New study sheds light on how feminist beliefs shape partner preferences

Feminist beliefs, not gender equality primes, shape self-reported partner preferences, according to research published in Sex Roles.

For decades, researchers have documented gender differences in partner preferences: men tend to prioritize physical attractiveness, while women emphasize a partner’s resource-gaining potential. Evolutionary psychologists argue that these differences are universal, but growing evidence suggests they are shaped by cultural and societal factors.

Studies indicate that in more gender-equal societies, women place less emphasis on a partner’s financial prospects, yet the gender gap in preferences for physical attractiveness remains consistent across cultures. The underlying mechanisms driving these shifts remain unclear.

Natalie Wareham and colleagues investigated whether priming participants to think about gender equality would influence their self-reported partner preferences. They also examined whether feminist beliefs were linked to partner preferences, building on prior research suggesting that individuals with more traditional gender role attitudes are more likely to conform to stereotypical mate selection patterns.

The researchers conducted two online studies with UK-based participants recruited via Prolific. In both studies, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: an Inequality Condition, where they read statements about ongoing gender disparities, or an Equality Condition, which highlighted progress in gender equality over time. These statements, sourced from UK government and statistical reports, covered topics such as political representation, career opportunities, and the gender pay gap.

Study 1 included 224 participants (112 men and 112 women) aged 18 to 77. After reading the priming statements, they provided an additional example of either a contemporary gender inequality or a recent advancement in gender equality, reinforcing the priming effect. They then completed a partner preference task, distributing 25 “preference points” among five traits: physical attractiveness, ideal age, hard-working, well-educated, and good companion/friend. Participants also indicated their ideal partner’s age relative to their own. To assess social attitudes, they completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (measuring hostile and benevolent sexism) and the Liberal Feminist Attitudes and Ideology Scale (evaluating feminist beliefs).

Study 2 refined the methodology to address potential limitations of Study 1. It included a larger sample of 380 participants (189 men and 191 women) aged 18 to 29, focusing on individuals more likely to be actively considering romantic relationships. Instead of allocating preference points, participants rated five partner characteristics—physical attractiveness, health, good financial prospects, intelligence, and kindness—on a 5-point scale, allowing independent evaluations of each trait. To test the priming’s effectiveness, they rated the perceived level of gender equality in the UK and estimated the percentage of women in male- and female-dominated professions (engineers and nurses). To reduce the survey length, Study 2 measured only feminist attitudes.

Across both studies, participants exhibited well-documented gender differences in partner preferences. On average, men placed greater importance on physical attractiveness, while women prioritized traits related to resource acquisition. Men also preferred younger partners, whereas women preferred slightly older ones. However, contrary to predictions, priming participants with statements about either gender inequality or progress in gender equality had no effect on their self-reported partner preferences. These findings suggest that mate selection criteria remain stable despite short-term exposure to messages about gender equality.

Although priming did not influence partner preferences, feminist beliefs were significantly associated with them. In both studies, men who scored higher on feminist attitudes placed less emphasis on physical attractiveness, while in Study 2, women with stronger feminist beliefs prioritized kindness more than their lower-scoring counterparts. However, sexist attitudes did not show a clear link to partner preferences, indicating a more complex relationship between gender role beliefs and mate selection criteria.

These findings suggest that individual ideological beliefs, rather than brief exposure to gender equality messaging, shape how people evaluate potential partners.

The lack of effect from the gender equality priming could be due to the primes being insufficiently strong or not remaining salient throughout the experiment.

The research, “Feminist Beliefs, Not Gender Equality Primes, Shape Self-Reported Partner Preferences,” was authored by Natalie Wareham, Csilla Pákozdy, and Gillian R. Brown.