A new study has found that a person’s political affiliation is a powerful factor in online dating choices, carrying about as much weight as physical attractiveness. At the same time, the research suggests that a willingness to date someone from an opposing party, a signal of political tolerance, is an even more desirable trait. The findings, published in Political Science Research and Methods, provide a nuanced look at how political divisions are shaping our most personal relationships.
The research was conducted by a team from Queen Mary University of London and the London School of Economics and Political Science. They were motivated by the observation that political polarization has begun to influence decisions far outside the voting booth, from hiring to personal friendships.
The researchers questioned whether this bias is purely about party labels, or if those labels act as a shorthand for other assumed characteristics, such as values or lifestyle. By focusing on the complex world of online dating, they sought to disentangle the raw effect of partisanship from the many other factors that guide the search for a partner.
To investigate these questions, the scientists designed a realistic online dating simulation for 3,000 participants in the United Kingdom. Each participant was shown a series of paired dating profiles and asked to choose which person they would prefer to date. The profiles were generated with a mix of randomly assigned traits, creating a wide variety of potential partners. This method, known as a conjoint experiment, allows researchers to precisely measure the independent influence of each characteristic on a person’s choice.
The profiles included key political attributes, such as party affiliation (Labour or Conservative) and political tolerance. The tolerance attribute was presented as a statement in the profile’s bio, either expressing openness (“Open to match with anyone”) or intolerance (“No Tories/Labour!”). Profiles also featured nonpolitical traits common on dating apps, including physical appearance, race, education level, height, and even dietary habits, such as being vegetarian. The use of actual photographs, pre-rated for attractiveness, was intended to make the experience more similar to using a real dating app.
The results showed that political identity has a substantial effect on dating decisions. On average, a person was 18.2 percentage points more likely to be chosen if they shared the same party affiliation as the participant. This effect was similar in magnitude to the preference for a physically attractive person and was twice as strong as the preference for a potential date with a university degree. This suggests that in the modern dating market, political alignment can be just as important as conventional standards of attraction.
However, the single most influential trait was not party affiliation, but political tolerance. A profile that signaled an openness to dating people from any political background was nearly 20 percentage points more likely to be chosen than a profile expressing intolerance. This preference for open-mindedness was slightly stronger than the preference for a shared party. Participants appeared to value tolerance even when evaluating someone from their own party, indicating a genuine appreciation for the trait rather than just an aversion to being rejected themselves.
The study also uncovered a notable asymmetry in partisan behavior. While supporters of both major parties preferred to date within their own political group, this tendency was much stronger on the left. Labour supporters were approximately twice as likely to choose a fellow Labour supporter compared to the rate at which Conservatives chose other Conservatives. This finding points to different social dynamics within the two partisan groups in the UK.
Another surprising asymmetry emerged when participants encountered profiles that defied political stereotypes. Conservative participants were more likely to select a Labour supporter who broke from the typical mold, for example, by being White or holding “traditional” values.
In contrast, Labour supporters were less likely to choose a Conservative profile that broke stereotypes, such as a Black or vegetarian Conservative. The researchers suggest this could be related to a negative reaction against individuals who violate strong group expectations, making them seem unfamiliar.
The researchers acknowledge certain limitations. The study focused only on Labour and Conservative supporters, which may not capture the full complexity of the UK’s multiparty political system. While the experiment identifies these differing preferences between partisan groups and genders, it does not fully explain the underlying psychological reasons for them. Future research could explore these motivations in greater depth.
Additional work might also examine the role of geography, as dating pool size and composition in urban versus rural areas could alter how people weigh political and nonpolitical traits. The influence of other major political identities, such as a person’s stance on Brexit, could also be a productive area for investigation.
The study’s findings suggest that while partisan divides are real and affect relationship formation, they are not absolute. An expressed sense of tolerance may be one of the most effective ways to bridge these political gaps in the personal sphere.
The study, “‘Sleeping with the enemy’: partisanship and tolerance in online dating,” was authored by Yara Sleiman, Georgios Melios and Paul Dolan.