Reports

When the grass on the other side of the fence doesn't matter: Reciprocal romantic
interest neutralizes attentional bias towards attractive alternatives
Nicolas Koranyi , Klaus Rothermund
Institut fr Psychologie, Lehrstuhl fr Allgemeine Psychologie II, Friedrich-Schiller-Universitt Jena, Germany
a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 February 2011
Revised 9 June 2011
Available online 24 June 2011
Keywords:
Implicit self-regulation
Attractiveness bias
Relationship initiation
Dating
Attention is automatically captured by pictures of physically attractive faces. Although helpful for mate
detection, a chronic attentional bias towards attractive opposite-sex faces interferes with relationship
initiation because it detracts from the current choice. Therefore, we hypothesized that an orienting of
attention to attractive opposite-sex faces is inhibited as soon as a potential mating partner reciprocates one's
romantic feelings. Results of two experiments supported this idea: In a rst study, imagining that an attractive
person shows signs of reciprocal romantic interest eliminated automatic attentional capture by attractive
opposite-sex faces. Similar results were obtained in a second study that analyzed intra-individual change in
attentional biases during a longitudinal dating study. Results provide evidence for the role of automatic
regulatory processes in relationship initiation and can be incorporated into more general models of (implicit)
self-regulation.
2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
By now there is substantial evidence suggesting an attentional bias
towards attractive faces. For instance, Maner et al. (2003) found in an
eye-tracking study that xationtime for attractivefaces exceeds xation
time for average-looking faces. Similarly, viewing time for beautiful
faces seems tobe generally increased(Aharonet al., 2001; see alsoKranz
& Ishai, 2006). Other studies have shown that attractiveness is assessed
rather rapidly, namely, within the rst 20 ms of stimulus presentation
(Olson & Marshuetz, 2005). Interestingly, recent research suggests that
selective processing of attractive faces reects anautomatic process that
is hard to suppress: In a study conducted by Sui and Liu (2009)
participants had to categorize a cued target which was presented either
on the left or the right side of a computer screen. Attractive or
unattractive faces were displayed as irrelevant distractors at the
opposite location of the target. Results revealed that attractive faces
interfered more strongly with the classication task suggesting an
automatic attentional bias towards attractive faces (Sui & Liu, 2009).
Interpretations of these ndings typically refer to the crucial role of
attractiveness in phylogenetic development (cf. Maner et al., 2003;
Sui & Liu, 2009). Specically, since attractiveness indicates a variety of
desirable characteristics, like physical health, youth, genetic quality or
level of fertility, an automatic attentional bias for attractive faces
might be adaptive because it allows rapid detection of appropriate
mating partners.
Although helpful for mate detection, we believe that a general and
chronic attentional bias for attractive mating partners will interfere
with the successful pursuit of romantic goals. Normally, people are
motivated not only to detect potential mating partners but also in
initiating serious romantic relationships (Emmons, 1999). This,
however, comprises much more than spotting attractive others
(Bredow et al., 2008). First, someone has to be found who indicates
signs of reciprocated romantic interest, and in a second step concrete
approach behavior has to be initiated (e.g., engaging in a conversation
or asking for a date) in order to explore the reciprocator's (and one's
own) commitment level (Knobloch, Miller, Sprecher, Wenzel, &
Harvey, 2008) and to foster mutual attraction (Curtis & Miller, 1986;
Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977). It seems likely that being drawn
towards attractive alternatives during the stage of relationship
initiation detracts one from the current potential partner and thus
could threaten the further development of this encounter. For
instance, successful courting requires that one's full attention is
devoted to the person of interest (Berscheid, Graziano, Monson, &
Dermer, 1976; Davis, 1973). Being distracted by other attractive
opposite-sex alternatives therefore reduces the likelihood that mutual
attraction further develops. In addition, searching for attractive
alternatives could reduce the perceived attractiveness of the person
who has shown reciprocal interest by increasing the accessibility of
more attractive persons that serve as a comparison standard for
upward comparisons (a negative inuence of attention to attractive
alternatives on relationship development was shown by Miller, 1997).
Maintaining a general bias towards attractive opposite-sex faces
throughout the whole process of relationship initiation would imply
that an individual would probably never nd Mr. or Mrs. Right
because there are always more handsome and attractive alternatives
on the other side of the fence. Thus, we believe that as soon as a highly
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 186191
Corresponding author at: Friedrich-Schiller-Universitt Jena, Institut fr Psychologie,
Am Steiger 3, Haus 1, D-07743 Jena, Germany.
E-mail address: nicolas.koranyi@uni-jena.de (N. Koranyi).
0022-1031/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.012
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ j esp
promising option has been identied on the basis of reciprocal
romantic interest, an attentional re-orientation takes place that
shields the auspicious yet insecure mating partner against attractive
alternatives. Specically, we hypothesize that reciprocal romantic
interest eliminates the automatic attentional bias towards attractive
opposite-sex faces.
Actually, selective inattention to distraction-related stimuli has been
proposedtoplaya key role inself-regulationinmore general theories on
implicit action regulation like goal-shielding theory (Shah, Friedman, &
Kruglanski, 2002) or counteractive control theory (Fishbach, Zhang, &
Trope, 2010). Research on goal-shielding showed that subliminal
priming of goal-related cues reduces the cognitive accessibility of cues
related to competing goals (Shah et al., 2002). In a similar vein, in their
research on counteractive self-control, Fishbach et al. (2010) observed
that the activation of a focal goal leads to more negative implicit
evaluations of distractive temptations. Relating these ndings to the
present research, one might argue that reciprocal liking activates a
reciprocator-approach goal which decreases cognitive sensitivity
towards and implicit evaluations of cues related to the distracting goal
of mate detection (in this case attractive alternative mating partners).
Recent ndings from social and cognitive neuroscience are also in
line with the idea that reciprocal liking causes inattention to attractive
alternatives. Specically, it has been found that it is not the valence of a
given stimulus per se but rather its current motivational and behavioral
relevance that determines automatic spatial orienting, as reected in
indicators of attentional capture and modulations of EEG recordings
(Brosch, Sander, Pourtois, & Scherer, 2008; Brosch, Sander, & Scherer,
2007; Ferguson & Bargh, 2004; Rothermund, 2003; Schupp et al., 2004,
2007; Wentura, Rothermund, &Bak, 2000). Giventhat attractive mating
partners are highly relevant for individuals searching for anappropriate
romantic partner but become less relevant for those whose romantic
interest in a specic person is already reciprocated, the relevance
account of automatic spatial orienting predicts attention allocation to
attractive mating partners in the former but not (or at least less) in the
latter.
More direct evidence for functional adjustments of automatic
attention orienting during the pursuit of romantic goals comes from
studies that examined inuences of relationship status on automatic
attention orienting to attractive opposite-sex faces (Maner, Gailliot, &
Miller, 2009; see also Maner, Rouby, & Gonzaga, 2008). In these
studies, participants currently involved in a romantic relationship and
singles were primed with mating relevant or neutral words.
Automatic attention orienting to attractive opposite-sex faces was
assessed with a visual cueing task. Results revealed that whereas
mating primes increased attention orienting to physically attractive
opposite-sex faces in single participants, no such effect was found for
committed participants. Apparently, committed participants who
pursue the goal of maintaining their relationship are immune against
the effects of mating primes suggesting that automatic attention
orienting can indeed be regulated in concordance with current
relationship goals. Similarly, Hofmann, Friese, and Gschwendner
(2009) showed that erotic pictures elicited lower automatic approach
tendencies among men who were currently engaged in a romantic
relationship than in single men (see also Karremans & Verwijmeren,
2008).
These studies provide rst evidence for a relationship shielding
mechanism via inattention to attractive alternatives. However it was
not tested whether such shielding processes already play a role in
initial phases of relationship formation when a stable and secure
relationship has yet to be developed and only rst signs of reciprocal
interest are present. As argued above, we believe that especially
during this initial phase of relationship formation, inattention to
attractive others poses a crucial demand for self-regulation. Avoiding
information regarding alternatives sets the stage for an undisturbed
exploration of one's own as well as the partner's commitment level,
and allows for further development of mutual attraction. In addition,
it might also help to maintain and increase the positive valence of the
reciprocator by avoiding unfavorable comparisons between the
admirer and attractive others (Miller, 1997).
We conducted two experiments in order to test directly whether
mutual romantic interest leads to a re-orientation in automatic
attentional biases. Specically, we hypothesized that as soon as
reciprocal romantic interest is detected in a potential mating partner,
attentional biases towards attractive opposite-sex faces should
become neutralized. In Experiment 1, we used a mindset priming to
manipulate reciprocal romantic interest: Half of the participants (all
heterosexual and uncommitted) were instructed to imagine that
someone they nd attractive indicates signs of reciprocal romantic
interest. Contrarily, participants in the control group had to imagine
someone they nd attractive without being instructed to focus on
signs of reciprocal interest (simple liking condition). An automatic
attentional bias towards attractive opposite-sex partners was
assessed with an adapted version of the visual cueing paradigm
used by Maner et al. (2009). The strength of attentional biases
towards attractive alternative mating partners was computed as the
difference in automatic attentional capture to attractive compared to
average-looking opposite-sex faces (Sui & Liu, 2009). Experiment 2
tested our hypothesis in a more natural setting: In a dating context,
information regarding reciprocal romantic interest was manipulated
through feedback on mutual interest in a date between two
participants of the study. To assess processes of attentional re-
orientation, we measured automatic attentional biases towards
attractive opposite-sex faces prior to and after the feedback on
reciprocal interest.
Experiment 1: Imagining reciprocal liking
Method
Participants and design
Eighteen female and 12 male students of the University of Jena
with an average age of M=22.2 years (SD=4.8) agreed to participate
in our study for a payment of 1 (approximately $1.25) and a
chocolate bar. All participants were heterosexual and not involved in a
romantic relationship at the time of the study.
The study used a 2(Mindset Condition: reciprocal interest vs.
simple liking)2 (Opposite-Sex Face Attractiveness: average-looking
vs. attractive) design with repeated measures on the attractiveness
factor.
Procedure and materials
On arrival, participants were seated individually at separate places
and were asked to answer some demographic questions. Afterwards,
participants were randomly assigned to one of two priming
conditions: In the reciprocal interest condition participants read the
following instruction:
Please think of a person you would like to be closer to and with
whom you could imagine having a romantic relationship. This
person might come from your closer environment. It is, however,
also possible to think of a person you know only by sight. Please
imagine further that this person comes up to you, and friendly
asks whether you would like to go out with him/her.
Participants in the simple liking group were also instructed to
think about a person they would like to be closer to (i.e. the rst three
sentences of the instructions for the reciprocal liking and the simple
liking group were identical). Thereby, we wanted to rule out that
simply thinking about a liked person reduces attention for attractive
alternatives. The last sentence of the instruction excluded thoughts
about reciprocal romantic interest. Specically, participants in the
187 N. Koranyi, K. Rothermund / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 186191
simple liking group read: Please imagine further, that you see this
person hand in hand with another partner walking contentedly
through the city. To intensify the impact of the manipulation all
participants had to jot down their emotions and thoughts evoked by
the scenario.
Immediately afterwards, participants completed a visual cueing
task in order to assess the strength of automatic attention orienting to
average-looking and attractive opposite-sex faces. For this purpose,
we used an adapted version of the cueing paradigm applied by Maner
et al. (2009). The material for male participants consisted of 14 facial
photographs, comprising 7 average-looking and 7 attractive women.
Contrarily, the material for female participants comprised 7 average-
looking and 7 attractive men.
1
The attractiveness of all faces was pre-
rated by an independent sample on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Female
faces were pre-rated by male students (n=10) and male faces were
pre-rated by female students (n=10). Mean attractiveness ratings
were as follows: average-looking females (M=2.21, SD=0.45);
attractive females (M=5.47, SD=0.80); average-looking males
(M=2.41, SD=0.64); attractive males (M=4.40, SD=1.12)
2
. We
used E-prime 2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) to
present stimuli and to collect data. The procedure of each trial of the
visual cueing paradigm was as follows (see Fig. 1): First, a black
xation cross was presented in the middle of a white computer
screen. Second, a face was displayed for 500 ms in one quadrant of the
screen, that is either upper-left, upper-right, lower-left, or lower-
right. Third, immediately after the disappearance of the photo a
categorization target (circle or a square) was presented either at one
of the other quadrants (attentional shift-trials) or at the same place
where the photo had been presented (no-shift trials). The position of
the cue and target stimuli was determined randomly in each trial,
resulting in 75% attention shift trials. Participants had to categorize
the target as circle or square, respectively, as quickly and correctly as
possible by pressing one of two marked keys on the computer
keyboard (A or K). The target disappeared when a response was
detected or after a maximum duration of 4000 ms. The xation cross
remained on the screen until the end of a trial. After an inter-trial
interval of 2000 ms, the next trial began. As Maner et al. (2009), we
used reaction times (ms) in attentional shift trials as an indicator of
attention orienting. In shift trials, participants have to disengage their
attention away from the location of the face in order to categorize the
target correctly (circle vs. square). If, however, attention tends to
remain at the location of the face, disengagement is delayed which
causes longer response latencies (Sui & Liu, 2009). Only attentional
shift trials were included in the statistical analyses. All no shift trials
served as ller trials.
First, participants completed 16 practice trials (pictures with
household objects). During the experimental block, each of the
fourteen faces was presented 4 times resulting in a total trial number
of 56. The order of face type (average-looking vs. attractive) was
randomized. All 14 faces had to be presented before a face was
presented for the next time.
After the visual cueing paradigm, participants were debriefed,
paid, and thanked for participation.
Results
Trials inthe visual cueing paradigmwitherroneous responses (3.9%)
and outlier values (1.4%) were excluded fromstatistical analysis.
3
Mean
response latencies to the target stimuli were computed separately for
trials with average-looking and attractive faces as cues. We submitted
the reaction time variables to a 22 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with
the between-subjects factor mindset priming (reciprocal interest vs.
simple liking), and the within-subject factor face attractiveness
(average-looking vs. attractive).
4
Average reaction times for all
conditions are shown in Fig. 2. Results revealed the predicted two-
way interaction between mindset priming and face attractiveness, F(1,
28)=4.04, p=.05,
2
=.13. Whereas in the simple liking condition,
target classication was slowed down following attractive compared to
average-looking face cues, t(14)=2.48, pb.05, no effect of face
attractiveness ontarget classicationwas obtainedwithinthereciprocal
interest condition, t(14)=1.15, p=ns. No main effects of face
attractiveness and mindset priming were obtained (both Fsb1).
1
Facial photos were obtained from different face databases and from the internet.
2
The pre-ratings seem to suggest that the material consisted of only slightly
attractive and unattractive (rather than attractive and moderately attractive) faces.
This, however, might be more a methodological artifact. If at least one of the attractive
faces is rated as extremely attractive (i.e. a 6 or a 7 on a 7-point scale, which was done
by 95% of the participants in the pre-study), all subsequent faces are evaluated in
relation to this anchor. This causes clearly attractive faces to be evaluated only slightly
above the midpoint of the scale and moderately attractive faces even below the
midpoint.
+
+
+
Fixation
Face
Response
1000 ms
500 ms
until response
was detected
(max.4000 ms)
time
Fig. 1. Illustration of the trial sequence (Experiments 1 and 2).
3
In all reported studies, values that were below 200 ms or more than 1.5
interquartile ranges above the third quartile of the distribution of reaction times
were treated as outliers (Tukey, 1977).
4
Initial analyses also included gender as a factor, but as there were no gender
effects on any of the reported studies, this factor was dropped from the analyses.
525
550
575
600
625
Control Reciprocal
Interest
T
i
m
e

t
o

D
i
s
e
n
g
a
g
e

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
-
S
e
x

F
a
c
e
s

(
m
s
)
Attractive
Average Looking
Fig. 2. Automatic attention orienting to attractive and average-looking opposite-sex
faces in the reciprocal interest and the control condition (Experiment 1).
188 N. Koranyi, K. Rothermund / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 186191
Discussion
Our rst experiment provided evidence for self-regulatory adjust-
ments of social attention orienting in early stages of relationship
initiation: Anautomatic attentional bias towards attractive opposite-sex
faces was neutralized after imagining that a specic person reciprocates
one's romantic feelings (compared to a condition without romantic
reciprocation).
A characteristic of Study 1 that deserves some comment is the
nature of the control condition. Specically, the control scenario
instructed participants to think about a potential partner who is
already committed to someone else, which might have evoked
feelings of jealousy. Compared to a more neutral instruction (e.g.,
Think about a potential romantic partner), however, the negative
scenario has the advantage that it denitely rules out the possibility to
think about the romantic partner in terms of mutual liking. In
addition, it seems somewhat unlikely that the attractiveness bias that
obtained in the control condition was caused by feelings of jealousy.
What we found in the control condition is basically a replication of the
standard attentional bias towards attractive faces that was observed
under neutral conditions in previous studies (Maner et al., 2003; see
also Aharon et al., 2001; Sui & Liu, 2009). This attentional bias to
attractive others, however, is absent in the reciprocal liking condition,
and it is exactly this deviation from the default that is the striking
point of our ndings.
In a second study, we wanted to test whether we could replicate
our ndings in a real dating context. A free dating market was
advertised for single male and female students who were interested in
nding a date. Participation in the dating market was free of charge,
but interested students were informed that additional information
was gathered during the dating assignments for scientic purposes
(dating for science). Within this dating context, participants
received feedback that their interest in a date with a specic person
was reciprocated. The longitudinal design of the study allowed us to
analyze intra-individual change in attentional attractiveness biases.
Specically, we hypothesized that all participants would show an
automatic attentional bias towards attractive opposite-sex faces prior
to but not after receiving feedback on reciprocal interest in a date.
Experiment 2: Dating for science
Method
Participants and design
Participants were recruited for the study through posters and
yers at the University of Jena, in which a dating market was
advertised for single male and female students who were interested in
a date. Twenty-four heterosexual students (12 female) registered for
the dating market via internet. For ve students, no person with a
reciprocating interest was identied (i.e., they were interested only in
dates with other participants of the study who were not interested in
dating them). Thus, the nal sample consisted of 19 participants (9
female) with an average age of M=22.8 (SD=2.1). The design of the
study was a 2 (Measurement Time: prior vs. after feedback on
reciprocal romantic interest)2 (Opposite-Sex Face Attractiveness:
average-looking vs. attractive) design with repeated measures for
both factors.
Procedure and materials
When registering for the dating market via internet, participants
were fully informed about the procedure of the study. First,
participants had to create a prole of themselves by uploading a
photo displaying a frontal view of their face and by answering some
personal questions (e.g., type of degree or preferred leisure activities).
Second, they were told that during a rst lab session, they would get
access to the proles of opposite-sex students also participating in the
dating market and vice versa. Third, participants were informed that
besides browsing the proles, they would have the opportunity to
select a limited number of students with which they would like to
have a date, and that during a second lab session (one week after the
rst session) they would receive feedback on whether or not their
interest in a date with another participant of the study is reciprocated.
In case of mutual interest, e-mail addresses would be exchanged.
5
Participants then created their prole online and selected their
preferred time slots for the two lab sessions. For the further course of
the study, participants were assigned to one of two groups on the
basis of the time slots they had chosen. Each group consisted of 6 male
and 6 female students. Participants arrived separately at the lab and
were tested individually in isolated chambers.
The experiment started with the rst assessment of automatic
attentionorientingtoaverage-looking andattractive opposite-sexfaces.
We usedthe same visual cueing paradigmas inthe rst experiment. The
material for Experiment 2 consisted of 8 photos fromthe FACE database
(Ebner, Riediger, & Lindenberger, 2010). The photos displayed faces
with neutral expressions and included 2 average-looking women, 2
attractive women, 2 average-looking men, and 2 attractive men. In a
pilot study with an independent sample, photos were pre-rated on a
scale ranging from 1=not at all attractive to 7=very attractive. Female
faces were pre-rated by male students (n=10) and male faces were
pre-ratedbyfemalestudents (n=10). Meanattractiveness ratings were
as follows: average-looking females (M=2.55, SD=1.01); attractive
females (M=5.10, SD=1.17); average-looking males (M=2.45,
SD=0.76); attractive males (M=4.65, SD=1.08).
6
In the visual cueing
paradigm, each photo was presented 16 times resulting in a total trial
number of 128.
After the visual cueing task, participants browsed the proles of
the six opposite-sex members of their group. The software required
for this purpose was programmed with Visual Basic 6.0 (Microsoft,
Redmond, WA, USA). Participants were instructed to select 3 of the 6
opposite-sex students with which they would like to have a date.
After the selection, participants were reminded to show up one week
later for the second lab session.
At the beginning of the second lab session, personal information
regarding reciprocal romantic interest was presented to each
participant on the computer. Specically, they were shown the
name and the photo of the person who reciprocated their interest in a
date. If more than one opposite-sex person with mutual dating
interests was identied for a student, we informed him or her only
about one randomly chosen reciprocator at this point and postponed
the announcement of additional reciprocators to the end of the study
in order to create an unambiguous approach situation that should
trigger automatic shielding processes. After the mutual interest
feedback, participants once more performed the visual cueing task
before they were thanked for participation. E-mail addresses of
reciprocators were sent to students via e-mail within four days after
the second session.
Results and discussion
Again, we excluded trials with erroneous responses (3%) and outlier
values (2%) and computed response latencies for average-looking and
5
It was pointed out to participants that they could end up with having no romantic
reciprocator. If this outcome would cause any distress, it was recommended that they
should refrain from participating in the dating market. Participants had to declare that
they took notice of this warning.
6
For reasons beyond the scope of the present research, the material also included
the facial photos of the participants which had been uploaded during study
application. In addition to the 8 facial photos from the FACE database, each
participant's material also comprised the 6 photos of the opposite-sex students of
one's group. The frequency of presentation in the cueing paradigm was the same for
database faces and student faces.
189 N. Koranyi, K. Rothermund / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 186191
attractive opposite-sex faces. Reaction times were submitted to a 22
ANOVA with the within-subject factors measurement time (before vs.
after havingreceivedinformationregardingreciprocal interest) andface
attractiveness (attractive vs. average-looking). Results revealed a main
effect of face attractiveness, F(1, 18)=14.50, pb.01,
2
=.45. Target
classication responses were generally slower after attractive face cues
(M=567 ms) than after average-looking face cues (M=556 ms),
indicating more difculties to disengage from attractive compared to
average-looking opposite-sex faces. This main effect, however, was
further qualied by the predicted two-way interaction of measurement
timeface attractiveness, F(1, 18)=5.08, pb.05,
2
=.22. Simple
contrasts revealedthat attentiondisengagement awayfromtheposition
of the face cue was more difcult for attractive compared to average-
looking opposite-sex faces prior to, t(18)=5.24, pb.001, but not after
the announcement of reciprocal interest in a date with a specic person
(t b1.6).
7
Fig. 3 illustrates these ndings.
8
Experiment 2 provided further evidence for our hypothesis of
automatic self-regulation during relationship initiation and extended
our nding to a natural dating setting. Specically, participants
showed automatic attention orienting towards attractive other-sex
faces prior to but not after feedback on mutual interest in a date.
General discussion
In two experiments we found support for a exible adjustment of
automatic attention orienting in accordance with the current status of
romantic goal pursuit: Imagining (Experiment 1) and experiencing
(Experiment 2) that romantic attraction towards someone is mutual
neutralized the attentional bias towards attractive opposite-sex faces
that characterizes early stages of partner search. Avoiding attractive
alternatives after signs of reciprocal liking might foster undisturbed
romantic exploration and further development of mutual attraction.
Furthermore, ignoring attractive alternatives should contribute to a
positive partner image by avoiding unfavorable comparisons with
attractive alternatives.
Our results extend previous research on automatic shielding
processing in the interpersonal context. Specically, our ndings
suggest that selective inattention to attractive alternatives does play a
role not only in maintaining an already well functioning long-term
relationship (Hofmann et al., 2009; Maner et al., 2009) but also in
fostering commitment during relationship initiation. Furthermore,
our results are in line with general theories of implicit action
regulation which state that inattention to stimuli related to conicting
goals and temptations plays a key role in effective self-regulation
(Fishbach et al., 2010; Shah et al., 2002).
The present ndings on the cognitive mechanisms that underlie
self-regulationduring early phases of relationshipdevelopment can be
linked to classical models of action regulation. According to the
Rubicon model of action phases (e.g., Gollwitzer, 1990; Gollwitzer,
1996; Gollwitzer, Heckhausen, & Steller, 1990; Heckhausen &
Gollwitzer, 1987) goal pursuit passes through successive action
phases, each of which is characterized by its own type of information
processing (mindset). Within the predecisional phase in which the
pros and cons of different alternatives are weighed against each other,
a deliberative mindset is activated in which attention is directed
towards informationrelated to the desirability as well as the feasibility
of potential outcomes. In line with that, we found that uncommitted
individuals who are motivated to nd a partner orient their attention
to attractive opposite-sex faces, thereby gathering information about
the desirability of potential options. Individuals also selectively search
for signs of reciprocal interest (Douglas, 1987), reecting attention
orienting to feasibility-related information. According to the Rubicon
model, an option is chosen if the product of its desirability and
feasibility is sufciently high. Subsequently, concrete actions are
planned (postdecisional, preactional phase) and performed (actional
phase) in order to reach the selected goal. The two latter phases are
characterizedby a mindset that aims at ensuring undisturbedplanning
and execution of goal-supporting behaviors. This is (among others
things) realized by selectively ignoring distractive information like
cues relating to competing goals (Gollwitzer, 1996). In accordance
with this reasoning, we found that information about reciprocal
romantic interest, which probably caused participants to transgress
fromthe predecisional phase to the postdecisional phase, inhibitedthe
attentional bias to attractive opposite-sex faces.
In the present research, we investigated situations in which
participants had the role of the romantic approacher: They had
already shown signs of personal romantic interest in someone before
they had to imagine (Experiment 1) or were told (Experiment 2) that
their interest is reciprocated by the other person. The sequence,
however, can be reversed and one might wonder whether the
attractiveness bias already becomes inhibited as soon as one is
informed of the romantic interest of another person even before
oneself has expressed romantic interest. Research suggests that when
a person is being pursued romantically by someone else, the
perceived attractiveness of the admirer increases (Backman & Secord,
1959; Shanteau & Nagy, 1979). This, in turn, can produce exactly the
kind of reciprocal liking situation that we examined in the present
study, and self-regulation mechanisms (e.g., inattention to attractive
others) should be activated accordingly. However, we would predict
that this should not be the case if the suitor is perceived as
unacceptable because he/she does not match personal standards or
falls below expectations. As seen from the perspective of the Rubicon
7
The manipulation of reciprocal liking in our second study is confounded with
familiarity with the attentional task. We do not think, however, that practice or
learning effects can explain the results. If the attentional attractiveness bias is indeed
sensitive to task familiarity, one would predict that the bias also attenuates from the
rst to the second half within the test sessions. However, entering block (rst half vs.
second half) as an additional factor in the analyses showed that both the critical two-
way interaction of face attractivenessblock and the three-way interaction of
timeface attractivenessblock failed to reach signicance (both Fsb0.1). This
renders an explanation of our ndings in terms of task familiarity highly unlikely and
supports our interpretation that reciprocal romantic interest caused the neutralization
of the attractiveness bias.
8
To analyze the specicity of our effect, we also examined the results of same-sex
faces which were also presented in the cueing task. Results revealed a main effect of
face attractiveness, F(1, 18)=4.91, pb.05,
2
=.21. Target classication was slower
after attractive same-sex faces (M=564 ms) compared to average-looking same-sex
faces (M=555 ms) which might indicate selective processing of potential rivals
(Maner et al., 2007). However, no interaction with measurement time (before vs. after
having received information regarding mutual interest) was found, F(1, 18)=1.22,
p=.28. This result provides further support for a specic interpretation of our ndings
in terms of implicit self-regulation during relationship initiation. Reciprocal liking
neutralizes the attentional bias towards attractive other-sex but not same-sex faces.
525
550
575
600
Prior to the Announcement
of Reciprocal Interest
After the Announcement
of Reciprocal Interest
Attractive
Average Looking
T
i
m
e

t
o

D
i
s
e
n
g
a
g
e

A
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
-
S
e
x

F
a
c
e
s

(
m
s
)
Fig. 3. Automatic attention orienting to attractive and average-looking opposite-sex
faces prior to and after the announcement of a match (i.e., reciprocal interest in a date
between two participants) in Experiment 2.
190 N. Koranyi, K. Rothermund / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 186191
model, perceived romantic interest of another person alone is not
sufcient to establish a preliminary romantic commitment towards
this person. In order to cross the Rubicon, an option has to be
established as being feasible and desirable. Low desirability should
prevent making a preliminary commitment and thus should not lead
to an activation of goal-shielding mechanisms.
Interestingly, research has found that reciprocal liking seems to be
crucial for the experience of falling-in-love (Aron, Dutton, Aron, &
Iverson, 1989; Sprecher et al., 1994). Actually, in people's memories
reciprocal romantic interest seems to be as important as perceived
similarity or desired characteristics like personality traits or physical
attractiveness (Aron et al., 1989; Sprecher et al., 1994). Our results
suggest that the link between reciprocal liking and falling-in-love might
be at least partially mediated by an attentional re-orientation. Avoiding
information regarding attractive alternatives and devoting one's full
attention to a promising candidate for developing a romantic relation
might protect the reciprocating person against possible unfavorable
comparisons with other mating partners, whereby his/her uniqueness
and nally his/her loveableness is guaranteed. Indeed, early stages of
relationship development are often characterized by an uncritical and
euphemistic perception of one's partner (for a meta-analysis, see
Fletcher & Kerr, 2010). The systematic investigation of the relations
between reciprocal liking, inattention to attractive alternatives, and the
experience of falling-in-love is surely a valuable avenue for future
research.
In conclusion, our ndings contribute to a deeper understanding of
self-regulation processes during early stages of relationship initiation.
Specically, attention orienting towards or away from attractive
mating partners seems to be a highly exible cognitive process that is
attuned to the changing goals that are pursued during different stages
of relationship development. While present when individuals try to
detect potential mating partners in the rst place, it is neutralized as
soon as all efforts have to be directed towards further commitment
behaviors to initiate a promising relationship with someone who
seriously reciprocates one's romantic interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Melanie Kndler, Anne Tholl and Katja Zinke for
their help with data collection, Thomas Kluge, Till Meyer, and Hans
Hermann Sfng for technical support and Alexander Nitsch and
Susan Tekow for helpful comments on an earlier version of the
manuscript. We also want to congratulate two participants who
married after they got to know each other during the dating study
(Experiment 2).
References
Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C. F., O'Conner, E., & Breiter, H. C. (2001).
Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron,
32, 537551.
Aron, A., Dutton, D. G., Aron, E. N., & Iverson, A. (1989). Experiences of falling in love.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 243257.
Backman, C. W., & Secord, P. F. (1959). The effect of perceived liking on interpersonal
attraction. Human Relations, 12, 379384.
Berscheid, E., Graziano, W., Monson, T., & Dermer, M. (1976). Outcome dependency:
Attention, attribution, and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
34, 978989.
Bredow, C. A., Cate, R. M., Huston, T. L., Sprecher, S., Wenzel, A., & Harvey, J. (2008). Have
we met before? A conceptual model of rst romantic encounters. In S. Sprecher, A.
Wenzel, &J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 328). NewYork:
Psychology Press.
Brosch, T., Sander, D., Pourtois, G., & Scherer, K. R. (2008). Beyond fear: Rapid spatial
orienting toward positive emotional stimuli. Psychological Science, 19, 362370.
Brosch, T., Sander, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2007). That baby caught my eye Attention
capture by infant faces. Emotion, 7, 685689.
Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors
making the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
284290.
Davis, M. S. (1973). Intimate relations. New York, NY US: Free Press.
Douglas, W. (1987). Afnity-testing in initial interactions. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 4, 315.
Ebner, N. C., Riediger, M., & Lindenberger, U. (2010). FACES A database of facial
expressions in young, middle-aged, and older women and men: Development and
validation. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 351362.
Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality in
personality. New York: Guilford Press.
Ferguson, M. J., & Bargh, J. A. (2004). Liking is for doing: The effects of goal pursuit on
automatic evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 557572.
Fishbach, A., Zhang, Y., & Trope, Y. (2010). Counteractive evaluation: Asymmetric shifts
in the implicit value of conicting motivations. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 46, 2938.
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Kerr, P. S. G. (2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in
intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 627658.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins, & R. M.
Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social
behavior. (pp, 2. (pp. 5392) New York: Guilford Press.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). The volitional benets of planning. In P. M. Gollwitzer, & J. A.
Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior
(pp. 287312). New York: Guilford Press.
Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Steller, B. (1990). Deliberative and implemental
mind-sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 11191127.
Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning
in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11,
101120.
Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Gschwendner, T. (2009). Men on the pull: Automatic
approachavoidance tendencies and sexual interest behavior. Social Psychology, 40,
7378.
Karremans, J. C., & Verwijmeren, T. (2008). Mimicking attractive opposite-sex others:
The role of romantic relationship status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
34, 939950.
Knobloch, L. K., Miller, L. E., Sprecher, S., Wenzel, A., &Harvey, J. (2008). Uncertainty and
relationship initiation. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of
relationship initiation (pp. 121134). New York: Psychology Press.
Kranz, F., & Ishai, A. (2006). Face perception is modulated by sexual preference. Current
Biology, 16, 6368.
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & Miller, S. L. (2009). The implicit cognition of relationship
maintenance: Inattention to attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 174179.
Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Delton, A. W., Hofer, B., Wilbur, C. J., et al.
(2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 11071120.
Maner, J. K., Rouby, D. A., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2008). Automatic inattention to attractive
alternatives: The evolved psychology of relationship maintenance. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 29, 343349.
Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention
to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758766.
Olson, I. R., & Marshuetz, C. (2005). Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance.
Emotion, 5, 498502.
Rothermund, K. (2003). Automatic vigilance for task-related information: Perseverance
after failure and inhibition after success. Memory and Cognition, 31, 343352.
Schupp, H. T., Cuthbert, B. N., Bradley, M. M., Hilman, C. H., Hamm, A. O., & Lang, P. J.
(2004). Brain processes in emotional perception: Motivated attention. Cognition &
Emotion, 18, 593611.
Schupp, H. T., Stockburger, J., Codispoti, M., Junghfer, M., Weike, A. I., &Hamm, A. O. (2007).
Selective visual attention to emotion. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 10821089.
Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Forgetting all else: On the
antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 12611280.
Shanteau, J., & Nagy, G. F. (1979). Probability of acceptance in dating choice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 522533.
Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal
behavior: On the self-fullling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 35, 656666.
Sprecher, S., Aron, A., Hateld, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994). Love:
American style, Russian style and Japanese style. Personal Relationships, 1, 349369.
Sui, J., & Liu, C. H. (2009). Can beauty be ignored? Effects of facial attractiveness on
covert attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 276281.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.
Wentura, D., Rothermund, K., & Bak, P. (2000). Automatic vigilance: The attention-
grabbing power of approach- and avoidance-related social information. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 10241037.
191 N. Koranyi, K. Rothermund / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 186191