A person’s gender appears to play a more substantial role in shaping their preferences for a long-term partner than their sexual orientation, according to new research. The new findings, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, shed light on how sexual orientation and gender interact to influence preferences when it comes to choosing romantic partners.
While mate selection has been extensively studied for over a century, the majority of these studies have focused on heterosexual or straight individuals. There have been limited studies that consider a fuller range of diversity in sexual orientation or compare mate choice preferences between heterosexual individuals and those with different sexual orientations.
The researchers conducted this study to address a significant gap in the existing literature on human mate selection and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the potential effects of sexual orientation on mate preferences.
“A large body of empirical literature addresses what we prefer in a partner but often focuses on individuals who seek an opposite-sex partner or who identify with a heterosexual orientation,” explained study author Lisa Klümper, a research fellow at the University of Wuppertal. “The literature on mate choice preferences for other sexual orientations is sparse, but it’s crucial to gather more data to examine similarities and differences between individuals of various sexual orientations, including factors like gender, sexual orientation, and long- vs. short-term orientation (i.e., preferences regarding long-term committed relationships and short-term sexual encounters, independent from gender). ”
For their study, Klümper and her colleagues recruited a large sample of participants (n = 23,935) through an online survey hosted and advertised by a major German online dating service. For their primary analysis focusing on lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals, they ended up with a final sample of 710 single LGB participants (328 bisexual women, 130 lesbian women, 157 bisexual men, and 95 gay men).
The participants were asked to rate the importance of 82 different traits for a long-term partner on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important). These criteria covered various aspects such as affection, intelligence, financial stability, and more. They were also asked about their age preferences for a potential long-term partner, indicating the youngest and oldest age they would accept for such a partner.
Furthermore, participants were presented with ten marriage criteria. These criteria covered various aspects, such as a partner’s employment status, income, education level, physical appearance, and whether they already had children. They were asked whether they could imagine marrying someone who met each of these criteria (yes or no).
The researchers conducted an Exploratory Factor Analysis to identify common domains of mate selection preferences among the LGB sample. They identified eleven factors, each representing a specific set of traits. These factors included preferences for:
- A caring partner (e.g. affectionate, loving, warmhearted)
- An adventurous partner (e.g. ambitious, outgoing, self-confident)
- An enlightened partner (e.g. being educated, literate, intelligent)
- A cultivated partner (e.g. polite, industrious, has good manners)
- A physically attractive partner (e.g. good looks)
- A wealthy and generous partner (e.g. generous, successful in their career, and has a high social status)
- An approachable partner (e.g. friendly, kind, and pleasant)
- A comedic partner (e.g. being funny, witty, and humorous)
- A domestic partner (e.g. enjoys staying at home, is a good cook)
- A like-minded partner (e.g. shares similar interests, opinions, and ideas)
- A child-friendly partner (e.g. a partner who wants children and is fond of children)
The researchers found that there were common domains of mate selection preferences across different sexual orientations, indicating shared desires among individuals. Regardless of whether participants identified as lesbian women, gay men, bisexual women, bisexual men, or heterosexuals, certain attributes were consistently valued.
Characteristics like wealth, physical attractiveness, enlightenment, and caring held universal appeal. This suggests that, at least in some aspects, people across sexual orientations share common ideals when it comes to selecting a life partner.
In general, the researchers found that whether a person was biologically male or female played a more substantial role in shaping their preferences for a long-term partner or spouse than their sexual orientation. Gender, in this context, emerged as the most critical factor influencing these preferences.
“Our study presents a significant advantage by examining an extensive range of mate selection criteria within a substantial sample of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual singles. We were able to provide quantitative data for this comparative analysis rather than relying solely on qualitative reports or data from small sample sizes from prior research,” Klümper told PsyPost.
“Interestingly, when comparing the mate preferences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals to those of heterosexual counterparts, the differences based on sexual orientation appear relatively modest, and the gender of individuals plays a pivotal role in shaping their partner preferences. This observation aligns with the idea that distinct psychological mechanisms can function independently. Thus, differences in one module, such as sexual orientation, may not necessarily lead to variations in another module, such as partner preferences.”
Women showed a higher preference than men for partners who are caring, enlightened, wealthy, generous, adventurous, cultivated, comedic, and like-minded. Men showed a higher preference than women for a physically attractive partner and a domestic partner. There were no significant differences between men and women in their preference for an approachable partner or a child-friendly partner.
Women, in general, were more accepting of partners who were older than themselves. Men, on the other hand, were more accepting of partners who were younger than themselves. Interestingly, bisexual women were more willing to accept younger partners, while there was no significant difference for men based on sexual orientation.
When examining the marriage criteria, the researchers found that more men than women and more heterosexual individuals than LGB individuals were open to marrying someone unemployed. However, bisexual individuals did not show this pattern. More women than men were willing to marry someone who earned significantly more than they did. In contrast, more men than women were open to marrying someone who earned less than they did.
On the other hand, women were more open to marrying partners with a higher education level than themselves. Men, particularly bisexual men, were more open to this idea than their heterosexual counterparts. More women than men could imagine marrying a partner who already had children. Bisexual men were also more open to this than heterosexual men.
Furthermore, men were more open to marrying partners with different physical attributes, such as skin color, compared to women. But women were more open to marrying someone who was not good-looking.
Despite the valuable insights gained from this study, it includes some limitations. “An important caveat is that in the study, we used a categorical approach to measure sexual orientation, which has limitations,” Klümper said. “While this categorical assessment was useful for comparing results with prior research, future studies should employ a more comprehensive measurement of sexual orientation, including a continuum scale and assessments of attitudes, desires, and experiences with same-sex or opposite-sex partners. Distinguishing between sex, gender, and various subtypes of sexual orientation is essential to capture the complexity of individuals’ experiences.
The study, “Intersexual and Intrasexual Differences in Mate Selection Preferences Among Lesbian Women, Gay Men, and Bisexual Women and Men“, was authored by Lisa Klümper, Manfred Hassebrauck, and Sascha Schwarz.
