Saturday, April 3, 2021

Although the men indicated a willingness to pursue slightly older partners in surveys, they rarely acted on these statements in real-life dating

Partner preference and age: User's mating behavior in online dating. Marketa Setinova, Renáta Topinková. Journal of Family Research, Mar 29 2021. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-540


Abstract

Objective: We test whether real online-user mating behavior corresponds with expectations from both the sociobiological and social perspectives and explore the age differentials that individuals opt for when searching for a mate and how this evolves relative to the user’s age and gender.

Background: Age plays a vital role in partner choice. Previous studies have focused primarily on age differences between couples and their self-reported preferences for partners of a certain age. However, little is known about how age affects behavior in the online dating market.

Method: We use behavioral data from a Czech online dating app, Pinkilin and analyze 197,519 invitations that users sent to each other in July 2017.

Results: Men strongly prefer young women, and women prefer partners of their age or slightly older. At older ages, men’s preference for younger women widens, while women's preferences become more diverse. Homogamous tendencies are stronger among younger users and women.

Conclusion: Overall, our results corroborate those of previous research on online dating, but we extend this research in terms of age differences in the Czech context.

Keywords: online dating, age homogamy, partner preference, Czechia


---

In surveys, men state an acceptable partner age interval of 10 years younger and five years older. As they age, their willingness to pursue younger women increases, but their non-acceptance of older women remains constant (Conway et al. 2015; Schwarz & Hassebrauck 2012). Data from online dating confirm men’s strong preference for young women and their avoidance in terms of contacting older partners (Fiore & Donath 2005; Rudder 2014; Skopek et al. 2011). Our research is in line with the previous evidence. Young men showed a preference for women their age. However, this preference declined with age, and they gradually shifted to younger partners. With age, they grew more ambitious and were willing to cross larger age gaps toward younger partners. Overall, the men in our data set avoided older women, including women who were only slightly their senior. This avoidance was stable for all ages, thereby confirming that although the men indicated a willingness to pursue slightly older partners in surveys, they rarely acted on these statements in real-life dating. This highlights the importance of mixing digital trace data with traditional surveys, as stated preferences may not necessarily translate to future actions (Schmitz et al. 2009).

As for women, their stated partner age interval was eight years older and five years younger. With age, they grew accepting of younger partners and became less willing to contact older men (Conway et al. 2015; Schwarz & Hassebrauck 2012). Looking at the online dating market, women showed a tendency to mate with partners of their age and slightly older. Women under 30 were not open to contact from younger men, but as they aged, their openness toward younger partners increased (Rudder 2014; Skopek et al. 2011). Again, this was largely supported in our Czech data set. The youngest women had a preference for older partners over partners their age. However, up to 30 years old, they preferred partners of the same age or up to nine years their senior. As women aged, they were more open to younger men and more restrictive toward older men. The older the woman was, the more willing she was to cross larger age gaps toward younger partners. As mentioned earlier, the same trend could be observed for men. However, there was a lag as to when this shift toward younger partners occurred. Women started initiating contact with significantly younger men (5–9 years younger) later, in their mid-forties, while men developed this preference around their mid-thirties.

The support for evolutionary theory in our analysis is, therefore, fairly strong. Two interesting findings are noteworthy. First, in comparison to previous research, men were, from an early age, very hesitant to contact older women. This can be seen as an impact of strong local gender norms that, at least in men’s eyes, may highlight the importance of reproduction in dating and support the paradigm that the husband should be older than his wife. Men’s tendency to avoid older women in the early stages of dating could also be one of the mechanisms behind the higher incidence of male age hypogamy in Czechia (Katrňák 2008). Second, we observed older women around their mid-forties contacting significantly younger men. This tendency was visible in past online dating research (Rudder 2014; Skopek et al. 2011) but did not fully correspond with expectations from evolutionary theory. Perhaps older women are aware of the marriage squeeze and believe they have more chances with a younger partner who might be attracted to their experience and status. Alternatively, they may be more economically independent than younger women and may not be drawn to older partners because they already have their own resources (Rudder 2014, confirms that response rates to older women’s messages from younger males are fairly high). Growing levels of female hypogamy by older women in Czechia might support this hypothesis (Katrňák 2008). Another interpretation could be related to seeking a sexual partner rather than one for reproduction. Not all dating site users are in search of a serious relationship, and older women seeking younger males for sexual pleasure, called “cougars” in popular culture, can offer noncommitted sex and demand no financial provision or status from men in return (Lowen 2019). Furthermore, in the post-reproductive phase, women may not place such importance on status, even when seeking a serious relationship. Without further data, however, it is difficult to understand the reason behind these two inconsistencies.


No comments:

Post a Comment