Soft lamps, a plush couch and the scent of lavender did nothing extra for strangers getting to know each other. In a lab experiment, pairs who talked in a bare, brightly lit office felt just as close and just as romantically interested as pairs who talked in a cozy lounge.
The study was carried out by Daisi R. Brand, Christina M. Leckfor and Richard B. Slatcher of the University of Georgia. It was published on June 23, 2025, in Collabra: Psychology. The hypotheses, exclusion rules and analyses were preregistered before data collection.
Two very different rooms
The researchers recruited 208 undergraduate students at a large university in the southeastern United States and paired them up as strangers. After exclusions, 201 participants remained. They were matched by gender and sexual orientation so that each pair had the potential for romantic interest. Their average age was just under 19.
Each pair was randomly sent to one of two rooms. The appealing room had dimmed overhead lights, two lamps, blue carpet, three impressionist-style paintings, an L-shaped couch with pillows and a throw blanket, plants and a lavender diffuser.
The unappealing room was a small, cramped office with cement walls, a wooden table, a blank chalkboard, a metal filing cabinet, empty cardboard boxes and stacks of old papers. It was lit by bright fluorescent tubes.
In either room, the pair spent 45 minutes on the Fast-Friends Paradigm, a set of 36 increasingly personal questions designed to build closeness between strangers. Afterward, each person rated their enjoyment, how much they had opened up, how responsive their partner seemed, how close they felt and how romantically interested they were.
The room made no measurable difference
The manipulation worked on perception. Participants rated the appealing room far more positively, at 5.44 versus 3.58 on a seven-point scale.
But on every outcome, the two groups ended up in the same place. Romantic interest averaged 5.58 in the cozy room and 5.52 in the drab one on a nine-point scale. Closeness was 3.90 versus 4.12, and self-disclosure 5.61 versus 5.58. None of the differences were statistically significant, and the same held when the analysis was limited to the 119 participants who were single.
The team had also predicted that a pleasant room would make people share more, which would make partners seem more responsive, which in turn would build closeness. That chain did not show up either.
A hint that surroundings matter later
A month later, 125 participants answered a voluntary follow-up survey. Here one difference appeared. Of those who had talked in the appealing room, 34 said they wanted to get closer to their partner and 31 did not. Among those from the drab room, 19 wanted to get closer and 41 did not.
The authors suggest the setting may matter more in memory than in the moment. They also offer two reasons for the null result: the question set is powerful enough to create closeness almost anywhere, and participants were never told the meeting might be romantic, so it may have felt more like a class requirement than a date.
They note that the structured, very personal conversation is not how most first dates go. No romantic relationships had formed at the one-month mark, though some friendships had.
Study Details:
- Title: “Is It (Un)romantic in Here or Is It Just Me?”: Examining the Effects of Physical Settings on Relationship Initiation Processes
- Authors: Daisi R. Brand, Christina M. Leckfor, Richard B. Slatcher
- Journal: Collabra: Psychology
- Publication Date: June 23, 2025
- DOI: 10.1525/collabra.140690