Gender
Are First-Date Gender Roles Outdated?
How to navigate evolving relationship rules and enduring expectations.
Posted July 31, 2022 Reviewed by Jessica Schrader
Key points
- First-date "scripts" prescribe actions, events, and behavior expected on a first date.
- Traditional gender first-date stereotypes assign men behavior that is active and dominant, and women behavior that is reactive.
- Modern daters tend to embrace more egalitarian ideals.
Traditionally, when a man asked a woman on a date, the invitation came with expectations. The man was expected to pick the location, pick up his date, and pick up the tab. Have things really changed?
First Date Performance According to Script
Jessica J. Cameron and Emma Curry (2020) examined dating expectations in a modern environment.[i] Looking at first-date scripts—which they define as “socially constructed expectations or norms for the behaviors that should be enacted in certain contexts"—they note that because scripts inform social interaction by providing clear guidelines, first-date scripts prescribe actions, events, and behavior expected on a first date.
Cameron and Curry describe the gendered nature of first-date script behavior. They note that first-date scripts incorporate traditional gender stereotypes assigning men behavior that is active and dominant, such as inviting a woman on a date, and assigning women reactive behaviors, such as waiting to be invited. They note that this gender distinction leaves a woman with less power, in a submissive role of waiting to react to a man’s decisions and actions.
Cameron and Curry explain that because men have the lead-actor role within first-date scripts, this relational initiation role may transfer to subsequent behavior, including taking steps towards commitment, culminating with a formal marriage proposal. In this fashion, they note that first-date scripts provide the foundation for expected observance of traditional gender roles within romantic relationships.
What happens if men or women fail to live up to the script? Cameron and Curry note that just as behaving in conformity with traditional gender scripts makes a positive impression, violating gender norms results in a negative impression. They note that this trend covers relationship initiation in the sense that women who ask men out on dates are viewed more negatively and as less attractive. And despite claiming to view women who ask them out on dates positively, research shows that men are less likely to accept and continue relationships with such women. But things may be changing.
The Evolution of Dating Expectations
Recognizing that over 25 years of research into first-date scripts reveals a consistent reflection of traditional gender roles, Cameron and Curry collected hypothetical first-date scripts in 2015 and compared the results to data from a study conducted 15 years earlier by Laner and Ventrone (2000). They found that participants were more likely to endorse egalitarian first date scripts if they were women (in their adult sample only), on a date between friends, and if they had attitudes that were less sexist. Comparing their findings to the 2000 research, they found significant stability in gender stereotypes, but also a movement toward embracing more egalitarian ideals. Regarding behavior, less of the 2015 younger sample endorsed a gender-typed first-date script; they believed that both men and women could engage in a wider variety of behaviors, especially those traditionally assigned to men. Many were less inclined to believe men should be solely responsible for asking a woman out, making the plans, and initiating affection.
As many happy couples know, healthy relationship formation doesn’t begin with acting, but with authenticity. Over time, qualities such as trust, respect, and compatibility no doubt outshine outdated scripts and stereotypes.
References
[i] Cameron, Jessica J., and Emma Curry. 2020. “Gender Roles and Date Context in Hypothetical Scripts for a Woman and a Man on a First Date in the Twenty-First Century.” Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 82 (5–6): 345–62. doi:10.1007/s11199-019-01056-6.