A reader quotes Marin Cogan:
Studies suggest that men are more likely than women to interpret friendly interest as sexual attraction, and this is a constant hazard for women in the profession. The problem, in part, is that the rituals of cultivating sources—initiating contact, inviting them out for coffee or a drink, showing intense interest in their every word—can often mimic the rituals of courtship…
That doesn’t mimic the rituals of courtship; it is the rituals of courtship. Some of them, at least. The reporter is just employing them for a different purpose (to “cultivate” a relationship other than a romantic one). Nonetheless, the only reason the behaviors she described work is because they are courtship rituals. The parts of the brain that produce emotional attachment don’t know anything about modern cultural contexts or complex rational motivations. They see behaviors and do their thing.
In this case, what the reporter is shooting for is to perform just enough courtship behavior to elicit just enough emotional attachment to produce an exclusive and ongoing relationship of openness and trust without getting the rest of the relationship that courtship is designed to produce. Sometimes the source’s prefrontal cortex can figure all this out and realize that what’s going on isn’t real courtship, but sometimes it can’t. (Likewise, sometimes the reporter modulates her courtship behavior just right, and sometimes she overshoots.)
I’m not saying female reporters are intentionally leading on male sources, nor am I saying male sources are looking for love in exchange for information. Exactly the same applies when the genders are reversed. I’m just calling a spade a spade, and I’m puzzled that Cogan is describing these situations as if they’re surprising or accidental. Courtship behaviors often elicit courtship responses. This is neither surprising nor accidental.
The Dish 