Chapter 16 Exercises: Motivation and Goal Pursuit in Courtship

Exercise 16.1 — Mapping Your Approach-Avoidance Profile (Individual Reflection)

Format: Written reflection, 350–450 words Time: 30 minutes

Think of a recent situation in which you were attracted to someone and faced a choice about whether to express that interest. (If no recent situation comes to mind, use a clearly remembered past one, or a hypothetical scenario you find genuinely activating.)

Describe the situation briefly, then respond to the following:

1. What was your approach motivation — what were you drawn toward, what did you imagine gaining or experiencing?

2. What was your avoidance motivation — what were you trying to avoid, what felt threatening about approaching?

3. Did you experience both simultaneously (dual activation)? If so, what did that feel like, and how did you ultimately respond?

4. Looking back: were you operating primarily from promotion focus (oriented toward possible positive outcomes) or prevention focus (oriented toward avoiding bad outcomes)? How did that orientation shape your behavior?

5. What would have had to change — in you, in the other person, in the situation — to shift the balance toward approach?

There are no correct answers here. The goal is accurate self-observation, not self-improvement narrative.

Exercise 16.2 — Autonomous vs. Controlled Motivation in Your Romantic History (Structured Reflection)

Format: Written reflection, 400–500 words Time: 35–45 minutes

Self-determination theory distinguishes between autonomous motivation (pursuing something because it aligns with your own values) and controlled motivation (pursuing it because of external pressure, obligation, or the desire to obtain approval or avoid shame).

1. Identify one romantic relationship or sustained attraction you've experienced that you believe was primarily autonomously motivated. What made it feel that way? How did the quality of the experience reflect that motivational basis?

2. Identify one romantic relationship or sustained attraction that was primarily or significantly controlled in its motivation — you were pursuing it largely because of external pressure, social expectation, or fear of what it would mean not to. (This does not require a dramatic or negative example — it can be quite subtle.) How did the controlled motivation affect the experience?

3. In your current approach to romantic life, what controlled motivational pressures do you notice operating? What "rules" or expectations are shaping your behavior that are not actually your own values?

Exercise 16.3 — The Gendered Initiation Script in Practice (Group Discussion)

Format: Small group discussion (3–5 people, mixed if possible) + individual written reflection Time: 25–30 minutes in-class; 15-minute individual reflection afterward

In small groups, discuss the following questions. Take notes on where group members agree and disagree.

1. In your own experience or observation, how real is the gendered script that men should initiate in heterosexual courtship? Does it feel like a strong social expectation, a mild preference, or something more flexible?

2. Have you ever experienced social costs for violating this script — either initiating "too readily" as a woman or waiting when expected to approach as a man? What were the costs?

3. Do you think the script is changing in your social environment and generation? If so, what is driving the change? If not, why is it proving durable?

Individual reflection (15 minutes): Write 200–250 words connecting your group discussion to the chapter's research on gendered initiation. Where does your lived experience match the literature? Where does it diverge, and what might explain the divergence?

Exercise 16.4 — Vulnerability Calibration (Scenario Analysis)

Format: Written response, 300–400 words Time: 25 minutes

The chapter distinguishes between vulnerability (appropriate, proportional, authentic self-disclosure that deepens connection) and oversharing (disproportionate self-disclosure that violates the norms of the relational stage).

Read the following three scenarios and assess each one: Is this person demonstrating vulnerability, oversharing, or something else? What is your evidence? What would you predict for the relationship quality from this starting point?

Scenario A: On a first date, Kavya mentions that she recently went through a difficult breakup and found it harder than she expected. She doesn't dwell on it; she says it in the context of talking about how she's been thinking about what she actually wants in relationships.

Scenario B: On a first date, Marcus spends forty-five minutes describing the psychological history of his last relationship, including detailed accounts of what his ex did wrong. He says he's "just being real."

Scenario C: Over three weeks of texting before a first meeting, Hyun-soo has been consistently warm and curious but has not disclosed much that feels personal. On the first meeting, she mentions briefly that she's been nervous about this because she finds meeting people in person harder than in writing — and then moves on.

Exercise 16.5 — The Okafor-Reyes "Why Didn't You Initiate?" Protocol (Applied Research Design)

Format: Research design exercise, 300–350 words Time: 25–30 minutes

The Year 2 Okafor-Reyes data asked participants to describe a situation in which they experienced attraction but did not initiate — and found that Western participants attributed non-initiation primarily to personal fear, while non-Western participants often attributed it to strategic social reasoning.

Design a short follow-up protocol to test whether these different attributions produce different longitudinal outcomes. Specifically:

1. What would be your primary outcome variable? (What do you want to measure to determine which interpretation is more correct?)

2. How would you operationalize "personal fear attribution" vs. "strategic social reasoning attribution" in a way that is comparable across cultures?

3. What confounds would you need to control for?

4. What sample size and cultural diversity would the study require to be convincing?

Exercise 16.6 — When Does Persistence Become Unwanted Pursuit? (Ethics and Evidence)

Format: Case analysis + personal reflection, 350–400 words Time: 30 minutes

The chapter distinguishes between adaptive approach persistence (continuing to express interest in the face of genuinely ambiguous signals) and unwanted pursuit (continuing after clear non-interest has been expressed).

Part 1: Describe a situation (real or hypothetical) in which you can clearly see the line between the two. What specifically makes the signal "unambiguous" in this case?

Part 2: Research on unwanted pursuit documents that recipients often use indirect or ambiguous refusals because direct refusal feels risky. Given this, what is the ethical responsibility of the pursuer? What standard should people apply to their own persistence when they are uncertain whether signals are ambiguous?

Part 3: The chapter notes that the "mixed signals" justification for persistence often reflects the recipient's attempt to soften a refusal, not genuine ambiguity. Why do you think this misreading is so common, and what would need to change — psychologically or culturally — to reduce it?