Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Dating and Marriage
Choices in Relation to Partner Masculinity,
Femininity,
Commitment, Attractiveness and Income
Daniel Arkkelin, Brian Ostrum & Gina Hoover
Valparaiso University
Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association
Chicago, 2004
Abstract
Homosexual/bisexual dating and marriage choices were influenced more by femininity, masculinity and commitment than by attractiveness or income. Contrary to stereotypes, participants preferred high-commitment over low-commitment partners, even when the low-commitment partners were more attractive and had higher incomes. Participants preferred androgynous partners the most, and preferred feminine-typed partners over masculine-typed partners, especially for marriage choices.
Introduction
n
Previous Research
n
Heterosexual
vs. Homosexual Relationships
n Stereotypes about
promiscuity and lower quality of gay/lesbian relationships (Testa, Kinder &
Ironson, 1987)
n Recent research suggests
more commonalities than differences between heterosexual and homosexual
relationships (Kurdek, 2000; Peplau & Spalding, 2000)
n
Present Study
n
Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual
Partner Choices
n Compared effects of
Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic factors
n
Attractiveness & income (extrinsic
qualities)
n
Personality & commitment (intrinsic
qualities)
n Compared the effects of the
above factors on type of choice
n
Dating Partner
n
Marriage Partner
Method
n
Thirty-two
profiles of hypothetical target persons (TP) were constructed representing a
factorial combination of low/high scores on:
n
Masculine Traits
n
Feminine Traits
n
Commitment Level
n
Physical Attractiveness
n
Income Level
n
Each
profile listed a different pattern of scores ranging from 0 to 100
n
Masculinity/Femininity: Low (scores < 20); High (scores > 80)
n
Commitment: Low (scores < 20); High (> 80)
n
Income: Low (scores < $20k/year); High (scores >
$80k/year)
n
Attractiveness: “Average” (scores near 50); “Good-looking”
(scores > 80)
n
Likert
scales below each profile measured likelihood of selecting TP as a partner (1:
Not at all likely; 7: Extremely likely)
Sample
Profile
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Extremely
Likely Likely
Procedure
n
The 32
profiles were converted to a web form using Birnbaum’s FactorWiz < http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/programs/factorWiz.htm
>, and the form was posted on various sites on the internet
n
Participants
(P) indicating that they were gay, lesbian or bisexual (33 men, 73 women) were
directed to the web form
n
P’s assumed each profile described a member of the same sex
n
P’s were assigned to one of the two TP evaluation conditions:
n Dating Partner
n Marriage Partner
n
P’s formed impressions of each TP as either a potential
dating or marriage partner
n
P’s indicated how likely they would be to select each TP as a
partner by clicking a radio box on the 7-point Likert scales
n
Experimental
Design
n
2 (Target Type) x 2 (Femininity) x 2
(Masculinity) x 2 (Commitment) x 2 (Attractiveness) x 2
(Income) Mixed Model ANOVA
n
Between-groups Factor: Target
Type
n
Within-groups Factors:
Femininity, Masculinity, Commitment, Attractiveness & Income
Results
|
Table 1.
Summary of Significant Effects |
||||
|
Effect |
Fa |
Eta2 |
Mlow |
Mhigh |
|
Femininity |
251.08 |
0.71 |
2.48 |
4.14 |
|
Commitment |
161.06 |
0.61 |
2.64 |
3.98 |
|
Masculinity |
120.85 |
0.54 |
2.80 |
3.82 |
|
Income |
68.70 |
0.40 |
3.07 |
3.55 |
|
Attractiveness |
52.46 |
0.34 |
3.04 |
3.57 |
|
Commitment x Income |
27.78 |
0.21 |
|
|
|
Maculinity x Femininity |
21.56 |
0.17 |
|
|
|
Commitment x Attractiveness |
11.37 |
0.10 |
|
|
|
aAll df = 1,104 & all p <
.001 |
||||
n
Main effects indicated that P's were more likely to choose
TP’s scoring high on femininity, commitment, masculinity, income and physical attractiveness than TP's low on
these qualities
n
Partial Eta2 values indicated that femininity, commitment
and masculinity were more important determinants of choices than were
attractiveness and income
A Masculinity x
Femininity interaction (see Figure 1) indicated that androgynous partners were
most preferred and undifferentiated partners were least preferred. Further, P's
preferred feminine-typed partners over masculine-typed partners, indicating
that high femininity was overrode high masculinity in partner choices.
A Commitment x Income
interaction (see Figure 2) indicated that high-commitment/high-income partners
were most preferred, and low-commitment/low-income partners were least
preferred. More interestingly, P's preferred high-commitment/low-income
partners over low-commitment/high-income partners. This suggests that high
commitment overrode high income in partner choices.
The Commitment x
Attractiveness interaction (See Figure 3) indicated that
high-commitment/high-attractivness partners were most preferred, and low-commitment/average-attractiveness
partners were least preferred. Once again it can be seen that commitment
overrode attractiveness, in that P's preferred high-commitment/average-looking
partners over low-commitment/good-looking partners.
Conclusions
n
Attractiveness and income influenced partner choice, but
neither was as important as personality or commitment.
n
Thus, these gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents placed much
greater value on intrinsic qualities of potential partners (personality
and commitment) than on extrinsic qualities (attractiveness and income).
n
Contrary to stereotypes, participants preferred
high-commitment over low-commitment partners, even when the low-commitment
partners were more attractive and had higher incomes.
n
Heterosexuals and homosexuals appear to be more alike than
different in the qualities emphasized in partner choices.
n
The above results replicate those obtained from a
heterosexual sample (Hoover & Arkkelin, 2002)
n
These results corroborate research suggesting commonalities
in homosexual and heterosexual relationships (Peplau & Spalding, 2000;
Kurdek, 2000).
References