Abstract: Previous literature has identified assortative mating as the most frequent deviation from random mating both in offline dating and on classic online dating websites. However, several recent studies have suggested that assortative mating is fading due to the advent of mobile dating apps. Therefore, in this study we examine whether preferences for assortative mating are still present on the most popular mobile dating app of the moment, Tinder. For this means, we analyze experimental and survey data on 7846 Tinder profile evaluations. We unambiguously find that Tinder users prefer a potential partner whom they perceive to be similar in the personality traits agreeableness and openness to experience. With respect to similarity in perceived age, we find either no assortment or positive assortment, depending on whether we condition on other participant characteristics. Finally, we do not find any evidence for preferences for assortative mating based on attractiveness. We examine heterogeneous preferences by the gender and age of the experiment participants.
Keywords: Assortative matingPersonality traitsBig FiveDating appsTinder
4. Discussion
In this study we examined whether assortative mating preferences
that are often identified in offline dating and on classic online dating
websites are still present on the recently popular MDAs such as Tinder.
More specifically, we investigated whether Tinder users had a preference
for potential partners whom they perceived to be similar in age,
attractiveness, and Big Five personality traits. We examined this by
using experimental and survey data collected by Neyt et al. (2018).
In line with previous literature examining both offline dating and
dating on classic online dating websites, we found evidence for assortative
mating preferences based on age when controlling for other
participant characteristics. Given that in their literature review
Watson et al. (2004) point to age as one of the factors with the strongest
positive assortment, it is unsurprising that also in these analyses it was
the factor upon which assortative mating was the strongest. However,
correlation analyses showed no evidence for this sorting behavior. As a
consequence, results of analyses unconditional on other participant
characteristics are in line with recent studies on Tinder which found
that assortative mating preferences are fading on this dating platform
(Neyt et al., 2019; Ortega & Hergovich, 2017). Additionally, we found
that individuals prefer potential partners whom they perceive to be
similar on the Big Five personality traits agreeableness and openness to
experience (both in analyses controlling and not controlling for other
participant characteristics). This is in line with the studies of
Botwin et al. (1997) and Rammstedt and Schupp (2008), although these
studies also found assortative mating based on conscientiousness. Apparently,
even in a setting with no search frictions in which people
show interest in a potential partner a priori to meeting them, they prefer
a potential partner whom they perceive to be similar in the personality
traits agreeableness and openness to experience. The finding that assortative
mating based on perceived personality traits is lower than
assortative mating based on age, is in line with the review of the literature
in Watson et al. (2004) as well as with these authors’ own
findings.
With respect to similarity in age (when controlling for other participant
characteristics) and similarity in openness to experience, we also
found that these results are driven by the female participants and the
older participants. A suggestive explanation for this finding is that these
groups of participants have higher standards with respect to whom they
show interest in. For the female participants this would be in line with
the finding by Botwin et al. (1997) who showed that females express
more discriminating preferences for personality characteristics in their
ideal mate compared to males. This in turn is in line with parental investment
theory (Trivers, 1972) which argues that the sex that invests
more in offspring – for humans this is the females – are more discriminating
in their mate preferences. For the older participants this
higher discrimination in mate preferences could be because they are
looking for a more serious relationship.
Further, we did not find any evidence for assortative mating preferences
based on attractiveness. We argue that this is the case because
attractiveness is not a horizontal attribute upon which individuals mate
assortatively but rather a vertical attribute where there exists a predefined
consensus on which potential partners are the most desirable, in
casu highly attractive individuals. This behavior is likely reinforced by
the fact that showing interest in a person on Tinder is low in psychological
costs in case of rejection.
Finally, the finding that women have a preference for a potential
partner whom they perceive to be older whereas men do not exhibit age
preferences is in line with the findings of Kenrick and Keefe (1992).
Indeed, they report that while in early mating years – which most of our
participants are at, see Table 1 for descriptive statistics on participants’
age – men do not yet exhibit preferences for a younger potential
partner, women have a preference for an older potential partner already
in their early mating years.
We end this study by pointing out the main limitations of our research
design. First, we only examined mating behavior in the first
stage of the dating process. Nonetheless, we believe findings with respect
to this first stage are interesting, as it is a necessary stage each
individual trying to find a partner on a MDA needs to get through to
advance to the next stages of a relationship.
Second, although the experimental design was a very close reflection of
reality and although the data could not suffer from socially
desirable answers, it would still be interesting to verify whether partner
preferences identified in this study also hold in reality. We suggest
future studies – if possible – to use data directly provided by Tinder.
Third, with the data we used in this study we are only able to examine
whether certain assortative mating preferences exist and whether
they differ between certain groups of participants. However, we are
unable to deduce why these exist. We would suggest future studies to
examine – potentially using qualitative data – why exactly, for example,
female and older participants have higher preferences for potential
partners who are similar in openness to experience.
Fourth, in this study we made use of the TIPI to measure the Big Five
personality traits. Given that this scale measures each personality trait
with two questions, other – more extensive – scales are able to capture
personality more rigorously. However, given that we asked participants
to rate 16 profiles, using a more elaborate scale was not appropriate in
this study as results would suffer too much from bias due to boredom.
Still, we encourage future studies to use a more extensive scale of the
Big Five personality traits to examine assortative mating based on
personality in dating.
Next, in this study we only examined individuals from Western
countries (supra, Section 2). However, it would be interesting to
examine whether preferences for assortative mating also differ between
cultures, e.g. between Western and non-Western individuals. While
Buss (1989) conducted an analysis on absolute mating preferences over
37 cultures, to the extent of our knowledge no such analysis has been
done on assortative mating preferences.
Finally, in this study we only examined assortative mating preferences
based on age, attractiveness, and personality. Naturally, individuals
could have preferences for similarity on many more characteristics such as
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and education level
to name a few. As assortative mating based on these characteristics
would have substantial societal consequences, we encourage future
research to examine sorting behavior with respect to these
characteristics on the recently popular MDAs such as Tinder.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment