messages might have differential effects on positive and negative outcomes. Indeed, gendered dating titles had no impact on many positive outcomes (i.e., empowerment, confidence, and motivation toward bonding) and had stronger impact on negative emotional and motivational outcomes (insecurity and self-protective dating motivations) and self-presentational behavior. Moreover, the pattern of effects unexpectedly varied across studies. Specifically, whether exposure to gender-congruent or gender-incongruent titles moved participants away from the control condition differed across the various measures in Studies 1 and 2. In Study 1 where we measured emotional consequences, reading gender-congruent titles alleviated emotions rooted in insecurity. In Study 2, reading gender-congruent titles also reduced the likability and positivity of self-presentational behavior. However, exposure to gender-incongruent titles was the active ingredient necessary to enhance self-protection motivation and to reduce expressivity. This pattern of results is difficult to reconcile with our use of risk regulation theory as our original theoretical guide.

According to risk regulation theory, situations that highlight the possibility of rejection such as meeting new people in a potential dating context should enhance self-protective motivations among those who feel most insecure and consequently, interfere with engaging in behavior that promotes social bonds. In our own studies, gender-congruent messages reduced insecurity but surprisingly inhibited positive social behavior, whereas gender-incongruent messages did not influence feelings of insecurity yet enhanced self-protective motivations. Although it is possible that if we had measured all three facets (emotions, motivations, and behaviors) in the same sample, we might have seen a more coherent reaction to the congruency of gendered dating messages, it is also possible that other factors are at play. For example, gendered dating messages likely activate gender stereotypes and thus, people may act in concordance with such stereotypes (see Hundhammer & Mussweiler, 2012). Indeed, measuring gender prior to the manipulation may have further strengthened such a response, and in a sense, reinforced gender relevant primes. Further, the gendered dating messages may have highlighted beliefs about sexism (see Rudman & Borgida, 1995), encouraged the endorsement of traditional gender roles (Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006), and exaggerated the differences between men and women (Haferkamp, 1999). The activation of such belief systems may have influenced the relationship initiation process just as enduring sexist beliefs influence ongoing dating relationships (see Hammond & Overall, 2017). Moreover, highlighting the group difference between potential interaction partners (i.e., men vs. women) might also activate meta-stereotypes wherein people begin to worry about being seen in light of their group stereotype (e.g., “just a typical man”). The activation of such meta-stereotypes not only increases negative emotions but reduces self-concept clarity (Vorauer, Main, & O’Connell, 1998) which might negatively impact interpersonal interaction. Although all plausible contributors to how gendered dating messages might create the consequences we observed, we did not measure the activation of gender stereotypes, sexism, or meta-stereotypes. Future research may benefit from including these possible mechanisms within their study design.

Strengths and limitations

Our studies are the first to establish that the gender-targeted game-playing messages in popular media have real impacts on audience members, although this influence and its direction seem dependent on the type of outcome. The strengths of this research, however, are not limited to its novelty. Our studies employed procedures to ensure both scientific rigor (e.g., random assignment to condition to evaluate the effects of these messages independent of people’s preferences for them) and real-world likeness (e.g., using actual book titles). The impact of our studies is further bolstered by the fact that we were able to demonstrate effects at the emotional, motivational, and behavioral levels, setting the stage for future exploration of interpersonal consequences in face-to-face interactions with potential dating partners.

Some limitations of our studies generate several important questions for this burgeoning realm of research. First, although our naïve sample of young students ensured that our results were immune to contamination from previous exposure to our selected books, a more diverse sample should be recruited to test the generalizability of these effects. Future research may benefit from exploring the boundaries of the influence of gender-targeted game-playing messages by using older samples as well as samples with diverse sexual orientations or gender identifications. Second, we opted not to include a manipulation check within both studies to reduce participant suspicion. Although our results confirm that these gender-targeted messages influence many of our measures as expected, without a manipulation check, we cannot be certain of the active ingredient in these primes. Given our coders’ ratings, however, we suspect that the active component is the game-playing messages that portray either women or men as the more powerful agent. Third, although our reliance on actual book titles enhances the real world relevance of our work, our coders indicated that the titles selected for women portrayed more game-playing messages (M = 1.91, SE = .17) than the titles selected for men (M = 2.52, SE = .22), F(1, 14) = 14.64, p = .002, η _p ² = .511 (see Supplemental File for expanded analysis) (Cavallo, Fitzsimons, & Holmes, 2009; Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1998). However, women’s titles were not more strongly influential on outcomes than men’s titles, as would have been indicated with a gender by condition interaction. No such interactions were observed in either study. However, future research should explore other means of manipulating these messages that allow for equivalence across the messages targeted to men and women. Fourth, we only included book titles in our experimental manipulation, which cannot address the impact of continued exposure to game-playing messages (e.g., reading the entire book). The use of such a passive exposure might explain the lack of effects on certain variables (e.g., motivation toward bonding) and the fact that most of our effects fell between the small and medium effect size. However, the emergence of such effects with just passive exposure to only the titles suggests that prolonged exposure might reveal stronger effects. Although it is also possible that repeated exposure might lead to adaptation (Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999), and thus attenuate their influence over time, the existing research on exposure to romantic media, in general, suggests that the greater the volume, the stronger the consequence (e.g., Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006). Future research may benefit from focusing on how repeated exposure might influence the emotional, motivational, and behavioral experiences of would-be-daters.

Conclusion

Our novel research provides the first insights into possible consequences of exposure to messages that highlight stereotypical gender roles and portray men and women as opponents in “the dating game.” These consequences seem particularly negative for individuals who are not the intended audience (e.g., women reading men’s dating advice book titles) wherein individuals report greater self-protective motivation and are less expressive in their self-presentations. Because such messages are commonplace in relationship media (Holmes & Johnson, 2009) and the consumption of relationship media is high (see Bergsma, 2008), people may experience the influence of such messages frequently. Despite the negative consequences for unintended audience members, those who are exposed to gendered dating messages directed toward their own gender (e.g., men reading men’s dating advice book titles) experience some benefits. These messages appear to reduce the fears and insecurities of their intended audience, yet these messages also, ironically, simultaneously impede individuals’ abilities to attract the interest of potential matches, as our research revealed. Would-be-daters should be cautious when consuming and viewing these types of gendered dating messages, as any beneficial consequence of these messages appears to also come at a cost.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, SUPPLEMENTAL_FILE_18_170_Final_updated_supplemental_material - Gendered dating messages have consequences for both intended and unintended audiences

Supplemental Material, SUPPLEMENTAL_FILE_18_170_Final_updated_supplemental_material for Gendered dating messages have consequences for both intended and unintended audiences by Jessica J. Cameron, Kelley J. Robinson, Patti C. Parker and Christine Hole in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

	Intended audience	Gendered game
Women as intended audience titles
Men are like fish: What every woman needs to know about catching a man	7.00	0.00	1.93	1.10
Why men love bitches: From doormant to dreamgirl—A woman’s guide to holding her own in a relationship	7.00	0.00	1.40	0.74
How to make a man fall in love with you: The fail-proof, fool-proof method	7.00	0.00	2.07	1.28
Act like a lady, think like a man: What men really think about love, relationships, intimacy, and commitment	6.87	0.35	2.73	1.49
The manual: A true bad boy explains how men think	6.47	1.55	1.40	0.74
Men as intended audience titles
The game: Penetrating the secret society of pickup artists	4.13	1.36	2.47	1.25
The system: How to get laid today	2.13	1.13	3.27	1.91
The mystery method: How to get beautiful women into bed	1.07	0.26	1.93	1.10
Player’s handbook: The Nice Guy’s guide to getting girls	1.00	0.00	2.40	1.24
Secrets of the game: How to meet and attract women	1.00	0.00	2.53	1.25

	Condition				Gender
Insecurities (Study 1)
Vulnerability	2.12^a (1.08)	2.62^b (1.07)	2.59^b (1.28)	3.48	.023	.037	2.41 (1.21)	2.41 (1.14)	0.18	.672	.001
Hurt	4.00^a (2.37)	4.92^b (2.32)	5.09^b (2.60)	3.58	.024	.041	3.88 (2.27)	5.47 (2.40)	21.48	.000	.106
Motivation to avoid bonding (Study 2)
Self-protection motivation	4.74^a (1.45)	4.77^a (1.59)	5.42^b (1.60)	3.70	.026	.030	4.63 (1.57)	5.39 (1.52)	13.57	.000	.054
Singlehood satisfaction	4.53^a (1.73)	3.99^b (1.57)	4.59^a (1.67)	3.58	.029	.029	4.26 (1.72)	4.48 (1.58)	0.88	.349	.004
Self-presentational behavior (Study 2)
Positive self-descriptors	4.09^a (1.87)	4.74^b (2.15)	4.57^ab (2.03)	1.96	.143	.017	4.44 (2.07)	4.49 (2.07)	0.03	.875	.000
Negative self-descriptors	0.47^a (0.91)	0.18^b (0.43)	0.26^ab (0.57)	4.68	.010	.039	0.24 (.50)	0.37 (.71)	2.28	.132	.010
Likeable self-presentation	6.22^a (1.13)	6.71^b (1.13)	6.67^b (1.07)	3.82	.028	.033	6.51 (1.22)	6.55 (1.11)	0.09	.765	.000
Expressivity*	37.10^a (36.62)	52.62^b (39.67)	40.24^a (27.38)	4.17	.017	.035	42.37 (37.32)	44.26 (37.02)	0.13	.720	.001

		Direct effect	Indirect effect
Expressivity (word count)	D1	.13	.18	.467	−.17	−.36	−.06
D2	−.35	.17	.041	−.14	−.33	−.01
Positive self-descriptors	D1	−.01	.15	.946	−.03	−.26	.21
D2	−.26	.14	.071	−.23	−.46	−.01
Negative self-descriptors	D1	−.02	.19	.915	−.02	−.10	.01
D2	−.41	.19	.025	−.07	−.21	−.01

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank our numerous research assistants, especially Angela Jill Guingcangco, Chantal Humphrey, Sydney Kingston, Jamie MacLeod, Nicole Masi, Joshua Philion-Brager, and Steve Wish, for their assistance in conducting the studies.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada grant (410-2009-0092) to Jessica Cameron.

ORCID iD

Jessica J. Cameron

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information:

The research was not pre-registered.

The data used in the research are available by emailing the contact author at Jessica.Cameron@umanitoba.ca.

The materials used in the research are available by emailing the contact author at Jessica.Cameron@umanitoba.ca.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Andersen

S. M.

Reznik

Manzella

L. M.

(1996). Eliciting facial affect, motivation, and expectancies in transference: Significant-other representations in social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1108–1129.

Aron

Melinat

Aron

E. N.

Vallone

R. D.

Bator

R. J.

(1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 363–377.

Avtgis

T. A.

West

D. V.

Andersen

T. L.

(1998). Relationship stages: An inductive analysis identifying cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions of Knapp’s relational stages model. Communication Research Reports, 15, 280–287.

Bargh

J. A.

(1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In Wyer

R. S.

Jr Srull

T. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bargh

J. A.

(2006). What have we been priming all these years? On the development, mechanisms, and ecology of nonconscious social behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 147–168.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3–26.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610–620.

Bergsma

(2008). Do self-help books really help? Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 341–360.

Birnbaum

G. E.

Ein-Dor

Reis

H. T.

Segal

(2014). Why do men prefer nice women? Gender typicality mediates the effect of responsiveness on perceived attractiveness in initial acquaintanceships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1341–1353.

10.

Cameron

C. D.

Brown-Iannuzzi

J. L.

Payne

B. K.

(2012). Sequential priming measures of implicit social cognition: A meta-analysis of associations with behavior and explicit attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 330–350.

11.

Cameron

J. J.

Stinson

D. A.

Gaetz

Balchen

(2010). Acceptance is in the eye of the beholder: Self-esteem and motivated perceptions of acceptance from the opposite sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 513–529.

12.

Collins

N. L.

Miller

L. C.

(1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457–475.

13.

Dai

Dong

Jia

J. S.

(2014). When does playing hard to get increase romantic attraction? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 521–526.

14.

DeCoster

Claypool

H. M.

(2004). A meta-analysis of priming effects on impression formation supporting a general model of informational biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 2–27.

15.

Del Giudice

(2011). Sex differences in romantic attachment: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 193–214.

16.

Eastwick

P. W.

Saigal

S. D.

Finkel

E. J.

(2010). Smooth operating: A Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB) perspective on initial romantic encounters. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 344–352.

17.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.

18.

Fishbach

Choi

(2012). When thinking about goals undermines goal pursuit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 99–107.

19.

Frederick

Loewenstein

(1999). Hedonic adaptation. In Kahneman

Diener

Schwartz

(Eds.), Foundations of Hedonic Psychology: Scientific perspectives on enjoyment, suffering, and well-being (pp. 302–329). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

20.

Gable

S. L.

(2006). Approach and avoidance social motives and goals. Journal of Personality, 74, 175–222.

21.

Goffman

(1971). Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.

22.

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Swann

W. B.

Jr . (2003). A very brief measure of the big five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.

23.

Haferkamp

C. J.

(1999). Beliefs about relationships in relation to television viewing, soap opera viewing, and self-monitoring. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, and Social, 18, 193–204.

24.

Hammond

M. D.

Overall

N. C.

(2017). Dynamics within intimate relationships and the causes, consequences, and functions of sexist attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 120–125.

25.

Hayes

A. F.

Preacher

K. J.

(2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470.

26.

Hendrick

S. S.

Dicke

(1998). The love attitudes scale: Short form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 147–159.

27.

Holmes

B. M.

Johnson

K. R.

(2009). Advice; Self-help and media advice about relationships. In Reis

H. T.

Sprecher

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 44–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

28.

Holmes

J. G.

Cameron

J. J.

(2005). An integrative review of theories on relationship cognition: An interdependence theory perspective. In Baldwin

M. W.

(Ed.), Interpersonal cognition (pp. 415–447). New York: Guilford.

29.

Hundhammer

Mussweiler

(2012). How sex puts you in gendered shoes: Sexuality-priming leads to gender-based self-perception and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 176–193.

30.

Kunkel

A. D.

Wilson

S. R.

Olufowote

Robson

(2003). Identity implications of influence goals: Initiating, intensifying, and ending romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 382–412.

31.

Laner

M. R.

Ventrone

N. A.

(2000). Dating scripts revisited. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 488–500.

32.

Leary

M. R.

Miller

R. S.

(2000). Self-presentational perspectives on personal relationships. In Ickes

Duck

(Eds.), The social psychology of personal relationships (pp. 129–155). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

33.

Lockwood

Jordan

C. H.

Kunda

(2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864.

34.

Matthews

K. A.

Rosenfield

Stephan

(1979). Playing hard-to-get: A two determinant model. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 234–244.

35.

McCarty

Kelly

J. R.

(2015). Perceptions of dating behavior: The role of ambivalent sexism. Sex Roles, 72, 237.

36.

McLean

C. P.

Anderson

E. R.

(2009). Brave men and timid women? A review of the gender differences in fear and anxiety. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 496–505.

37.

Metts

Mikucki

S. L.

(2008). The emotional landscape of romantic relationship initiation. In Sprecher

Wenzel

Harvey

(Eds), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 353–371). New York: Psychology Press.

38.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Collins

N. L.

(2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666.

39.

Penke

Todd

P. M.

Lenton

A. P.

Fasolo

(2008). How self-assessments can guide human mating decisions. In Geher

Miller

(Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 37–75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

40.

Rivadeneyra

Lebo

M. J.

(2008). The association between television-viewing behaviors and adolescent dating role attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 291–305.

41.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

42.

Rudman

L. A.

Borgida

(1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493–571.

43.

Spielmann

S. S.

MacDonald

Tackett

J. L.

(2012). Social threat, social reward, and regulation of investment in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 19, 601–622.

44.

Sprecher

(2009). Relationship initiation and formation on the internet. Marriage and Family Review, 45, 761–782.

45.

St. Germain

(2011). Empathy and power in intergroup interaction. Undergraduate honors thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB.

46.

Stinson

D. A.

Cameron

J. J.

Hoplock

L. B.

Hole

(2015a). Warming up and cooling down: Self-esteem and behavioral responses to social threat during relationship initiation. Self and Identity, 14, 189–213.

47.

Stinson

D. A.

Cameron

J. J.

Robinson

(2015b). The good, the bad, and the risky: Self-esteem, rewards and costs, and goal pursuit during relationship initiation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 1109–1113.

48.

Sunnafrank

(1986). Predicted outcome value during initial interactions: A reformulation of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 13, 3–33.

49.

Toma

C. L.

Hancock

J. T.

Ellison

N. B.

(2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1023–1036.

50.

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.

51.

Vorauer

J. D.

Main

K. J.

O’Connell

G. B.

(1998). How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 917–937.

52.

Vorauer

J. D.

Martens

Sasaki

S. J.

(2009). When trying to understand detracts from trying to behave: Effects of perspective-taking in intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 811–827.

53.

Vorauer

J. D.

Turpie

C. A.

(2004). Disruptive effects of vigilance on dominant group members’ treatment of outgroup members: Choking versus shining under pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 384–399.

54.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

55.

Whitchurch

E. R.

Wilson

T. D.

Gilbert

D. T

. (2011). “He loves me, he loves me not…”: Uncertainty can increase romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 22, 172–175.

56.

Whitty

M. T.

(2008). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1707–1723.

57.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

Morgan

E. M.

(2006). Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality dating television programs, attitudes towards sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles, 54, 1–17.

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

0.13 MB

	Intended audience		Gendered game
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Women as intended audience titles
Men are like fish: What every woman needs to know about catching a man	7.00	0.00	1.93	1.10
Why men love bitches: From doormant to dreamgirl—A woman’s guide to holding her own in a relationship	7.00	0.00	1.40	0.74
How to make a man fall in love with you: The fail-proof, fool-proof method	7.00	0.00	2.07	1.28
Act like a lady, think like a man: What men really think about love, relationships, intimacy, and commitment	6.87	0.35	2.73	1.49
The manual: A true bad boy explains how men think	6.47	1.55	1.40	0.74
Men as intended audience titles
The game: Penetrating the secret society of pickup artists	4.13	1.36	2.47	1.25
The system: How to get laid today	2.13	1.13	3.27	1.91
The mystery method: How to get beautiful women into bed	1.07	0.26	1.93	1.10
Player’s handbook: The Nice Guy’s guide to getting girls	1.00	0.00	2.40	1.24
Secrets of the game: How to meet and attract women	1.00	0.00	2.53	1.25

	Condition						Gender
Dependent variables	Gender-congruent	Control	Gender-incongruent	F	p	η _p ²	Men	Women	F	p	η _p ²
Insecurities (Study 1)
Vulnerability	2.12^a (1.08)	2.62^b (1.07)	2.59^b (1.28)	3.48	.023	.037	2.41 (1.21)	2.41 (1.14)	0.18	.672	.001
Hurt	4.00^a (2.37)	4.92^b (2.32)	5.09^b (2.60)	3.58	.024	.041	3.88 (2.27)	5.47 (2.40)	21.48	.000	.106
Motivation to avoid bonding (Study 2)
Self-protection motivation	4.74^a (1.45)	4.77^a (1.59)	5.42^b (1.60)	3.70	.026	.030	4.63 (1.57)	5.39 (1.52)	13.57	.000	.054
Singlehood satisfaction	4.53^a (1.73)	3.99^b (1.57)	4.59^a (1.67)	3.58	.029	.029	4.26 (1.72)	4.48 (1.58)	0.88	.349	.004
Self-presentational behavior (Study 2)
Positive self-descriptors	4.09^a (1.87)	4.74^b (2.15)	4.57^ab (2.03)	1.96	.143	.017	4.44 (2.07)	4.49 (2.07)	0.03	.875	.000
Negative self-descriptors	0.47^a (0.91)	0.18^b (0.43)	0.26^ab (0.57)	4.68	.010	.039	0.24 (.50)	0.37 (.71)	2.28	.132	.010
Likeable self-presentation	6.22^a (1.13)	6.71^b (1.13)	6.67^b (1.07)	3.82	.028	.033	6.51 (1.22)	6.55 (1.11)	0.09	.765	.000
Expressivity*	37.10^a (36.62)	52.62^b (39.67)	40.24^a (27.38)	4.17	.017	.035	42.37 (37.32)	44.26 (37.02)	0.13	.720	.001

		Direct effect			Indirect effect
Mediator		B	SE	p	B	LL	UL
Expressivity (word count)	D1	.13	.18	.467	−.17	−.36	−.06
Expressivity (word count)	D2	−.35	.17	.041	−.14	−.33	−.01
Positive self-descriptors	D1	−.01	.15	.946	−.03	−.26	.21
Positive self-descriptors	D2	−.26	.14	.071	−.23	−.46	−.01
Negative self-descriptors	D1	−.02	.19	.915	−.02	−.10	.01
Negative self-descriptors	D2	−.41	.19	.025	−.07	−.21	−.01