LaureeWrite a message
- I'm turkish
- I love:
- Body type:
- My figure type is slender
- I like to drink:
- I like:
- In my spare time I love collecting
Parent's Playbook. Lauren's Medical Moment.
Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More. Utilizing data from an eHarmony. Overall, users valued interpersonal communication more than sex appeal. Older users rated sexual attraction as slightly less important than younger users did, but they still highly valued the goal.
Women placed even greater emphasis on communication over sexual attraction compared to men. However, although men valued sexual attraction more than women at all ages, only the youngest women valued interpersonal communication more than young men. Unfortunately, there is little research on the development of new romantic relationships among older compared to younger adults, but preferences may change with age due to developmental changes and life experiences such as divorce.
We examined prioritized goals for new romantic relationships, and whether the importance of these goals varied by age and gender in a large sample of adults using the online dating service eHarmony. What do people want from a potential romantic relationship? Companionship and sexual attraction are common relationship goals, as evidenced by the prevalence of the themes of warm, friendship-based love and more sexual, passionate love across most major love theories see meta-analyses by Graham, ; Masuda, People differ in their relative valuation of these goals, which can be assessed by having individuals rate the importance of characteristics in a partner that reflect these goals.
Undergraduates tend to desire positive internal traits e. Although this work was with young adults, we expect that sexual attraction and traits facilitating companionship will both be highly valued, but that companionship might be even more important than sexual attraction, at all ages.
Yet, research on romantic relationship pursuit later in life has been largely restricted to small qualitative studies of young-old adults, with companionship the most widely cited reason for dating e.
A recent content analysis of online personal for men and women over age 40 found that romantic activities and sexual interests were mentioned at similar rates among the middle age and young-old age groups, but were ificantly less likely to be mentioned by participants in the old-old age group. Developmental changes may increase the value and salience of companionship compared to passion or physical attraction.
Older adults prefer low arousal e. Given that sexual attraction is a high intensity, excited state and companionship elicits low arousal positive emotion, older adults may correspondingly have a greater preference for companionship relative to sexual attraction compared to younger adults.
Cases of interest
Gender differences in partner preferences are often subtle but are worth considering. Among year olds, men were still more likely than women to say the most important reason for dating was to fulfill their sexual needs Montenegro, Therefore men may value sexual attraction more compared to women across the lifespan, and women might also value companionship more than men.
Popular media claimed adults 55 years of age and older were the largest demographic using dating websites in Rosenbloom, In contrast, the online dating site eHarmony. In this paper, we first identified principal relationship goals from eHarmony's questionnaires by conducting a factor analysis.
We expected that latent variables representing companionship and sexual attraction would emerge in a factor analysis of the eHarmony relationship questionnaire items, and that both younger and older users would place greater importance on companionship than on sexual attraction Hypothesis 1. We then assessed how the importance of these goals differed by age and by gender. We hypothesized that older adults might value sexual attraction slightly less than younger users Hypothesis 2A and focus more on companionship Hypothesis 2B.
Moreover, we tested whether gender differences observed in younger samples also exist among older adults. We expected men to value sexual attraction Hypothesis 3A and women to value companionship Hypothesis 3Brelatively more than the opposite gender at any age. We expected women at all ages to place even more emphasis on companionship versus sexual attraction compared to men Hypothesis 3C. Marital status and income distributions differed by age group; these additional demographics are provided in Supplementary Table 1.
Each new eHarmony. We conducted a factor analysis on these items to empirically identify key themes of the assessed desires. Specifically, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis with a training sample of 1, users, and validated with a well-fitting confirmatory factor analysis on a validation sample of 4, users. Detailed procedures and of the factor analyses are reported in the online supplement. Three meaningful factors were found.
Composite scores were calculated by taking the mean of the factor items. For additional item descriptive statistics, see Supplementary Table 4. Though we found two factors related to companionship, the analyses focus more on the interpersonal communication factor in order to highlight valued relationship qualities. Demographics e. To test whether companionship was valued ificantly more than sexual attraction, we compared the means of the composite scores using paired-samples t-tests.
To test hypotheses about age and gender differences in absolute importance, we created regression models testing for effects of age, gender, and possible age by gender interactions. Age was centered as indicated in Table 1 and rescaled to decades to facilitate interpretation. The composites were negatively skewed and exhibited ceiling effects, so we used censored regressions Schnedler, which for ceiling effects see online supplement for additional information.
The life-span model does not include covariates. Overall, age and gender ed for 5. Gender was coded with males as the comparison group. We first treated age as continuous and conducted analyses on the full age range. However, users' preferences can be influenced by specific life experiences that are partially confounded with age, particularly marital status divorce, widowhood. Thus, to help minimize such confounds and clarify our understanding of age and gender differences over and above other demographic influences, we conducted analyses within age subgroups. Analyses on the full age range controlling for covariates are available in the supplement.
To examine relative importance, we fit multiple regression models for the difference scores e. The validation were consistent. Additional details about adjusting estimates of effect size are available in the online supplement. We expected that users would value companionship more than sexual attraction. We predicted that older users might value sexual attraction less than younger users Hypothesis 2A.
Across the full age range, we found a ificant linear and curvilinear effect of age see Table 1. The curvilinear age term suggested that middle aged users valued sexual attraction highly, and only the oldest users valued sexual attraction less than the youngest users. This was likely because there were more divorced users closer to middle age and divorced users valued sexual attraction more than never married users.
Among the middle aged age users, older age was related to lower importance of sexual attraction over and above covariates We also expected that older users might value companionship more than younger users Hypothesis 2B. For importance of communication, in the lifespan sample there was a ificant disordinal interaction. When covariates were included in the model for young users agea different ificant age by gender interaction emerged. Male users a decade closer to 40 valued communication 0.
There were no ificant effects of age among middle age users or any of the older age subgroups. Age did not relate to importance of individual companionate characteristics in lifespan or age subgroup analyses. Thus, there is no consistent evidence that communication or companionate characteristics are valued more at older ages. We predicted men would value sexual attraction more than women at all ages Hypothesis 3A. Male users consistently valued sexual attraction more than women did in lifespan and age subgroup analyses see Table 1 and Figure 1a.
We also predicted women may value companionship more than men at all ages Hypothesis 3B. This pattern was driven by the young subgroup. While at age 20, female users were expected to value communication 0.
There were no ificant effects of gender among middle age users or the older subgroups. In contrast, women valued companionate characteristics more than men at all ages Figure 1c. Actual mean composite scores split by age and gender for training sample. Indeed, the relative importance of communication compared to sexual attraction, and the importance of individual companionate characteristics compared to sexual attraction, was ificantly higher for women than men at all ages.
Online dating across the life span: users' relationship goals
At age 50, women rated communication an additional 0. To our knowledge, this is the first quantitative study to examine what online dating users across the lifespan are looking for in a new relationship. Using a cross-sectional population sample of over 5, eHarmony.
We found that users consistently valued communication and characteristics such as personality or kindness more than sexual attraction. We also found mixed support for our predicted age differences across the lifespan. We had expected that older users would value sexual attraction less and companionship more than younger counterparts.
There was little evidence that older users valued companionship more, but this may have been due to a ceiling effect. There was more evidence that users approaching age 60 and older valued sexual attraction less than younger users. Overall, young-old and old-old users had similar preferences in this sample. Our are similar to the finding that across the lifespan, people generally want to experience more low arousal positive emotions such as the warmth and comfort companionship provides compared to high arousal positive emotions such as the excitement associated with sexual attractionespecially among older adults compared to younger adults Scheibe et al.
However, the age difference in desire for sexual attraction appears for middle age users, while decreases in importance of high arousal positive emotion were not observed until over In all analyses, women placed a greater relative emphasis on companionship than men did. We replicated findings that men consistently value sexual attraction more than women across the lifespan and found the predicted gender differences in importance of individual companionate characteristics.
However, importance of communication only differed by gender among the youngest users. By studying dating relationships, rather Elkhart IN aged women dating older men older married couples, we can begin to study the influence of age separate from relationship duration. Comparing younger and older adults seeking a new relationship provides a more equivalent starting point than comparing long-time married couples to newlyweds.
In this lifespan sample of eHarmony users all looking to pursue a new relationship, the relative importance of sexual attraction was still lower in later life, and not as a function of relationship duration. With this restricted range, the real world ificance of observed ificant differences is unclear. Conversely, the lack of age differences in importance of companionship may be due to a ceiling effect.
Future research could ask respondents to weigh the relative importance of sexual attraction and communication given real life trade-offs and look at how the ratings differ from the present study.
Finally, our interpretation is limited by the cross-sectional nature of the data and restricted generalizability. In addition to possible cohort effects, eHarmony users and online daters generally may not be representative of the single population at large.