The association between intimacy goals and ... - Wiley Online Library

Personal Relationships, 14 (2007), 225–243. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright Ó 2007 IARR. 1350-4126=07

The association between intimacy goals and plans for initiating dating relationships

CATHERINE A. SANDERSON, a EMILY J. KEITER, a MICHAEL G. MILES, a b AND DARREN J. A. YOPYK b a Amherst College and University of Massachusetts—Amherst

Abstract This research examines the association between the strength of an individual’s intimacy goals in dating and preferences for dating partners, relationship initiation strategies, and contexts in which to pursue dating. Two studies demonstrate that intimacy goal strength positively corresponds with preferring partners who have strong intimacy and are warm and open, similar in attitudes and interests, and securely attached. The strength of intimacy goals also positively corresponds with the perceived use and effectiveness of emotional involvement as a strategy for initiating dating and negatively with meeting potential partners at campus parties. Data collected at a 4-month follow-up indicate that a stronger focus on intimacy goals is associated with entering a dating relationship for men, but not for women.

Prior research has established that individuals’ goals, or desired outcomes, influence behavior in important ways within ongoing personal relationships (Dillard, 1989; Miller, Cody, & McLaughlin, 1985; Sanderson, 2004). Prominent models of close relationships also describe the processes by which individuals’ own distinct needs, traits (or biological predispositions), and goals influence patterns of relationship interaction, cognition, and behavior, which in turn predict satisfaction (Bradbury & Fincham, 1988, 1991; Reis & Shaver, 1988).

Catherine A. Sanderson, Department of Psychology, Amherst College; Emily J. Keiter, Department of Psychology, Amherst College; Michael G. Miles, Department of Psychology, Amherst College; Darren J. A. Yopyk, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts— Amherst. Study 1 was conducted as part of the third author’s honors thesis under the direction of the first author, and Study 2 was conducted as part of the second author’s honors thesis under the direction of the first author. Portions of this research were presented at the 2004 SPSP Meeting in Austin, TX. Correspondence should be addressed to Catherine A. Sanderson, Amherst College, Department of Psychology, Amherst, MA 01002-5000, e-mail: casanderson@ amherst.edu.

For example, Bradbury and Fincham’s (1988) contextual model of marriage describes how individual difference factors, including attachment styles (i.e., people’s enduring patterns of beliefs about relationships and behavior in them), traits, and goals, influence the proximal context of a relationship, namely, individuals’ thoughts and feelings regarding their partners’ behavior and thereby lead to relationship satisfaction. Similarly, Reis and Shaver’s model of the intimacy process describes how individuals’ distinct needs, motives, and goals influence how they act toward their partners, which in turn is interpreted and responded to by their partners based on his or her own distinct needs. Although prior research on the association between intimacy and relationship satisfaction has clarified links between individuals’ attitudes and behavior within ongoing relationships, we know little about the specific process by which a person with a focus on intimacy goals approaches the task of initiating dating relationships. Specifically, research that examines the association between degree of focus on intimacy and patterns of relationship

225

226

interaction and satisfaction is unable to determine whether individuals with a strong focus on intimacy engage in particular patterns of interaction, which in turn leads to satisfaction, or, alternatively, whether the presence of particular patterns of interaction or levels of satisfaction leads to a stronger focus on intimacy. For example, individuals who are, for whatever reason, in highly satisfying relationships may develop a strong focus on intimacy. Alternatively, a third variable, such as attachment style, neuroticism, or self-esteem, may predict both intimacy and satisfaction. The current research therefore extends prior work by examining whether individuals with a strong focus on intimacy goals but who are not currently in a dating relationship develop and carry out particular plans as a way of accomplishing the goal of creating intimacy. In Study 1, we examine whether single individuals with a stronger focus on the pursuit of intimacy goals in dating prefer dating partners who share their focus on intimacy goals and have particular attributes, as well as whether they use distinct strategies for initiating dating relationships. In Study 2, we examine whether single individuals with a stronger focus on the pursuit of intimacy goals prefer partners with particular attachment styles, as well as whether they select specific contexts for meeting potential dating partners. Study 2 also includes a 4-month follow-up to examine whether individuals with a stronger focus on intimacy goals are able to act on these plans and thereby enter a dating relationship later on. The Impact of Goals on Plans for Interpersonal Interactions Research across multiple domains, including communication and personality psychology, points to individuals’ goals as the root of interpersonal communication and interaction. Within the communication discipline, researchers describe the role of goals in guiding individuals’ plans and behavior, thereby influencing interpersonal behavior. Within the field of psychology, researchers describe the importance of identifying personal goals, needs, and motives to understand individual differences in behavior (McAdams, 1988). This section

C. A. Sanderson et al.

expands on the importance of goals in both the communication and the psychology disciplines. Considerable research within the communication discipline demonstrates the impact of individuals’ goals on interpersonal influence (Berger, 1997; Dillard, 1989; Dillard, Segrin, & Harden, 1989). In fact, the process of interpersonal influence often begins with an individual’s goal to produce behavioral change, as a way of reducing the discrepancy between the current situation and the desired situation. For example, an individual who feels underappreciated in his or her current friendship could form a goal of increasing the friend’s initiation of social events. Individuals’ distinct goals, in turn, lead to the development of particular plans to attain these goals (Dillard; Dillard et al.). According to Berger and Bell (1988), plans specify the actions needed to achieve a goal. For example, an individual with a goal of attaining a new job should develop a plan for accomplishing this goal, which could include updating a resume, reading classified advertisements, and submitting job applications. Finally, in the last stage of the goal-plan-action sequence, people implement, or at least try to implement, their plans. Returning to our example of the ‘‘job seeker,’’ this individual could carry out his or her plans by actually finding ads and submitting applications. Research in personality psychology also points to the importance of individuals’ goals in shaping their daily life interactions, including where they spend time, who they spend time with, and how they interact with others (Buss, 1987; Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984; Emmons, Diener, & Larsen, 1986; McAdams & Constantian, 1983). According to Buss, individuals selectively seek out and spend time in particular social environments, and with particular people, to satisfy their own needs and goals. For example, introverts should prefer to spend time in quiet settings, whereas those who are high in extraversion should prefer to spend time in larger social situations. In the context of personal relationships, individuals also search out particular partners, whose own characteristics, goals, and needs are likely to influence the fulfillment of their own goals (Miller, 1990; Miller et al., 1985; Miller & Read, 1991; Reis & Shaver,

Intimacy goals and plans

1988). A person who has a goal of controlling an interaction, for example, should be motivated to find a rather passive partner. Finally, both theory and research suggest that individuals’ distinct goals influence the specific strategies they use in their interpersonal interactions, in part because the use of particular strategies should help individuals fulfill their own goals (Buss, 1987). Silbereisen and Noack (1988), for example, observed that adolescents who wish to form relationships with members of the opposite sex intentionally behaved in ways that signaled their desire for contact, such as looking around more often, chatting more, and making more physical contact with those to whom they were talking, more so than those without this goal of forming a relationship. In other words, these teens purposefully behaved in ways that demonstrated a desire to form a romantic friendship. Intimacy goals A particular type of social goal that some individuals choose to pursue is that of intimacy, meaning engaging in self-disclosure, trust, and interdependence with another person (Berscheid, 1983; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Although the pursuit of intimacy is often considered synonymous with the pursuit of romantic relationships, people differ considerably in how focused they are on this goal. As Erikson (1950) describes in his discussion of life stages theory of psychological development, individuals are able to truly focus on intimacy in relationships only after they have formed a secure identity. Individuals who have not resolved the life task of identity formation may therefore enter the dating arena with a focus on exploring autonomy and establishing an identity as opposed to achieving true interdependence with another person (Marcia, 1966; Sanderson & Cantor, 1995, 1997). Similarly, according to the attachment styles model (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson, 1990), individuals differ in their beliefs about the responsiveness of others in their social environment. Individuals with a secure attachment style are comfortable pursuing intimacy in their close relationships, including depending on others and having others depend on them. In contrast, those who

227

have developed a fearful or dismissing attachment style may be reluctant to pursue intimacy in close relationships perhaps because they are unable to trust other people, view others in a negative light, or have a strong preference for self-reliance. To examine individuals’ general orientation toward intimacy goals in romantic relationships, Sanderson and Cantor created a 13-item selfreport scale based on prior literature (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Marcia, 1966). The goal of intimacy involves self-disclosure, mutual dependence, and emotional attachment, and hence we created items that assessed these general concerns within the specific context of romantic relationships (e.g., ‘‘In my dating relationships, I try to share my most intimate thoughts and feelings,’’ and ‘‘In my dating relationships, I try to date those I can count on.’’). This scale meets the standard criteria for determining unidimensionality, namely, high internal coherence, modest mean interitem correlation, and one factor accounting for a majority of the variance (Briggs & Cheek, 1986), and has been used in multiple studies with high school, college, and adult samples (Sanderson & Cantor, 1995, 1997, 2001; Sanderson & Evans, 2001; Sanderson & Karetsky, 2002; Sanderson, Rahm, & Beigbeder, 2005). Although focus on intimacy goals is a continuous measure, we typically refer to people as having a strong versus weak focus on such goals to simplify descriptions. Scores on the intimacy goals scale are associated in predicted ways with scores on related measures as well as with patterns of behavior in daily life. As reported in Sanderson and Cantor (1995), the intimacy goals in dating scale is significantly and positively correlated with identity resolution and secure attachment (i.e., comfort with relying on others and having others rely on them), and it is negatively correlated with anxious attachment (i.e., concern about abandonment and rejection from loved ones). In other words, a stronger focus on the pursuit of intimacy goals in dating is associated with a greater comfort with interdependence and less concern about abandonment by one’s partner. Sanderson and Cantor (1995) found no association between degree of focus on intimacy goals and avoidant attachment (meaning a lack of interest in forming close relationships).

228

Additionally, people with a strong focus on intimacy goals report having longer dating relationships, fewer casual dating relationships, and fewer sexual partners. Most importantly, individuals with a strong focus on the pursuit of intimacy goals in their romantic relationships experience greater satisfaction in both dating (Sanderson & Cantor, 1997; Sanderson & Evans, 2001; Sanderson & Karetsky, 2002) and marital relationships (Sanderson & Cantor, 2001). Individuals with intimacy goals are also more likely to maintain their dating relationships over time (Sanderson & Cantor, 1997). This work therefore demonstrates that individuals do vary in the extent to which they are focused on the pursuit of intimacy goals in their close relationships and that the pursuit of such goals is associated with both related individual difference measures and the experience of romantic relationships. Although prior research has not examined whether single individuals with a strong focus on intimacy goals develop particular plans for initiating dating relationships, intimacy motives are associated with the use of distinct interaction strategies. For example, McAdams, Healy, and Krause (1984) found that people with an intimacy motivation are more likely to take on a listening role in their interactions with friends. Other research reveals that individuals who are intimacy oriented are more likely to engage in conversation and write personal letters than those low in intimacy motivation (McAdams & Constantian, 1983). Although the intimacy goals measure a similar construct to that of intimacy motives, these measures differ in a fundamental way. Specifically, the intimacy motives measure a broad and stable dispositional trait, in which some individuals are more broadly focused on intimacy across all relationships. As McAdams describes, ‘‘the intimacy motive is defined as a recurrent preference or readiness for experiences of warm, close, and communicative interaction with others’’ (McAdams & Bryant, 1987, p. 397). In contrast, the intimacy goals measure the strength of individuals’ focus on the pursuit of such goals within their dating relationships, and it recognizes that the extent to which individuals focus on intimacy is likely to vary over time.


Intimacy goals and plans to initiate dating relationships Given the considerable prior research showing the importance of individuals’ goals in influencing their daily life interactions, we expect that individuals with a strong focus on intimacy goals develop distinct plans for initiating a dating relationship. In particular, we believe that a stronger focus on the pursuit of intimacy in dating relationships is associated with preferences for particular types of partners, contexts for meeting dating partners, and particular strategies for initiating dating relationships. In addition, we believe that individuals with a stronger focus on the pursuit of intimacy goals in dating are better able to carry out such goals and thus will be more likely to enter a dating relationship. Partner preference One important aspect of a plan for initiating a dating relationship is selecting a partner whose own characteristics, goals, and needs are likely to influence the fulfillment of one’s own goals (Buss, 1985; Miller, 1990; Miller et al., 1985; Miller & Read, 1991; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Because engaging in mutual selfdisclosure and interdependence requires a responsive partner, intimacy-focused individuals should prefer partners who have a strong focus on intimacy goals. Those with a strong focus on intimacy goals in their dating relationships should find it easier to fulfill these goals with a partner who shares this focus on communion. Similarly, intimacy-focused individuals should prefer warm and kind partners, who may be more willing to engage in intimate behavior, such as self-disclosure and interdependence (Stewart, Stinnett, & Rosenfeld, 2000). They should also prefer partners who are similar to themselves because similarity in attitudes, beliefs, and interests may help to facilitate bonding, shared experiences, and more intimate interactions within a relationship. Context preference Individuals with a stronger focus on intimacy goals are also expected to pursue dating relationships in distinct contexts (e.g., Diener et al., 1984; Emmons et al., 1986). In particular, we


expect that people who are trying to initiate a dating relationship based on interdependence and communion prefer interacting with potential partners in quiet and intimate settings, such as in a dorm room, that allow for intimate selfdisclosure. On the other hand, those with a strong focus on intimacy goals in dating should try to avoid meeting potential dating partners in settings that may inhibit such communion, such as parties or bars. Although large social situations, such as parties and bars, are often the settings for relationship initiation (especially during late adolescence), such settings are likely to deter individuals from fulfilling intimacy goals for a variety of reasons, including the large number of people present (i.e., a lack of privacy), high level of noise (i.e., difficulty in communicating), and use of alcohol (i.e., difficulty assessing potential partners’ true intrinsic qualities). Strategies for initiating dating Individuals with a strong focus on intimacy goals in their romantic relationships are expected to use strategies for initiating dating relationships that emphasize connection and interdependence. Prior research reveals that individuals with a stronger focus on intimacy goals give high levels of social support to their partners, both engage in and elicit considerable self-disclosure from their partners, and report that their attitudes and behaviors are heavily influenced by their partners (Sanderson & Evans, 2001). They are also more likely to use constructive strategies of conflict resolution, such as relying on others for social support, using open discussion and compromise, and showing concern for partner’s feelings (Sanderson & Karetsky, 2002). We therefore predict that individuals with a strong focus on intimacy goals use strategies for initiating relationships that emphasize self-disclosure, such as sharing personal information and creating a private setting. Likelihood of entering a dating relationship Finally, we expect that individuals with a stronger focus on intimacy goals not only develop plans for initiating dating relationships but also act on these plans in order to fulfill their goals

229

(Berger & Bell, 1988; Cantor & Sanderson, 1998; Cantor et al., 1991; Dillard, 1989; Dillard et al., 1989). For example, a study by McAdams and Constantian (1983) demonstrated that individuals who are high in intimacy and affiliation motives engage in more interpersonal conversations and letter writing than others, presumably as a way of fulfilling these valued motives. Because an ongoing dating relationship should provide considerable opportunities for engaging in intimacy, we expect that individuals with a stronger focus on intimacy goals are more likely to enter a dating relationship over time than those with a less strong focus on such goals. Overview The aim of this research is to examine if individuals who have a stronger focus on the pursuit of intimacy goals in their romantic relationships, but who are currently single, develop distinct plans to fulfill these goals. In Study 1, we recruited college students who were not currently in dating relationships and collected measures of their own intimacy goals, as well as their preferences for dating partners with particular characteristics and strategies for initiating a dating relationship. In Study 2, we again recruited college students who were not currently in dating relationships and collected measures of their own intimacy goals, preferences for dating partners with particular attachment styles, and preferences for meeting potential dating partners in particular contexts. In addition, we collected follow-up data 4 months later to identify which individuals had entered into a dating relationship in that period. Study 1 Methods Participants Ninety-one undergraduates (40 men, 51 women) at a small private, highly selective liberal arts college in the Northeast United States participated in this study (M age ¼ 19.13 years; SD ¼ 1.13). Given our interest in examining the association between participants’ intimacy

230

goals and their plans for initiating dating relationships, a college student sample, in which many participants are single, is appropriate for testing these questions. Of these 91 participants, 53% identified themselves as Caucasians (n ¼ 48), 18% as Asians (n ¼ 16), 16% as African Americans (n ¼ 15), 9% as Hispanics (n ¼ 8), and 4% as other (n ¼ 4). These demographics generally reflect this population, although more of the participants in this study describe themselves as people of color than in the general student population. The majority of these participants (97%) identified themselves as heterosexual (n ¼ 88). Procedure We recruited students to participate in this study from various psychology courses, as well as via campus-wide advertisements, and received either course credit or United States $5. The experimenter told participants only that this study examined individual differences in dating strategies. Participants completed an informed consent form and then a series of measures. Although only people who were not currently involved in a dating relationship were eligible to participate in this study, the majority of our participants had been in a relationship in the past (n ¼ 70, 77%), with a mean relationship length of 10.81 months. Approximately half of our participants reported they had previously been in love with a dating partner (n ¼ 47, 51.60%). Measures Social dating goals scale. Sanderson and Cantor’s (1995) social dating goals scale assessed the strength of individuals’ focus on intimacy goals in their dating relationships. This scale had good internal consistency (a ¼ .81). Participants responded to 13 questions on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ disagree strongly, 5 ¼ agree strongly). These items examine issues of self-disclosure and dependence (e.g., ‘‘In my dating relationships, I try to date those who make my life more comfortable and stable,’’ ‘‘In my dating relationships, I try to share my most intimate thoughts and feelings’’), as well the extent to which the individual focuses on a potential future with a part-


ner (e.g., ‘‘In my dating relationships, I try to date people with whom I might fall in love,’’ ‘‘In my dating relationships, I try to focus on possible future plans with my boyfriend/girlfriend[s]’’). A high score on this scale shows a strong focus on intimacy in relationships. In this sample, participants reported a mean of 3.22 (SD ¼ 0.54). Potential partner social dating goals scale. A revised version of Sanderson and Cantor’s (1995) social dating goals scale determined each participant’s inclination toward choosing a potential dating partner with a focus on intimacy goals in his or her dating relationships (a ¼ .77; e.g., ‘‘I want a dating partner who tries to date those who make his/her life more comfortable and stable,’’ ‘‘I want a dating partner who tries to share his/her most intimate thoughts and feelings’’). Participants responded to 13 questions on a 5-point Likerttype scale (1 ¼ disagree strongly, 5 ¼ agree strongly). In this sample, participants reported a mean of 3.34 (SD ¼ 0.47). Participants always completed the goals scale for themselves prior to completing the one assessing their perception of their partner’s goals, and these scales were separated by multiple pages. Preferred characteristics scale. We adapted the scale used in Sprecher and Regan’s (2002) study to assess individuals’ preferred characteristics in potential dating partners. Participants responded to a 16-item set measured on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ not at all, 9 ¼ extremely), with each item representing a specific characteristic. Following the approach used in previous research, we divided these characteristics into four distinct subscales: physical appeal (physically attractive, sexually experienced, sexually passionate, exciting; M ¼ 6.14, SD ¼ 1.03, a ¼ .63), intrinsic qualities (warm and kind, expressive and open, sense of humor; M ¼ 5.78, SD ¼ 0.69, a ¼ .62), similarity (similar in background, similar attitudes and values, similar social skills, similar interests and leisure activities; M ¼ 6.02, SD ¼ 1.26, a ¼ .61), and social status (money or earning potential, intelligence, high social status, ambitious; M ¼ 5.67, SD ¼ 1.29, a ¼ .67). We conducted a


factor analysis to confirm the coherence of each of the subscales. The item ‘‘complementary personality characteristics’’ did not consistently load onto a single factor and, hence, was eliminated. Relationship initiation strategies scale. We assessed participants’ use of and perceived effectiveness of seven strategies for initiating dating relationships using a scale adapted from one used in previous research (Clark, Shaver, & Abrahams, 1999). The first set of seven items measured how effectively participants saw each of seven strategies for initiating a dating relationship (e.g., ‘‘becoming emotionally involved revealing personal information,’’ ‘‘directly initiating a relationship,’’ ‘‘demonstrating resources, such as gift giving or showing off possessions,’’ ‘‘joking, such as teasing or playfully insulting,’’ ‘‘manipulating a situation, such as by creating a romantic situation or close physical contact,’’ ‘‘acting passively— waiting for the other person to initiate,’’ and ‘‘seeking third party help in initiating the relationship’’). Participants recorded their responses on a 9-point Likert-type measure (1 ¼ very ineffective, 9 ¼ very effective). The second set of seven items measured how frequently participants used each of the seven strategies (e.g., ‘‘I disclose personal information in order to become emotionally involved with that person,’’ ‘‘I directly initiate the relationship by asking the person out,’’ ‘‘I give the potential partner gifts and treat them to meals’’). Again, participants responded to these items using a 9-point Likert-type measure (1 ¼ not frequently at all, 9 ¼ very frequently). Because frequency of use and the perceived effectiveness of the different strategies represent distinct constructs, we kept those as separate measures during the analyses; therefore, a single item assessed the frequency and perceived effectiveness of each strategy. Means and standard deviations for each of these variables are presented in Table 1. Background questionnaire. This questionnaire measured various demographic information. This information included gender, age, race, and sexual orientation.

231

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for strategies of relationship initiation Variable Frequency of usea Becoming emotionally involved Acting passively Directly initiating a relationship Manipulating the situation Joking and teasing Demonstrating resources Third party help Perceived effectivenessb Becoming emotionally involved Acting passively Directly initiating a relationship Manipulating the situation Joking and teasing Demonstrating resources Third party help

M

SD

5.08 5.82 3.45 4.74 5.52 3.12 2.58

2.46 2.46 2.24 2.27 2.34 1.91 2.03

6.23 3.36 5.84 6.10 6.77 3.70 4.63

2.03 1.92 1.96 1.71 1.50 1.87 2.06

Note. N ¼ 91. a Responses were scored on a scale from 1 to 9 (1 ¼ not frequently at all, 9 ¼ very frequently). b Responses were scored on a scale from 1 to 9 (1 ¼ very ineffective, 9 ¼ very effective).

Results Preliminary analyses We performed three preliminary analyses before testing our hypotheses. First, we conducted a power analysis: Assuming a medium effect size (.15) and p , .05, 90 participants should yield statistical power of 91%. We also computed correlations between all measures in the study (see Table 2). Finally, we assessed sex differences in the intimacy goals measure: In line with previous research, the sex difference was not significant, t(88) ¼ 1.44, p ¼ .15.

Substantive analyses A series of regression analyses examined the association between intimacy goals and plans for dating relationship initiation, including both preference for particular traits and characteristics in a dating partner and the use of particular strategies to initiate dating relationships. The first step of the regression model entered intimacy goals and sex, and the second step entered the Intimacy Goals Sex interaction

232


Table 2. Correlations between Study 1 measures Measure

Own intimacy goals

Perceived goals

Intrinsic traits

Status traits

Physical traits

Similar traits

—

.77*** —

.27** .34*** —

.18 .28** .15 —

2.10 2.04 2.01 .43*** —

.48*** .46*** .31** .48*** .22* —

Own intimacy goals Perceived goals Intrinsic traits Status traits Physical traits Similar traits *p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.

to determine if sex moderated the association between intimacy goals and any of the dependent measures.

Hypothesis 1. We ran an analysis to determine if individuals with stronger intimacy goals prefer partners who also have strong intimacy goals, as well as particular characteristics (i.e., intrinsic qualities, similarity, physical appeal, and social status). The results revealed a significant relationship between intimacy goals and the preference for intimacy goals in other people, with intimacy-focused individuals desiring to become involved with intimacy-focused partners (see Table 3). Individuals with a strong focus on intimacy goals also preferred dating partners who have particular intrinsic qualities (e.g., warmth and openness) and are similar to themselves in attitudes and interests. The association between intimacy goals and preference for a physically appealing partner was not sig-

nificant. Although the analysis predicting preference for a partner with social status revealed no significant effect of intimacy goals on such a preference, a significant Intimacy Goals Sex interaction emerged, F change(1, 86) ¼ 4.55, p ¼ .04, R 2 ¼ .65, nR 2 ¼ .05. Following Aiken and West (1991), we calculated separate slopes for the regression of preference for social status on strength of intimacy goals for men and women. This analysis revealed that for women, a stronger focus on intimacy goals was positively associated with preferring a partner with social status, with a slope (b) of 2.06, t(86) ¼ 2.06, p , .05. For men, the degree of focus on intimacy goals was negatively associated with interest in having a partner who is high in social status, b ¼ 2.25, t(86) , 1.

Hypothesis 2. Next, we examined the association between a stronger focus on intimacy goals and the use of particular relationship

Table 3. Beta weights predicting dating partner preferences as a function of intimacy goals Variable Partner with intimacy goals Partner characteristics Warm and open Similar Physical attractiveness Social status

Intimacy goals

Sex

.78***

.09

.28** .46*** 2.13 .19

.05 2.15 2.20 .10

Goals Sex .03 .21 .20 .07 .31*

Note. N ¼ 91. The beta weights for the main effects of intimacy goals and sex are from Step 1 of the regression model (prior to the entry of the interaction term). *p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.


233

initiation strategies. As shown in Table 4, we observed a significant positive association between degree of focus on intimacy goals and tendency to utilize emotional involvement as a means for establishing a dating relationship. Thus, individuals with a stronger focus on intimacy goals, relative to those less focused on intimacy, report that they are more likely to disclose personal information when attempting to initiate relationships. We found no significant associations between the pursuit of intimacy goals and the use of other relationship initiation strategies. A set of linear regressions examined the association between individuals’ pursuit of intimacy goals and their perceived effectiveness of specific relationship initiation strategies. These analyses revealed significant positive associations between intimacy goals and both becoming emotionally involved with potential dating partners and demonstrating resources (see Table 4). These analyses revealed no significant association between intimacy goals and any of the other strategies. Thus, intimacy-focused individuals are more likely than others to perceive becoming emotionally involved and demonstrating resources as effective initiation strategies. Table 4. Beta weights predicting strategies of relationship initiation as a function of intimacy goals Variable Becoming emotionally involved Acting passively Directly initiating a relationship Manipulating the situation Joking and teasing Demonstrating resources Third party help

Frequency Effectiveness 0.31**

0.37***

0.17 20.02

0.07 0.19

0.04

0.05

0.01 0.05

20.05 0.23*

0.03

0.17

Note. N ¼ 91. The beta weights for the main effects of intimacy goals are from Step 1 of the regression model (prior to the entry of the interaction term), and controlled for sex. The Intimacy Goals Sex interaction was not significant in any of the tests. *p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.

Discussion The present study contributes to prior research on intimacy goals by examining how a focus on intimacy goals relates to the selection and manipulation of environments even prior to the initiation of a dating relationship. As predicted, individuals with a stronger focus on intimacy goals in their relationships prefer dating partners with particular characteristics, including those who are warm and open, have similar personality attributes, and share a strong focus on intimacy goals. Our findings also revealed that women, although not men, with intimacy goals show a greater interest in highstatus partners. Although this finding was unexpected, we believe that women with a stronger focus on intimacy goals may be particularly interested in partners who have resources (e.g., money, status, education) that could provide security in a long-term relationship (and, in turn, the achievement of intimacy goals). According to the sexual selection theory, these resources are likely to be more important predictors of relationship longevity for women than for men. The results also provided mixed support for our hypothesis that a stronger focus on intimacy goals would be associated with the frequency of use and perceived effectiveness of particular strategies for initiating dating relationships (Buss, 1987). Specifically, individuals with a stronger focus on intimacy goals are more likely to report using emotional involvement (disclosure of personal information) as a means for establishing dating relationships and perceived emotional involvement as a highly effective strategy. The utilization of emotional self-disclosure at early stages in a dating relationship helps to make both partners more comfortable with disclosure throughout the development and maintenance of the relationship. We found no support for our hypothesis that a stronger focus on intimacy goals would be associated with creating a private setting. Notably, the item assessing ‘‘creating a private setting’’ also included ‘‘seeking closer physical contact,’’ which may change the focus from establishing intimacy to establishing a sexual encounter (and therefore the lack of a correlation with intimacy goals).

234

Although unexpected, evidence that people with stronger intimacy goals perceive demonstrating resources to be an effective strategy for initiating dating relationships may reflect an orientation toward long-term romantic relationships in which such resources might become shared. Study 2 Study 2 replicated and extended the findings from Study 1 in several ways. First, we wanted to replicate our findings on the association between intimacy goals and preferences for a partner with strong intimacy goals. We also wanted to expand these findings by examining whether intimacy-focused individuals prefer securely attached partners, who should be more comfortable with commitment and intimacy. Second, we wanted to examine whether individuals with a strong focus on intimacy goals in dating choose to meet potential dating partners in particular contexts (Buss, 1987; Diener et al., 1984; Emmons et al., 1986; McAdams & Constantian, 1983). In the context of the college setting, we believed that those with a strong focus on intimacy goals would prefer looking for dating partners in settings that provide opportunities for relatively private selfdisclosure and communion, such as in dorm settings and coffee shops, and should avoid settings that could disrupt this type of interaction, such as large parties and bars. Most importantly, we wanted to examine whether individuals with strong intimacy goals ultimately act on these plans and fulfill their goals (Berger & Bell, 1988; Cantor & Sanderson, 1998; Cantor et al., 1991; Dillard, 1989; Dillard et al., 1989). We therefore examined whether the strength of an individual’s focus on intimacy goals was associated with the likelihood of entering a dating relationship. Methods Participants Ninety students who attended the same small liberal arts college in the Northeast United States as in Study 1 participated in this study (38 men, 52 women). Participants reported a mean age of 19.47 years (SD ¼ 1.15). Most


participants (72%, n ¼ 65) identified themselves as Caucasian, 7% (n ¼ 6) as African American, 13% (n ¼ 12) as Asian, 5% (n ¼ 4) as Hispanic, and 3% (n ¼ 3) as belonging to a different race. Once again, these demographics are quite similar to the general characteristics of this student population. The majority of participants (93%, n ¼ 84) described themselves as heterosexual. Although only students who were currently single were eligible to participate in this study, the majority (n ¼ 73, 81%) had previously been involved in a dating relationship, with a mean relationship length of 9.4 months. Approximately half of the participants (n ¼ 49, 54%) reported having been in love with a dating partner. We recruited students from a variety of psychology classes to participate in this study. We also posted an advertisement to which potential participants could respond on a campus Web site. Procedure Each participant received class credit or United States $5 for his or her participation in the study. We asked all participants if they would be willing to be involved in a follow-up study. Ninety-two percent (n ¼ 82) of the participants consented and provided their names, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers. We contacted consenting participants by e-mail 4 months later and simply asked if they were currently in a dating relationship, and if so, for how long. Eighty-eight percent (n ¼ 79) of the total participant pool participated in the follow-up study. We found no differences between those who participated in the follow-up and those who did not in age, intimacy goals, perceived partner’s intimacy goals, or perceived partner’s attachment styles. Measures Social dating goals scale. We again used Sanderson and Cantor’s (1995) social dating goals scale to examine each participant’s orientation toward intimacy in dating relationships. The internal coherence of this measure was high (a ¼ .80), and this scale had a mean of 3.32 (SD ¼ 0.51). Potential partner social dating goals scale. Once again, participants completed a revised


version of the social dating goals scale to assess their preference for dating partners with particular goals (Sanderson & Cantor, 1995). The internal coherence of this measure was high in the present study (a ¼ .75). In this sample, this scale had a mean of 3.42 (SD ¼ 0.43). Potential partner adult attachment questionnaire. This 17-item measure assesses individuals’ preferences in terms of the frequency with which a potential partner displays attachment-related behaviors (Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). Participants completed this scale by responding to a series of questions on a 7-point scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree). This scale measures two distinct dimensions of behavior: avoidance behavior (e.g., ‘‘My ideal partner would not be very comfortable having to depend on others,’’ ‘‘My ideal partner would not like people getting too close to him/her’’; M ¼ 2.47, SD ¼ 0.72; a ¼ .80) and anxious-ambivalence behavior (e.g., ‘‘My ideal dating partner would often worry that I don’t really like him/her,’’ ‘‘My ideal partner would usually want more closeness and intimacy than others do’’; M ¼ 3.06, SD ¼ 0.67; a ¼ .64). Dating activities scale. We created this scale to assess where participants are most likely to either look for a potential partner or be receptive to a potential partner’s advances. Participants responded to the following two questions using a 7-point scale (1 ¼ very unlikely, 7 ¼ very likely): ‘‘How likely are you to look for a dating partner in the following places?’’ and ‘‘How likely would you be interested in a potential partner that approached you in any of these contexts?’’ These questions were each followed by the following contexts: campus party (M ¼ 2.82, SD ¼ 1.56, a ¼ .85), in your dorm (M ¼ 4.69, SD ¼ 1.44, a ¼ .80), in a coffee shop (M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.35, a ¼ .63), at a party or bar (M ¼ 4.63, SD ¼ 1.51, a ¼ .83), in a class (M ¼ 5.28, SD ¼ 1.04, a ¼ .64), and at an extracurricular activity (M ¼ 5.87, SD ¼ 0.10, a ¼ .75). We paired the context examples together to create a composite score indicating the participant’s preference for potential partner interaction in that situation.

235

Results Preliminary analyses Once again, we assessed statistical power, bivariate associations, and sex differences in intimacy goals. Assuming a medium effect size (.15) and p , .05, 90 participants should yield statistical power of 91%. Correlations between all measures are presented in Table 5. As in Study 1, sex difference in the intimacy goals measure were not significant, t(88) ¼ .62, p ¼ .54. Substantive analyses This study examined three distinct hypotheses regarding the association between intimacy goals and plans for dating initiation, including whether individuals with a strong focus on intimacy goals prefer partners with specific traits (strong intimacy goals, secure attachment styles), both choose and avoid meeting potential dating partners in distinct contexts (choose private settings, avoid parties and bars), and are more likely to enter a dating relationship later on. As in Study 1, we conducted regression analyses in which the first step of the model entered intimacy goals and sex, and the second step entered the Intimacy Goals Sex interaction to test whether sex moderated the effects of intimacy goals on any of the dependent measures. Hypothesis 1. We conducted a series of analyses to examine whether individuals with a stronger focus on intimacy goals in dating preferred partners who share their focus on intimacy goals and who have secure working models of attachment. First, and in line with the findings from Study 1, an individual’s focus on intimacy goals was positively associated with preferring partners who shared such a focus (see Table 6). In addition, results confirmed that the strength of intimacy goals was negatively associated with preferring partners who are low in avoidance behavior. The analysis examining the link between intimacy goals and preference for an anxious-ambivalent dating partner revealed no significant main effect of intimacy but a significant Intimacy Goals Sex interaction, F change(1, 86) ¼ 6.56, p ¼ .01, R 2 ¼.11, nR 2 ¼ .06. Again, following Aiken

—

Note. N ¼ 91. *p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.

Own intimacy goals Perceived goals Perceived partner ambivalence Perceived partner avoidance On-campus parties Dorm settings Coffee shops Off-campus parties or bars Classes Extracurricular events

Measure

Own goals

.81*** —

Perceived partner goals .05 .15 —

Perceived partner ambivalence

Table 5. Correlations between Study 2 measures

.03 .04 .10 2.17 .22* —

2.20 2.23* .10 2.08 —

2.39*** 2.34** 2.06 —

Dorm settings

On-campus parties

Perceived partner avoidance

.15 .01 —

2.11

.02 .01 .05

Coffee shops

.53*** .10 .22* —

2.13

2.07 2.14 .07

Off-campus parties or bars

.20 .25 .26* .07 .60*** —

—

.06

2.08 .01 2.02

Extracurricular events

.27** .21* .26* .08

2.03

2.13 2.08 2.01

Classes

236 C. A. Sanderson et al.


237

Table 6. Beta weights predicting dating partner and context preferences as a function of intimacy goals Variable Partner with intimacy goals Attachment Avoidance Anxious-ambivalent Dating contexts On-campus parties Dorm settings Coffee shops Off-campus parties or bars Classes Extracurricular events

Intimacy goals .81***

Sex 2.001

Goals Sex .16

2.39** .03

2.09 2.33***

2.27 1.64**

2.22* .022.19 .02 2.08 2.13 2.08

2.33*** 2.02 2.05 2.18 .07 2.09

.26 .03 .25 .07 .08

Note. N ¼ 91. The beta weights for the main effects of intimacy goals and sex are from Step 1 of the regression model (prior to the entry of the interaction term). *p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.

and West (1991), we calculated separate slopes for the regression of preference for an anxiousambivalent partner on strength of intimacy goals for men and women. This analysis revealed that for men, having a stronger focus on intimacy goals was negatively associated with less interest in dating partners who are anxious-ambivalent, b ¼ 2.15, t(86) , 1, whereas for women, having a stronger focus on intimacy goals was positively associated with having a stronger interest in anxiousambivalent partners, b ¼ .51, t(86) , 1. Although neither of these slopes differed significantly from zero, the presence of a significant Intimacy Goals Sex interaction demonstrates that the association between intimacy goals and preference for an anxiousambivalent partner is different for men relative to women. Hypothesis 2. We performed a set of linear regressions to determine whether individuals with a stronger focus on intimacy goals prefer to meet potential dating partners in distinct places. In line with our predictions, the strength of intimacy goals was negatively associated with interest in meeting dating partners at on-campus parties (see Table 6). In contrast, we found no support for our hypothesis that strength of intimacy goals was positively asso-

ciated with preferring to meet dating partners in dorm settings and coffee shops. Similarly, we found no support for our hypothesis that individuals with a strong focus on intimacy goals would avoid meeting potential dating partners in offcampus parties and bars. The analyses predicting interest in meeting dating partners in classes and extracurricular events also revealed no significant effects of intimacy goals. Hypothesis 3. We conducted a logistic regression to examine whether intimacy focused participants were more likely to be in a dating relationship at the time of the followup study 4 months after completing the original questionnaire. This analysis included the 79 participants who completed the follow-up study (88% of the sample). Once again, the first step of the regression entered intimacy goals and sex, and the second step entered the Intimacy Goals Sex interaction. The results indicated no significant main effect of intimacy goals on the likelihood of future dating, b ¼ .77, SE ¼ .53, p ¼ .15, but we observed a significant Intimacy Goals Sex interaction, b ¼ 22.61, SE ¼ 1.29, p ¼ .04, Nagelkerk R 2 ¼ .10. We computed the exponent of the Intimacy Goals Sex interaction and interpreted it as an odds ratio (OR) ¼ .07, and we calculated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the OR

238

(.006–.910). For ease in interpreting the nature of this interaction, we estimated the OR relating strength of intimacy goals and dating status at the follow-up separately for men and women. The analysis for men revealed an OR of 2.15, 95% CI of .76–6.08, indicating that strength of focus on intimacy goals was associated with a greater likelihood of entering a dating relationship. In contrast, the analysis for women revealed an OR of .56, 95% CI of .26–1.22, indicating no significant association between strength of intimacy goal focus and likelihood of entering a dating relationship. Discussion Results from Study 2 provide mixed support for all three hypotheses. First, and as predicted, a stronger focus on intimacy goals was associated with a preference for partners who share this focus (replicating findings from Study 1), as well as those who have secure attachment styles (extending findings from Study 1). Although the association between strength of intimacy goal focus and interest in dating anxious-ambivalent partners differed for men relative to women, this finding may reflect women’s greater overall comfort (or familiarity) with having a dating partner who is reluctant to engage in high levels of closeness and intimacy, regardless of their relative focus on intimacy goals. Although focus on intimacy goals was not associated with preferences for meeting dating partners in various settings, individuals with a greater focus on intimacy goals were significantly less likely and less interested in meeting a dating partner at an on-campus party presumably because these settings are not conducive to intimate interactions. The results also provided partial support for our hypothesis that intimacy-focused individuals are more likely to be in a dating relationship at the time of the follow-up study. Although results revealed no main effect of intimacy goals on predicting future dating at the time of the follow-up, intimacy goals interacted with gender to predict presence or absence of a relationship at the follow-up. In particular, intimacy goals were associated with a greater likelihood of entering a dating relationship


among men. In contrast, strength of intimacy goal focus was not associated with the likelihood of entering a dating relationship for women. Although this finding was unexpected, we believe there are several potential explanations for this effect. One possibility is that this finding may reflect men’s general tendency to be more active in initiating dating relationships (Clark et al., 1999). In other words, because men are more likely to initiate a dating relationship, they may have more direct control over their involvement in a relationship, and hence men with a strong focus on intimacy goals may be more effective than women with such goals at successfully entering a relationship. It is also possible that men, who tend to initiate relationships, may be intimidated by intimacy-focused women, who may make their focus on self-disclosure, interdependence, and exclusivity known in various ways. Because men tend to initiate interactions, their fear of rejection may become more salient when pursuing a partner with strong intimacy goals because these women are motivated to be more selective of their mates. Additionally, men may therefore feel that selecting a partner with lowintimacy goals allows them to create their desirable level of intimacy through manipulation and evocation tactics, whereas selecting intimacy-focused women poses a greater risk of rejection and perhaps creates a fear that the women will be too demanding. Alternatively, or perhaps additionally, women with intimacy goals are highly motivated to find an intimacy-focused partner, and thus, may be rejecting of low-intimacy suitors. Conversely, women with a weak focus on intimacy goals may be less ‘‘choosey’’ or more aggressive in their pursuit. These two factors may in effect cross each other out and thus eliminate any significant effect of intimacy goal focus on likelihood of entering a dating relationship. In line with this view, research indicates that both men and women are more demanding in the qualities they want in a longterm potential partner as opposed to a shortterm partner (Knox, Zusman, & Nieves, 1997; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990). Although these explanations are speculative, they are in line with the general predictions


made by sexual strategies theory, that is, that men are more likely than women to desire a larger number of partners and to search for ways to minimize commitment and investment in a relationship (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Kenrick & Trost, 1997). General Discussion This study examined the association between a focus on a particular interpersonal goal, that is, intimacy goals, and the distinct plans individuals develop and utilize for accomplishing this goal and thus extends prior research on the association between intimacy goals in dating relationships and satisfaction in several ways. First, findings from both studies reveal that a stronger focus on intimacy goals in dating was associated with distinct preference for dating partners, including those who are warm and open, similar in interests and attitudes, and have strong intimacy goals, as well as secure working models of attachment. Second, our findings in Study 1 indicate that a stronger focus on intimacy goals is associated with a greater reliance on the use of emotional involvement as a strategy for initiating relationships. Third, our findings in Study 2 indicate that those with intimacy goals are less interested in meeting potential dating partners in the context of campus parties. Finally, our findings from the follow-up in Study 2 suggest that the impact of intimacy goals on the initiation of dating relationships differs as a function of sex: Whereas the presence of intimacy goals is associated with an increased likelihood of entering a dating relationship later on for men, as we predicted, the presence of such goals is not associated with a likelihood of entering a dating relationship later on for women, contrary to our predictions. By including only single individuals, these findings make an important contribution to prior work showing an association between intimacy goals and patterns of interaction and satisfaction in dating relationships. Because prior work has assessed individuals’ beliefs and behaviors once they were already in these relationships (e.g., Sanderson & Cantor, 1997, 2001; Sanderson & Evans, 2001), we are unable to determine whether individuals’ goals

239

led to such experiences (e.g., greater satisfaction) or, alternatively, whether experiences in such relationships led to the development of intimacy goals. This research therefore provides support for our hypothesis that single individuals with a strong focus on intimacy goals do develop distinct plans for fulfilling this goal. Moreover, these data provide some support for our prediction that the presence of such plans leads to action: Men with a strong focus on intimacy goals are the most likely to have entered a dating relationship 4 months later. Implications, limitations, and future directions This research has implications for theory and research in both personality psychology and the communication discipline. First, although the present research examines the association between degree of focus on intimacy goals and plans for initiating dating relationships in late adolescence, future research should examine the implications of changes in focus on intimacy goals that are likely to occur across the life span. The middle to late adolescence time period is one with a focus on the dual tasks of identity formation and intimacy (e.g., Erikson, 1950) and thus our participants may show a generally stronger focus on the pursuit of intimacy than those in other life periods. Moreover, this age period is a time in which the process of partner selection is particularly salient and active. For example, the typical portrayal of adolescence is as a time of selfexploration and identity formation (Erikson), and correspondingly, teenagers are encouraged to both approach the normative task of social dating with a focus on self-reliance and with the use-specific strategies of goal pursuit (e.g., dating a series of casual partners, attending large group social events). On the other hand, the pursuit of romantic relationships with such self-focused goals during adulthood is likely to be seen more negatively (e.g., as a ‘‘midlife crisis’’) and hence be associated with negative outcomes (e.g., social isolation). Second, this research focused largely on the first two steps of the goal-plan-action model, meaning that our findings provide more information about individuals’ self-reported goals

240

and plans for pursuing these goals than they do about their implementation. Conducting a study in which participants actually interacted with a potential dating partner, for example, would help researchers understand the particular strategies individuals use in such interactions and whether such strategies are in fact in line with the self-report data gathered in the present study. A research study that focused more specifically on the action step would also minimize the problems associated with relying on self-report. For example, individuals with a strong focus on intimacy goals may have reported a stronger preference for similar and open partners than they actually have simply because they see such traits as more valued by the experimenter. Although we did not tell the participants the specific goals of this research, and did not even place their names on their questions, future research that includes non– self-report measures would nonetheless clarify the nature of our findings and provide more precise information about the impact of degree of focus on intimacy goals on the implementation of people’s plans. Third, according to the goal-plan-action model (Dillard, 1989; Dillard et al., 1989), both goals and plans may be modified based, in part, on the outcomes that individuals experience. In turn, the associations found in this research are clearly open to multiple alternative explanations. One possibility is that a third variable leads to both intimacy goals and the use of particular strategies of dating. Individuals who are extraverted, or have secure working models of attachments, might focus on intimacy goals in dating relationships, prefer particular types of dating partners, and use particular strategies for initiating dating relationships. Similarly, our findings that individuals with a greater focus on intimacy goals are significantly less likely and less interested in looking for and meeting a dating partner at an on-campus party may indicate that intimacy goals are confounded with another individual difference variable (e.g., shyness, introversion) that accounts for this association. It is also quite likely that individuals’ goals interact in distinct ways with other measures to influence both the plans they form and their likelihood of acting on such plans. For exam-


ple, individuals’ attachment styles could moderate the impact of strength of intimacy goals on plans for relationship initiation and satisfaction within dating relationships. To examine this question, we reran all analyses in Study 2 including both attachment dimensions (secureavoidant, anxious) in Step 1 as well as the intimacy goals by attachment dimension interaction in Step 3. In each of these analyses, the main effect of intimacy goals remained significant, and the attachment dimension did not emerge as significant, and the Intimacy Goals Anxious Attachment interaction emerged only in a single case (interest in looking for a partner in a bar or party setting). Future research, however, should examine whether individuals’ attachment models moderate the impact of intimacy goals on patterns of interaction and predictors of satisfaction in on-going romantic relationships. Yet another possibility is that the direction of the effects we hypothesize, namely, that a stronger pursuit of intimacy goals leads individuals to use particular approaches for initiating dating relationships, is in reality the reverse. For example, perhaps spending time with warm and open potential dating partners or creating emotional involvement with potential dating partners leads to the development of intimacy goals over time. Given our reliance primarily on cross-sectional data, we cannot prove the direction of the effects in this data, but research in both personality and close relationships suggests that the particular directional pathway we hypothesize is most likely: Recent longitudinal work on the effects of personality on interpersonal relationships suggests that personality affects relationships, whereas relationships have little impact on personality (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998). Further research tracking individuals over time is clearly needed to answer these questions about the distinct association between the pursuit of intimacy goals, the plans developed to accomplish such goals, and the outcome of such goals over time. Another limitation of the present research is that this work suggests that individuals with intimacy goals prefer dating partners who have specific traits but does not test whether such a preference leads them to experience greater satisfaction in the ensuing relationships.


Although prior research has demonstrated that individuals with a strong focus on the pursuit of intimacy goals do experience more satisfying relationships (e.g., Sanderson & Cantor, 1997, 2001; Sanderson & Evans, 2001; Sanderson & Karetsky, 2002), it is not clear whether this association occurs because those with intimacy goals choose specific dating partners (e.g., those who best facilitate their pursuit of intimacy), or because those with intimacy goals interact in their relationships in distinct ways. Relationships, after all, are a dyadic process in which the needs, goals, and plans of each partner are likely to change and evolve over time. For example, Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996) have found that individuals’ perceptions of their partners may actually become selffulfilling prophecies (e.g., an individual actually creates the partner he or she envisions by modifying the partner’s self-concept). A more extensive longitudinal study in which single intimacy-focused individuals are surveyed on their intimacy focus and partner preferences, and then later surveyed to examine if their current partner and type of relationship fits their previous preferences is clearly needed to examine this possibility. Finally, the research described in this paper on the link between intimacy goals and plans for initiating dating relationships is all based in primarily White, middle-to-upper-class convenience samples in the United States and therefore these findings may or may not generalize to the population from which they are drawn nor may they apply to other cultures. For example, the participants who chose to participate in our study may differ in some ways (such as attachment style, interest in forming a dating relationship, comfort with pursuing intimacy) than those who chose not to participate. In addition, cultures vary in the emphasis they place on interdependence versus independence as an overarching goal (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994), and even within a given population, different subcultures may vary in the emphasis they place on these two goals (Veroff, 1983). For example, African American college students in the United States show a greater focus on collectivism and interdependence than Caucasian students (Baldwin & Hopkins, 1990). Although we have not

241

tested our hypotheses regarding the link between intimacy goals and plans for initiating dating relationships in non-Western samples, prior research indicates that people from more interdependent subcultures within the United States and who themselves have a strong focus on interdependence are better able to regulate their behavior in their dating relationships in a functional way (Cantor & Sanderson, 1998). Similarly, the impact of intimacy goals on plans for initiating dating relationships may be particularly strong in cultures and subcultures that place a strong emphasis on communion and interdependence. Future research should clearly examine this important question. In sum, this research makes important theoretical contributions to prior work in close relationships and, in particular, the impact of individual differences on the development of plans for initiating such relationships. Our findings suggest that individuals with a stronger focus on intimacy goals in their dating relationships develop distinct plans for initiating such relationships, including preferences for particular characteristics in dating partners (e.g., those who are similarly focused, have similar interests and traits, and have a secure attachment style), use of particular strategies for initiating dating relationships (e.g., they are more likely to use emotional involvement), and preferences for certain contexts when looking for a dating partner (e.g., they are less interested in looking for dating partners in party settings). These findings have practical implications in that they indicate that different people approach and plan their romantic lives in distinct ways—that is, in ways that fit with their overarching needs and goals. Most importantly, our findings indicate that gender moderates the association between intimacy goals and ability to successfully act on these plans: Specifically, men with a stronger focus on intimacy goals are more likely to enter a relationship than men with a weaker focus (in line with our predictions), whereas a stronger focus on intimacy goals was not associated with likelihood of entering a dating relationship for women (contrary to our predictions). These results therefore contribute to prior work by providing important insight into the role of individual differences in goal focus in influencing

242

not only the plans individuals make for accomplishing their goals but also their ability to successfully act on these plans. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531–1544. Baldwin, J. A., & Hopkins, R. (1990). African-American and European-American cultural differences as assessed by the worldviews paradigm: An empirical analysis. Western Journal of Black Studies, 14, 38–52. Berger, C. (1997). Planning strategic interaction: Attaining goals through communicative action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Berger, C. R., & Bell, R. A. (1988). Plans and the initiation of social relationships. Human Communication Research, 15, 217–235. Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110–168). San Francisco: Freeman. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1988). Individual difference variables in close relationships: A contextual model of marriage as an integrative framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 713– 721. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1991). A contextual model for advancing the study of marital interaction. In G. Fletcher & F. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 127–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106–148. Buss, D. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47–51. Buss, D. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1214–1221. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. Cantor, N., Norem, J. K., Langston, C. A., Zirkel, S., Fleeson, W., & Cook-Flannagan, C. (1991). Life tasks and daily experience. Journal of Personality, 59, 425–451. Cantor, N., & Sanderson, C. A. (1998). The functional regulation of adolescent dating relationships and sexual behavior: An interaction of goals, strategies, and situations. In J. Heckhausen & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life span (pp. 185–215). New York: Cambridge University Press. Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 707–720. Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person x situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 580–592.

C. A. Sanderson et al. Dillard, J. P. (1989). Types of influence goals in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 293–308. Dillard, J. P., Segrin, C., & Harden, J. M. (1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influence messages. Communication Monographs, 56, 19–39. Emmons, R. A., Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1986). Choice and avoidance of everyday situations and affect congruence: Two models of reciprocal interactionism. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 815–826. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116. Kenrick, D. T., & Trost, M. R. (1997). Evolutionary approaches to relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (2nd ed., pp. 151–177). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Knox, D., Zusman, M., & Nieves, W. (1997). College students’ homogamous preferences for a date and mate. College Student Journal, 31, 445–448. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116. McAdams, D. P. (1988). Personal needs and personal relationships. In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 7–22). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. McAdams, D. P., & Bryant, F. B. (1987). Intimacy motivation and subjective mental health in a nationwide sample. Journal of Personality, 55, 395–413. McAdams, D. P., & Constantian, C. A. (1983). Intimacy and affiliation motives in daily living: An experience sampling analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 851–861. McAdams, D. P., Healy, S., & Krause, S. (1984). Social motives and patterns of friendship. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 47, 828–838. Miller, L. C. (1990). Intimacy and liking: Mutual influence and the role of unique relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 828–838. Miller, L. C., Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1985). Situations and goals as fundamental constructs in interpersonal communication research. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 162–198). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Miller, L. C., & Read, S. J. (1991). On the coherence of mental models of persons and relationships: A knowledge structure approach. In G. O. Fletcher & F. D. Finchman (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 69–99). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Intimacy goals and plans Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–1180. Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sanderson, C. A. (2004). The link between the pursuit of intimacy goals and satisfaction in close relationships: An examination of the underlying processes. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 247–266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sanderson, C. A., & Cantor, N. (1995). Social dating goals in late adolescence: Implications for safer sexual activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1121–1134. Sanderson, C. A., & Cantor, N. (1997). Creating satisfaction in steady dating relationships: The role of personal goals and situational affordances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1424–1433. Sanderson, C. A., & Cantor, N. (2001). The association of intimacy goals and marital satisfaction: A test of four mediational hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1567–1577. Sanderson, C. A., & Evans, S. M. (2001). Seeing one’s partner through intimacy-colored glasses: The role of intimacy goals in predicting relationship satisfaction in college women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 461–471. Sanderson, C. A., & Karetsky, K. H. (2002). Intimacy goals and strategies of conflict resolution in dating

243 relationships: A mediational analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 317–337. Sanderson, C. A., Rahm, K. B., & Beigbeder, S. A. (2005). The link between the pursuit of intimacy goals and satisfaction in close same-sex friendships: An examination of the underlying processes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 75–98. Silbereisen, R. K., & Noack, P. (1988). On the constructive role of problem behavior in adolescence. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.), Person and context: Developmental processes (pp. 152–180). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Simpson, J. A. (1990). The influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971–980. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899–914. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591. Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463–481. Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (2000). Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 843–853. Veroff, J. (1983). Contextual determinants of personality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 331–344.