New research uncovers a psychological paradox in choosiness and sex

A new study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior provides evidence that how selective people are when choosing potential romantic partners may be linked to how often they engage in partnered sex — but in an unexpected way. Single adults who say they are picky about their romantic preferences tend to report more frequent partnered sexual activity, while those who act more selective when rating dating profiles tend to report less. This pattern suggests that the way we measure “choosiness” may reveal very different things about how it relates to sexual behavior.

The findings arrive amid growing concern over declining sexual activity among young adults. National surveys suggest a steady rise in the number of men and women reporting a year or more of sexual inactivity, a trend that has become more pronounced over the past two decades. These shifts have sparked ongoing debate about the underlying causes—especially given that partnered sex is often linked to emotional well-being, better physical health, relationship satisfaction, and even increased longevity.

“My colleague Michael did his research on incels (shorthand for ‘involuntary celibate’ – people, mostly men, who are single despite their efforts to be in a relationship), which has received significant media attention over the past few years,” said study author Henry Close, a clinical psychology registrar at The University of Queensland. “Building on that, my supervisor Fiona Kate Barlow and I were curious about the mental health aspects of social and sexual isolation, and how people struggle to pursue romantic and sexual relationships.”

Rather than relying solely on people’s own descriptions of how picky they are, the researchers used two different strategies to measure choosiness. One involved asking participants to list how many “non-negotiable” personality traits they required in a romantic partner. The more traits listed as essential, the higher the participant’s “stated choosiness.” The second approach focused on actual behavior: participants were asked to rate a series of dating profiles and indicate whether they would find the person attractive, consider dating them, or go on a date. The fewer profiles someone expressed interest in, the higher their “revealed choosiness.”

To gather the data, the researchers surveyed 340 single, heterosexual men and women in the United States, ranging in age from 18 to 40. The participants were recruited through an online platform and were asked a range of questions about their dating preferences, how frequently they engaged in different types of partnered sexual activity over the past year, and whether they identified as being single by choice or not. About 36% of participants reported being virgins, and a similar percentage said they had not engaged in any sexual activity in the past year.

The researchers found that people who scored higher on stated choosiness — by naming more essential traits in a partner — were more likely to report having had sex in the last year. This association held even after accounting for other factors known to influence sexual frequency, such as age, gender, and how attractive people rated themselves.

In contrast, people who were more selective when rating dating profiles (revealed choosiness) were less likely to report having had sex in the past year. Again, this pattern remained even when controlling for self-rated attractiveness and other demographic variables. The findings indicate that different forms of choosiness may have opposite associations with sexual behavior.

“We didn’t expect the difference between personality-based (stated) choosiness and appearance-based (revealed) choosiness,” Close told PsyPost. “We expected that choosiness would result in less sex, regardless of type of choosiness.”

One key nuance emerged when researchers considered whether participants were single by choice. For those who said they would have preferred to be in a relationship, high revealed choosiness was linked to lower sexual frequency. But for participants who said they were single by choice, revealed choosiness did not predict how often they had sex. This suggests that being highly selective about potential partners may reduce sexual opportunities — but primarily for people who are actively looking for a partner.

The contrast between stated and revealed choosiness presents a puzzle. Why would people who report more rigid preferences in theory be more sexually active in practice? One possibility, the authors suggest, is that having clearly defined standards might signal confidence or commitment to dating. This could make such individuals appear more attractive to potential partners. People who express clear preferences may also be more engaged in the dating process overall and more willing to pursue or respond to opportunities.

In contrast, those who are choosier in practice — by rejecting more profiles — might be limiting their opportunities too early in the dating process. Especially on dating apps, where interactions often start with a brief impression, high levels of selectivity may reduce the likelihood of meeting someone in the first place. This could be especially relevant for people who aren’t single by choice but are actively seeking romantic or sexual connection.

“Being overly choosy based on appearance may be related to having less sex while choosiness in terms of personality traits may be correlated to having more sex,” Close explained. “More specifically, this may suggest that for singles in search of sex or romance, being clear and confident about one’s preferences may be linked with greater success; while being overly selective when evaluating dating profiles may result in fewer opportunities for sex and related romance.”

The researchers also looked at whether gender moderated the link between choosiness and sexual frequency. They found that while women tended to be higher in stated choosiness than men, gender did not significantly influence the relationship between choosiness and sexual activity. This challenges some evolutionary assumptions that women’s sexual behavior is more heavily shaped by selectivity, and suggests that choosiness may play a similar role for both men and women when it comes to actual sexual outcomes.

One strength of the study is that it includes both behavioral and self-report measures of choosiness, providing a more layered picture of how selectivity operates in real life. Past research has shown that people’s stated preferences often don’t match their behavior, and this study supports that idea. Neither measure of choosiness was associated with whether people said they were choosy, and self-described choosiness wasn’t related to sexual frequency at all.

Still, the study has limitations. Because the data are correlational, the findings don’t suggest any firm cause-and-effect relationship. It’s possible, for example, that people who are less successful in dating become more selective over time, rather than choosiness leading to less sex. The researchers also note that they didn’t ask participants about the kind of sexual activity they preferred, which could have influenced the results.

The researchers encourage future work to explore more nuanced types of choosiness — such as selectivity based on appearance, personality, or values — and how these relate to different dating goals, including casual encounters versus long-term relationships. It will also be important to extend this research beyond heterosexual singles to include partnered individuals and those across diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.

“I would like to take these findings into my clinical practice as a psychologist,” Close said. “So many young people are feeling thwarted and jaded by the current dating scene and having to be ‘on the apps’ (dating applications like Tinder and Hinge). I see my clients spend inordinate amounts of time just swiping left and right, getting that hit of dopamine and validation by chatting briefly, and then not meeting up or getting ghosted (where the person abruptly stops responding).”

“At a broader level, the research emphasises the need to recognize sexual inactivity as a growing and potentially impactful phenomenon. Relationship education efforts should consider not just safety and consent, but also how people navigate choice, self-perception, and motivation in an increasingly complex dating landscape.”

The study, “Choosiness as a Predictor of Sexual (In)frequency in Single Heterosexual Adults,” was authored by Henry S. G. Close, Lewis Nitschinsk, Brendan P. Zietsch, and Fiona Kate Barlow