“Is It (Un)romantic in Here or Is It Just Me?”: Examining the Effects of Physical Settings on Relationship Initiation Processes Open Access

People first meet potential romantic partners in a variety of settings, whether it be at school or work (Laumann et al., 1994), online (Finkel et al., 2012), at a bar, café, or social function (Madden & Lenhart, 2006), or by other means (see Sassler & Miller, 2014). Arriaga and colleagues (2008) speculated that people seek relationships in specific physical environments and that certain environments better facilitate relationship initiation than others. For example, if someone is intentionally motivated to meet prospective partners, they would likely go to a bar with friends or attend a party over the weekend rather than visit a quiet library. A recent series of studies by Adams and Gillath (2024) found that the appropriateness of a setting plays a role in the perceived success of hypothetical initiation attempts. For example, participants viewed settings like a dating app or party as more appropriate for romantic initiation, and were more likely to accept a (hypothetical) dating proposition in those contexts, than settings such as a doctor’s office or funeral. Furthermore, Murstein’s (1970) Stimulus-Value-Role theory proposed two distinguishable settings in which relationship initiation might occur – closed fields and open fields. In closed fields, people are expected or forced to interact with one another, often due to the setting they find themselves in and the roles they perform (e.g., work settings). In open fields, however, the choice of whom people interact with is voluntary (e.g., large social gatherings), allowing for more intrinsically rewarding interactions.

This conceptual distinction is reiterated by Sprecher and colleagues (2015), who described the difference between settings that create naturally occurring interactions and others that are designed to be relationship-building. In naturally occurring settings, the primary motivation is to accomplish a task with others who have a common interest (e.g., attending an academic workshop). If a relationship develops in a more naturally occurring setting, it is typically a by-product of being in the setting and interacting with others (McKenna, 2008) rather than the outcome of an explicit goal to meet a prospective partner. In contrast, in relationship-building settings, the primary goal is to develop a connection with others. Attendance in this type of setting is a public display of one’s romantic availability and interest in developing a connection (e.g., going to a speed-dating event). Although it has been suggested that certain environments better facilitate relationship initiation, and there is support for certain settings being deemed as more appropriate for initiation attempts (e.g., dating apps and parties; Adams & Gillath, 2024), no research, to our knowledge, has directly tested this using an in-person dyadic design.

Despite there being a gap in the literature on empirically examining how aspects of the physical environment might affect in-person relationship initiation processes, past research has explored how subtle qualities and attributes of physical surroundings might influence one’s actions and perceptions in other types of social interactions, specifically evaluations of others’ mood, sexual interest, attractiveness, and how much personal information one feels comfortable disclosing to another person.

Research has shown that the aesthetics of an environment can influence the way one evaluates the mood and well-being of others (Maslow & Mintz, 1956; Mintz, 1956). Specifically, participants in an aesthetically pleasing environment considered photos of others’ faces to be more energetic and have higher well-being, whereas participants in an average or not aesthetically pleasing environment evaluated the photos as displaying more fatigue and displeasure (Maslow & Mintz, 1956). These findings suggest that the environmental appeal of one’s surroundings has the potential to influence the way they evaluate and judge others.

More recent work has found that environmental contexts play a role in men’s perceptions of women’s sexual interest. For example, Treat and colleagues (2015, 2016) found that college-aged men judged women to be more sexually interested when the women were depicted in social environments that were more sexually relevant, such as bars or house parties, compared to when they were depicted in more neutral environments, such as classrooms or offices. These findings suggest that individuals may rely on social environments when making judgments of others’ sexual interest.

Attraction arguably characterizes the largest role and motive for entering and creating a close bond with others during the relationship initiation process (Sprecher et al., 2015). Physical appearance has an influential effect on first impressions, potentially due to the application of the stereotype that what is beautiful is good (Dion et al., 1972), and therefore, might be the first indicator of interest in potential relationships. Regarding environmental influences, past research has shown that subtle factors of one’s surroundings, such as ambient temperature, can influence evaluations of others’ attractiveness.

Griffitt (1970) found that after reviewing the attitudinal beliefs of a stranger, judgments of the strangers’ attractiveness were more negative under conditions in which individuals were placed in a hot (i.e., 100 degrees Fahrenheit) and humid (i.e., 60% humidity) room, compared to those who were placed in a room with more comforting conditions (i.e., 67.5 degrees Fahrenheit). Griffitt (1970) suggested that the manipulation of temperature negatively influenced the affective feelings of individuals in the uncomfortable condition, which in turn, influenced the overall evaluations of the stranger’s attractiveness. That is, participants perceived strangers as less attractive to the extent that high temperatures elicited negative affect. Following this line of reasoning, it might be that expressed feelings and interest toward a stranger may act as a function of one’s surroundings to the extent that unappealing surroundings elicit negative feelings.

Self-disclosure—or sharing personal and relevant information about oneself—is a key component in fostering closeness and intimacy with others (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Aron et al., 1997; Reis, 2017; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Further, when a person discloses meaningful information about themselves to a listener, it is often anticipated that the listener will convey understanding and appreciation. This type of response is described by Reis and Shaver (1988) as perceived partner responsiveness. The transactional process of self-disclosure and responsiveness is laid out in the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy (Reis & Shaver, 1988). This model of intimacy has received empirical support showing that two individuals disclosing intimate information with one another is a significant predictor of intimacy in social interactions (Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis, 2014; Sprecher, 2021; Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004).

As disclosing personal information and perceiving responsiveness are essential processes in building closeness (Reis, 2017), interacting in environments that facilitate this process may prove beneficial in the beginning stages of relationships. Research has shown that factors such as room size (Okken et al., 2012a; Sundstrom, 1975), lighting (Gifford, 1988; Miwa & Hanyu, 2006), décor (Gifford, 1988), and the subjective warmth/intimacy of an environment (Chaikin et al., 1976) can affect levels of intimate disclosures. Specifically, individuals interacting in larger (versus smaller) rooms indicated more willingness to self-disclose and engage in intimate conversations (Okken et al., 2012a; Sundstrom, 1975). This impression may be due to environmental spaciousness invoking feelings of psychological spaciousness within individuals, while less space within one’s physical environment may elicit feelings of restraint and limited psychological space, resulting in less willingness to self-disclose in situations with strangers (Okken et al., 2012b).

Moreover, research indicates that dimly lit environments tend to encourage greater levels of disclosure as opposed to brightly lit environments. This phenomenon is often portrayed during first dates in movies where restaurants are softly illuminated to establish a romantic and comforting atmosphere. Studies have demonstrated that individuals in dimly lit settings engage in longer conversations with others, feel more open about sharing personal information, and tend to evaluate the other more positively (Chaikin et al., 1976; Miwa & Hanyu, 2006). Furthermore, research suggests that the perceived warmth and intimacy of a space can influence the extent of self-disclosure (Chaikin et al., 1976; Gifford, 1988). For example, decorative elements (e.g., plants, art, rugs) have been found to encourage more general and intimate communication compared to spaces lacking such personal touches (e.g., office-like décor; Gifford, 1988). These findings are in line with previous suggestions that certain settings are more conducive and appropriate for facilitating self-disclosure (Chaikin & Derlega, 1974).

Although previous research has explored the impact of environmental factors on evaluations of others, these studies have either involved participants assessing the attractiveness or sexual interest of the photographs of others rather than interacting with them in a face-to-face scenario (e.g., Maslow & Mintz, 1956; Treat et al., 2015), or evaluations of a stranger outside the context of a romantic relationship (e.g., the stranger was described as a work partner; Griffitt & Veitch, 1971) and without the evaluated target in sight. Additionally, a significant portion of the research focused on identifying environments that encourage self-disclosure was examined within counseling scenarios (e.g., Chaikin et al., 1976; Miwa & Hanyu, 2006) or established friendships (e.g., Gifford, 1988) rather than in getting-acquainted interactions between strangers. Therefore, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how physical environments influence relationship initiation processes, the present study aimed to investigate whether these patterns extend to face-to-face interactions between unacquainted dyads in a romantic context.

The objective of the current study was to investigate whether environmental characteristics can influence feelings of closeness and romantic interest between potential partners. Building on previous research, appealing and unappealing environments were created by manipulating aspects such as room size, lighting, and décor. Unacquainted dyads with the potential for romantic interest engaged in a facilitated, closeness-generating conversation (the Fast-Friends Paradigm; Aron et al., 1997) in either an appealing or an unappealing room (randomly assigned).

We hypothesized that participants interacting in the appealing environment would exhibit greater enjoyment, self-disclosure, perceived responsiveness, interpersonal closeness, and romantic interest than those interacting in the unappealing environment. In line with the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy, we also hypothesized a serial indirect effect, such that participants in the appealing (vs. unappealing) environment would exhibit greater self-disclosure, which would be associated with greater perceived responsiveness, and in turn, greater perceived responsiveness would be associated with greater enjoyment, closeness, and romantic interest. Hypotheses, exclusion criteria, and analyses were preregistered prior to data collection through the Open Science Framework (OSF).

Data were collected from 208¹ students (104 dyads) at a large university in the southeastern United States. Students were awarded course credit for their participation. Following our preregistered criteria, we excluded three participants for failing two attention checks, one participant for failing a data quality check, and three participants for reporting they were acquainted with their conversation partner before participating in the study, resulting in a final sample of 201 participants. On average, participants were 18.82 years of age (SD = 1.34) and identified as men (50.75%), followed by women (48.76%), and gender fluid (0.50%). The racial/ethnic breakdown of the sample was 65.17% White, 15.92% Asian, 7.46% Black or African American, 4.98% Multiracial or Biracial, 4.48% Hispanic or Latino/a/x, 0.50% Native American, First Nation, or Alaskan Native, and 1.50% identified as another race not listed. Most participants identified as straight/heterosexual (88.56%), followed by bisexual (8.96%), gay or lesbian (1.49%), and another sexual orientation not listed (1.00%). Most participants were single (59.20%), 6.97% were casually dating, 33.33% were seriously dating, and 0.50% reported another type of relationship not listed (i.e., “complicated relationship”). A post hoc sensitivity power analysis indicated that with an $α$ = .05, the final condition sample sizes (n_appealing = 106 and n_unappealing = 95) have 90% power to detect a mean difference effect of d = 0.41,² which is considered a small to medium effect size using Cohen’s (1992) criteria.

This project was approved by an external³ and university institutional review board (IRB) and advertised to undergraduate students as a study on social conversations. As the present study aimed to recruit dyads in which there was potential for romantic interest, participants were paired based on their self-identified gender and sexual orientation upon registering to participate. This allowed for the possibility of six different dyad combinations: a straight woman and a straight man, a straight woman and a bisexual man, a bisexual woman and a straight man, a bisexual woman and a bisexual man, two lesbian women, and two gay men. Although it would have been preferable to limit this study to single individuals, there were concerns that doing so would substantially reduce the pool of available participants. Thus, we address this as a limitation of the study and discuss this further in later sections.

Upon arriving for the study, participants waited in the hallway outside of the lab room. Once both participants had arrived, they were guided into separate rooms to complete the pre-survey measures⁴ on a computer. After completing the surveys, both participants were escorted to a room where they engaged in a conversational task.

Dyads were randomly assigned to have their conversation in an appealing or unappealing room. In the appealing condition, the atmosphere was designed to be warm and inviting with specific embellishments used to make the space more comforting (see Figure 1). Specifically, the room consisted of lowered, indirect lighting, such that the overhead fluorescent lights were dimmed all the way, and two lamps in opposite corners of the room were turned to full brightness; blue carpet; three large impressionist-styled art pieces hung on the off-white walls that harmonized with the color scheme of the overall space; a cushioned, low-seated, grey, L-shaped couch in one corner of the room with rosy taupe, white, and grey pillows, along with a soft, beige throw blanket placed upon it; a comfortable maroon chair and a blue chair of similar modern styles against differing walls of the room; a matching set of a small light oak coffee table and side table; a wooden clock above one of the entrances to the room; a small, colorful wooden wastebasket; two tall, green, artificial plants; and a reed oil diffuser placed on the side table to fill the space with the scent of lavender. Participants were invited to sit wherever they felt comfortable⁵.

Conversely, in the unappealing room condition, the atmosphere was created to be cold and uninviting (see Figure 2). The room was held in a small, cramped office space that consisted of off-white cement walls; a long wooden table placed in the corner of the room; two wooden chairs on either side of the table not against the wall; a blank chalkboard; a metal filing cabinet in one corner; a small grey recycling bin; two empty cardboard boxes; and a few stacks of old, disheveled papers and binders left on the shelves in the room. A sheet was also hung on the wall opposite the entrance to cover a previously used two-way mirror. The room was brightly lit with overhead fluorescent lighting.

Once participants were settled into their conversation room, they were instructed to engage in a 45-minute conversation using the Fast-Friends Paradigm (Aron et al., 1997), which consists of a series of discussion prompts designed to increase closeness between conversation partners through self-disclosure. The discussion prompts are organized into three sets of 12 prompts (i.e., 36 prompts total), with each set eliciting increasingly more self-disclosure. After discussing each set for 15 minutes, participants were escorted back to their respective computers in separate rooms to complete a series of dependent measures⁶ in random order, a manipulation check, and a demographic questionnaire. Lastly, participants were debriefed and dismissed together to provide them an opportunity to share their contact information with one another if they desired. Additionally, we followed up with participants via email 30 days later to complete an additional survey on a voluntary and exploratory basis.

After the interaction, participants reported their enjoyment, self-disclosure, perceived responsiveness, interpersonal closeness, and romantic interest. Furthermore, although no hypotheses were formed regarding levels of satisfaction, implicit closeness, or desire to affiliate with the conversation partner, these variables were also measured. As a manipulation check, participants reported on the conversation room environment at the end of the survey to ensure they were not privy to the central aims of the study. Thirty days later, participants received a link to the follow-up survey to report on items such as if they exchanged contact information and their current (and desired) relationship with their conversation partner. All surveys and data are available on the study’s OSF project page.

Means, standard deviations, internal consistency, and bivariate correlations for post-interaction measures are summarized in Table 1. Additionally, intraclass correlations are reported to estimate the proportions of between- and within-dyad variability for each outcome variable. Items for each measure were averaged such that higher scores indicate a higher endorsement of that construct.

Enjoyment. Participants completed three items using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all, 7 = Extremely) to assess how much they enjoyed the interaction. Participants responded to the following items: “How enjoyable did you find the interaction to be?”, “How much did you and the other laugh during the interaction?”, and “How much fun did you find the interaction to be?” (adapted from Sprecher et al., 2016).

Self-Disclosure. Participants responded to three items assessing how much they self-disclosed during the conversation. Using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all, 7 = Completely), participants responded to the following items: “How much did you share your [thoughts, feelings, opinions] with the other person?”

Perceived Partner Responsiveness. To assess levels of perceived responsiveness from their conversation partner, participants responded to five items using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all, 5 = Completely). The measure consisted of the following items: “How much do you feel the other person really listened to you,” “…seemed interested in what you were thinking and feeling,” “…tried to see where you were coming from,” “…was understanding,” and “…was responsive to you” (adapted from Crasta et al., 2021).

Interpersonal Closeness. Participants completed the single-item Inclusion of Other in the Self scale (IOS; Aron et al., 1992) as a measure of their perceived interpersonal closeness with their conversation partner. On a pictorial 7-point Likert-type scale, participants responded to the question, “Which number best describes how close you felt toward the person you just interacted with? (X symbolizes the other person)” whereby each scale point is represented by two increasingly overlapping circles labeled “You” and “X”.

Romantic Interest. To assess participants’ level of romantic interest in their conversation partner, they completed five items using a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all, 9 = Extremely) previously employed by Vacharkulksemsuk and colleagues (2016). Three items assessed characteristics of chemistry (i.e., My conversation partner and I “…seemed to have similar personalities,” “…had a real connection,” “…seemed to have a lot in common”), and two items assessed characteristics of romantic attraction (i.e., “I really liked my conversation partner” and “I was sexually attracted to my conversation partner”).

Satisfaction. Participants completed one item using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree) to assess how satisfied they were with the interaction. Participants responded to the following statement: “Regarding the interaction you just participated in, please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statement: I am satisfied with the interaction I just had.”

Implicit Closeness. To measure closeness indirectly, we created an item to measure implicit closeness. Participants responded to one item using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not close at all, 6 = Extremely close) which stated: “Imagine the conversation partner you just interacted with is sitting in a chair below and you get to choose how close you would sit next to them. Referring to the options below, please indicate how close you would choose to sit next to your interaction partner if you were to interact (or have a conversation with them) again in the future (the higher the number, the closer you would sit next to them).” Refer to Figure 3.

Desire to Affiliate. Participants completed four items using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much) to assess how much they would like to affiliate with their conversation partner again in the future (adapted from Park & Maner, 2009). Participants responded to the following statement: “Please answer the following questions regarding the person with whom you just interacted with: In the future, how much would you like to…”…talk to this person”, “…spend time with this person”, “…hangout with this person”, “…make plans with this person.”

Positive Perception of the Environment. To ensure the manipulation of the (un)appealing atmosphere of the experimental rooms was successful, participants reported their perceptions of the environment across 17 items using a 7-point bipolar scale (shortened from Gosling et al., 2002). The items included in this measure were: decorated (vs. undecorated), neat (vs. messy), well-organized (vs. poorly organized), well-lit overall (vs. dark overall), colorful (vs. drab), cheerful (vs. gloomy), clean (vs. dirty), good condition (vs. poor condition), full (vs. empty), roomy (vs. cramped), inviting (vs. repelling), distinctive (vs. ordinary), expensive (vs. cheap), stylish (vs. unstylish), comfortable (vs. uncomfortable), fresh atmosphere (vs. stale atmosphere), and modern (vs. old fashioned). Scores from the 17 items were combined to form a composite of environmental perceptions ($α$ = .94), such that higher scores indicated more positive perceptions of the environment.

Interpersonal Closeness. Participants completed the IOS (Aron et al., 1992) as a measure of their current perceived closeness toward their conversation partner (M = 2.01, SD = 1.41).

Thinking About Participation. Participants completed one item to assess if they have thought about the study since it took place: “In the last 30 days, have you thought about your participation in the Social Conversations Study?” (57.6% indicated yes; 42.4% indicated no).

Contact Exchange. Participants were asked whether they exchanged contact information with one another after their participation: “Did you exchange contact information with the other participant after the study?” (24.8% indicated yes; 75.2% indicated no).

Contact Made. Participants were asked if they had been in contact with their conversation partner since the study: “Have you and the other participant been in contact since the study?” (19.2% indicated yes; 80.8% indicated no). If yes was selected, participants were also asked: “Have you interacted in person with the other participant since the study?” (12.8% indicated yes; 87.2% indicated no or did not view this question as they responded no to the previous question).

Current Relationship. If yes was selected to the question: “Have you and the other participant been in contact since the study?”, participants were also asked: “Would you say that you currently have a friendship or romantic relationship with the other participant?” (8% indicated yes; 92% indicated no or did not view this question as they responded no to the previous question). If yes was selected, participants were asked: “Which of the following best describes your current relationship with the other participant?” Options included: academic friendship (n = 1), social friendship (n = 7), sexual relationship (e.g., physical intimacy/hooking up; n = 0), romantic relationship (e.g., in a committed relationship; n = 0), or other (n = 2).

Desired Relationship. Participants were asked whether they desired a relationship with the other participant: “Would you like to get closer with the other participant (either as friends or romantically)?” (42.4% indicated yes; 57.6% indicated no).

All analyses were conducted using R software (version 4.2.2; R Core Team, 2022). We computed intraclass correlations (Table 1) to estimate the proportions of between- and within-dyad variability for each outcome variable. The within-dyad variance across the hypothesized variables ranged from 61% to 85%, suggesting that the data were interdependent. Following our preregistration, we accounted for the interdependence within dyads by fitting linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts using the lme4 package (Bates et al., 2015) to assess between-person outcomes (Level 1) nested within dyads (Level 2; Kashy & Snyder, 1995; Kenny et al., 2020). To examine the main effect of our manipulation, room condition was entered into the model as an independent variable and dummy-coded so that the unappealing room condition was the reference group (0 = unappealing, 1 = appealing). Each dependent variable was examined in a separate model.

First, we examined whether participants perceived the appealing room as having a more positive environment than the unappealing room. Supporting the effectiveness of our manipulation, participants rated the appealing room (M = 5.44, SD = 0.84) as having a significantly more positive environment than the unappealing room (M = 3.58, SD = 0.67), β = .77, SE = .11, t(199) = 17.15, p < .001, 95% CI [.68, .86], d = 2.43. Means and standard deviations by condition for each perception item are summarized in the supplementary materials (Table S2).

Means, standard deviations, and sample size by condition are summarized in Table 2. We did not find significant differences in affiliative outcomes between the experimental room conditions (see Table 3), such that participants interacting in the unappealing environment reported similar enjoyment, self-disclosure, perceived responsiveness, closeness, and romantic interest as those interacting in the appealing environment. Additionally, we examined the effects of room condition on satisfaction, implicit closeness, and desire to affiliate, and did not find significant differences. Thus, we did not find support for our first hypothesis that an inviting and comfortable (versus uninviting and uncomfortable) physical environment would lead to greater closeness and connection.

Because relationship status might act as a confound in one’s feelings of closeness and romantic interest in a stranger, exploratory analyses were conducted to examine the main effects of room condition among the subset of participants who reported being single (n = 119). The effects remained nonsignificant for enjoyment, β = -.06, SE = 0.26, p = .555, self-disclosure, β = .03, SE = 0.22, p = .756, perceived responsiveness, β = .07, SE = 0.11, p = .457, closeness, β = -.06, SE = 0.28, p = .549, romantic interest, β = .05, SE = 0.35, p = .654, satisfaction, β = .06, SE = 0.18, p = .531, implicit closeness, β = .04, SE = 0.21, p = .699, and desire to affiliate, β = .06, SE = 0.30, p = .53. Additional exploratory analyses on the full sample (N = 201) examined if there were any main effects of room condition on the main outcome variables while controlling for relationship status. The effects remained nonsignificant. Regression coefficients of condition and relationship status for each outcome variable are summarized in the supplementary materials (Table S3).

To test the serial indirect effects of self-disclosure and perceived responsiveness on enjoyment, interpersonal closeness, and romantic interest, we ran multilevel structural equation models using the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012) to account for the interdependence within dyads. Room condition (dummy-coded; 0 = unappealing, 1 = appealing) was included as the independent variable, and the model was tested separately for each dependent variable. The pathways for the serial mediation model were estimated as follows: room condition (appealing vs. unappealing) predicting self-disclosure, perceived responsiveness, and the dependent variable; self-disclosure predicting perceived responsiveness and the dependent variable; and perceived responsiveness predicting the dependent variable. Finally, we estimated three indirect effects using 5,000 bootstrapped confidence intervals: the serial indirect effect through self-disclosure and perceived responsiveness, the indirect effect through self-disclosure alone, and the indirect effect through perceived responsiveness alone. The standardized parameters and confidence intervals for the individual pathways, total effects, and total indirect effects for each model are reported in the supplementary materials (Figures S1-S3).

Contrary to our second hypothesis, there was not a significant serial indirect effect of room condition through self-disclosure and perceived responsiveness on enjoyment, β = .003, SE = .01, p = .820, 95% CI [-.022, .028], closeness, β = .002, SE = .01, p = .820, 95% CI [-.014, .018], or romantic interest, β = .002, SE = .01, p = .820, 95% CI [-.018, .023]. Furthermore, when examining the self-disclosure and perceived responsiveness mediators independently, we found that the indirect effect of room condition through self-disclosure alone remained nonsignificant for enjoyment, β = .007, SE = .03, p = .820, 95% CI [-.052, .066], closeness, β = .006, SE = .03, p = .820, 95% CI [-.044, .055], and romantic interest, β = .006, SE = .03, p = .820, 95% CI [-.046, .058]. Additionally, the indirect effect of room condition through perceived responsiveness alone was also nonsignificant for enjoyment, β = -.003, SE = .02, p = .892, 95% CI [-.046, .040], closeness, β = -.002, SE = .01, p = .892, 95% CI [-.030, .026], and romantic interest, β = -.002, SE = .02, p = .892, 95% CI [-.038, .033]. Thus, we did not find support for our hypothesis that an appealing (vs. unappealing) physical environment would lead to more self-disclosure or perceived responsiveness, which in turn would lead to more enjoyment, closeness, or romantic interest toward one another.

All participants were asked to complete a voluntary (not compensated) follow-up survey 30 days after the experiment (n = 125 completed the survey; 60 had interacted in the unappealing room condition, 65 interacted in the appealing room condition). There were 44 cases in which both members of the dyad completed the follow-up survey, and 37 cases in which only one member of the dyad completed the survey. An independent samples t-test indicated that the portion of participants who completed the follow-up survey did not significantly differ from the participants who did not complete the follow-up on the dependent measures of interest after the experiment took place (p’s ranged from .192 to .679). Additionally, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) accounting for room condition confirmed that these differences remained nonsignificant (p’s ranged from .148 to .945). Thus, the subsample of participants who completed the follow-up survey was representative of the full sample in terms of their feelings after the experiment took place.

Although there were not any significant differences in exchanging contact information χ²(1) = 0.45, p = .502, V = .08, or current feelings of closeness, β = -.12, SE = 0.25, p = .297, 95% CI [-.30, .06] between room conditions reported in the follow-up, there was a significant difference found between room conditions and whether participants desired to get closer to their interaction partner 30 days later, χ²(1) = 4.63, p = .031, V = .21. Specifically, more participants reported a desire to get closer with their conversation partner when they had interacted in the appealing room condition (n = 34) rather than the unappealing room condition (n = 19), while more people reported not having a desire to get closer with their conversation partner when they interacted in the unappealing room condition (n = 41) rather than the appealing room condition (n = 31). This finding lends partial support to the hypothesis that a more appealing environment may foster relationship formation (platonic or romantic). Additionally, across all participants who completed the follow-up survey, there was a significant correlation between the closeness they felt immediately after the interaction and the closeness they felt toward their conversation partner one month after the interaction, r(124) = .43, p < .001, 95% CI [.28, .56], suggesting that feelings of closeness were sustained one month after participants interacted in the lab.

Because initial romantic interactions can take place in a variety of settings, it is important to understand which ones are more likely to foster feelings of attraction and closeness between potential partners. In addressing this aim, the present research examined feelings of closeness and romantic connection after initial interactions between strangers in settings that elicit a warm, comfortable, and inviting setting (i.e., appealing) versus a cold, uncomfortable, and uninviting setting (i.e., unappealing). In line with previous research examining environmental factors, we hypothesized that participants interacting in an appealing (vs. unappealing) environment would exhibit greater enjoyment, self-disclosure, perceived responsiveness, interpersonal closeness, and romantic interest in an unacquainted conversation partner. Additionally, in line with the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy (Reis & Shaver, 1988), we hypothesized a serial indirect effect, such that participants in the appealing (vs. unappealing) environment would exhibit greater self-disclosure, which would be associated with greater perceived responsiveness, and in turn, greater enjoyment, closeness, and romantic interest. Contrary to our pre-registered hypotheses, participants in both environmental conditions reported similar levels of closeness and affiliation across all variables of interest. These findings suggest that participants felt equally close and romantically interested in one another, regardless of how pleasant of a room they were in while getting to know each other.

It is unlikely that these null findings can be attributed to a weak manipulation, as participants in the appealing condition rated the room as significantly more positive/appealing than those in the unappealing condition. One possible explanation for this null finding is that the strength of the Fast-Friends Paradigm obscured the ability to find effects between conditions. Specifically, in line with previous research employing this procedure (for a review, see Sprecher, 2020), engaging in an intimate conversation involving increasingly more self-disclosure may be associated with feelings of interpersonal closeness regardless of outside factors, such as one’s physical surroundings. These findings contribute to the existing literature demonstrating the robust effects of the Fast-Friends Paradigm to create closeness between strangers, even when conversing in an unappealing environment.

Another explanation for the null findings is that participants were not explicitly informed of the possibility of a romantic connection that could develop from these interactions. As Sprecher and colleagues (2015) discuss, relationship-building settings facilitate the development of a romantic connection (e.g., attending a speed-dating event), while naturally occurring settings facilitate the accomplishment of a task (e.g., attending an academic workshop). Participants in the present study may have viewed this interaction as simply fulfilling an academic requirement rather than displaying their romantic availability. Thus, if the intent of creating a romantic connection was made explicit to participants, the setting of the interactions may have played a larger role in participants’ experiences and perceptions.

One notable strength of our study is the inclusion of diverse dyads beyond the traditional mixed-sex, primarily heterosexual pairings often seen in relationship science research (see McGorray et al., 2023). By pairing participants based on their self-identified gender and sexual orientation, we could account for sexual orientation diversity and enhance the generalizability of our findings. Additionally, although Adams and Gillath’s (2024) recent work provided key evidence on perceptions of setting appropriateness for relationship initiation, this study is the first to directly manipulate environments and assess actual (versus anticipated) interpersonal outcomes. This experimental design holds promise for future research endeavors aimed at delving deeper into the influence of physical surroundings on interpersonal interactions, experiences, and outcomes. Lastly, the utilization of a follow-up survey allowed us to explore how participants felt about the interaction and their conversation partner 30 days later. Notably, although no romantic relationships were reported in the follow-up, some desired and actual friendships were formed, lending further support for the Fast-Friends Paradigm. Interestingly, participants who interacted in the appealing room were more likely to desire closeness with their conversation partner a month later than those in the unappealing room. Therefore, it might be that when recalling the interaction, the environment may have played a greater role in shaping perceptions than it did when the interaction first took place. However, further research is needed to confirm this possibility.

One limitation of this study stems from its implementation in a lab setting and the potential lack of generalizability to real-world dating interactions. Specifically, this conversation task is structured and very intimate—depending on how serious individuals are about finding a potential partner, date-goers may not typically engage in such structured and intimate conversation upon first meeting. It may take potential couples a few encounters before such intimate topics organically occur over time, therefore, these findings might not directly generalize to first-date interactions. Future research could expand on these findings by having participants engage in unstructured conversations, such as those that may occur naturally on a first date (e.g., Sprecher, 2021). Furthermore, examining these interactions in commercial settings, such as an appealing coffee shop versus a lackluster dive bar with other patrons around, would give the findings more ecological validity. This approach would allow exploration of whether naturally occurring conversations in naturalistic settings produce different outcomes during the initial stages of romantic relationships.

Additionally, although no support was found for the current hypotheses, there are many directions in which future research could apply a similar framework to further examine how physical settings influence relationship initiation processes. For example, a growing body of research is interested in interactions that occur in online settings (see Osler, 2024). Future work could examine whether different types of online settings (e.g., a virtual date via Zoom with an aesthetic background versus a bare surrounding) might impact initial interaction outcomes. Building on Griffitt’s (1970) early work, future research could also replicate the current study and manipulate other environmental factors, such as room temperature, to see if these conditions lead to different experiences. Ultimately, there are many ways the present design might be utilized and expanded upon to gain additional insights into how physical settings might play a role in relationship processes.

Meeting prospective partners, initiating relationships, and going on first dates are common practices in the development of committed romantic relationships, yet the factors that create intimate, relationship-building settings in which these actions take place are not well understood. It is important to understand if and how environments might influence relationship initiation processes as this knowledge may aid potential couples in choosing environments that better facilitate feelings of closeness and connection, allowing them to gain access to the benefits romantic relationships have to offer (Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; Slatcher & Selcuk, 2017). Our findings suggest that even when interacting in an uncomfortable and unappealing setting, strangers enjoyed the interaction, self-disclosed to the same extent, perceived similar amounts of responsiveness, felt just as interpersonally close, and felt equally romantically interested in one another as strangers interacting in a comfortable and appealing setting following an engaging and intimate conversation. Given the null findings of this study, research should continue to explore if other types of physical settings better foster initial romantic interactions.

D.R.B, C.M.L., and R.B.S. contributed to the conception and design; D.R.B. and C.M.L. contributed to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data; D.R.B. drafted the manuscript; C.M.L. and R.B.S. provided critical feedback. All authors approve the content of this paper.

We thank our diligent research assistants in the Close Relationships Lab for assisting in the data collection process of this study.

There is no funding to report for this submission.

The authors report no competing or conflicts of interest in the execution or publication of this project.

IRB approval for this study was obtained externally and via the university institutional review board (PROJECT00004837).