When using online dating apps, young Americans are more likely to strongly reject potential partners from opposing political parties than to prefer someone who shares their political views. Dating apps have become one of the main ways people meet each other, so the information you display on your digital profile matters. New research published in european sociology review It has been suggested that this political deal breakdown is primarily driven by assumptions about a potential partner’s lifestyle and whether family and friends will approve of the marriage.
In recent years, American politics has been characterized by a phenomenon known as emotional polarization. This term refers to an individual’s increased tendency to view members of their own political party positively while feeling a strong emotional aversion to supporters of the opposing party. This hostility often spills over into everyday life, beyond abstract political discussions. It can affect personal decisions such as who people want as roommates, who they hire for work, and who they choose as romantic partners.
Sociologists refer to the tendency to partner with people who share similar political views as political endogamy. When two romantic partners share the same political beliefs, those beliefs tend to be more effectively transmitted to their children. This cycle can increase polarization from one generation to the next. Previous research has provided evidence that people prefer to date within their own political party, but the specific underlying reasons for this preference are still poorly understood.
Shannon Tafflinger, a PhD student at the University of Cologne, and Ansgar Hadde, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cologne, wanted to investigate the mechanisms driving these dating preferences. Researchers sought to understand whether political labels change how people perceive a potential partner’s personality. They also wanted to know whether these labels changed assumptions about lifestyle similarities and expected responses from a person’s social circle.
Tafflinger drew on her own background when conceptualizing the study. “Growing up in a swing state in the United States, I saw firsthand how political hostility can destroy relationships and communities,” Tafflinger said. “That experience sparked a long-standing interest in polarization and its impact on interpersonal dynamics.”
“When I came across research showing that political ideology shapes people’s dating preferences, I knew there was an opportunity to dig deeper – to go beyond the ‘what’ and understand the ‘why’ behind the phenomenon,” Tafflinger added.
To test these questions, Tafflinger and Hade conducted an online experiment with 1,097 Americans between the ages of 20 and 33. All participants identified as either Democrats or Republicans, or were leaning toward one or the other. The study was designed to closely mimic the experience of swiping through popular online dating applications. This age range was chosen because it reflects a time when many Americans are actively searching for a long-term partner.
Each participant viewed six hypothetical dating profiles corresponding to the gender they were interested in dating. These profiles included photos, names, ages, occupations, hobbies, and short bios. To isolate the influence of politics, the researchers randomly assigned a political label to each profile. Two profiles were Democratic, two were Republican, and two contained no political information at all. The researchers intentionally chose neutral hobbies and occupations to avoid inadvertently suggesting political stereotypes.
After viewing each profile, participants rated their romantic feelings on a 5-point scale. They did this by indicating how likely they were to send a message from that person or respond to a message from that person. Participants also rated the imaginary person on several other indicators using similar scales. This helped the author understand the specific reasons behind changes in romantic feelings.
First, respondents rated the perceived personality quality of the person included in the profile. They rated their hypothetical daters on traits such as intelligence, selfishness, kindness, honesty, and bias. Second, they estimated their perceived similarity to the person. They inferred whether you had similar fundamental values and lifestyle preferences based on the profiles you provided. Finally, participants rated their social approval expectations, indicating whether they thought their friends and family would approve of them dating a particular person.
The results of this study show that political support has a significant impact on romantic feelings, but mostly in a negative direction. Participants only slightly preferred individuals affiliated with their political party compared to profiles with no political information. However, they expressed moderate to strong aversion to profiles featuring opposing political parties.
When investigating the mechanisms behind this aversion, researchers found that perceived similarity plays the biggest role. Participants tended to use different political labels as proxies or alternative indicators for assuming that a person had incompatible values or conflicting lifestyles. Rather than judging the person’s inherent goodness, they simply assumed that they probably wouldn’t have much in common in everyday life.
The second most important factor in out-group rejection was expected social approval. Participants often believed that close friends and family members would object to bringing back a partner from the opposing political party. This suggests that pressure to conform to the political norms of one’s social network has a significant impact on private dating decisions. Some people may reject an attractive partner just to avoid an awkward family dinner or judgment from co-workers.
Surprisingly, perceived personality quality was the weakest factor in causing romantic rejection. Participants rated out-group members slightly lower on traits such as kindness and intelligence. However, this did not cause dating refusals as much as assumed lifestyle differences or family approval. The researchers noted that partisan selectivity in dating works by inferring broad differences in daily life rather than generalized negative personality judgments.
The authors also found significant differences based on participants’ gender and political party. Both Republican men and Republican women showed a clear preference for Republicans and a strong dislike for Democrats. Democratic participants, on the other hand, did not tend to strongly prefer fellow Democrats over profiles with no political affiliation.
Rather, Democratic participants were primarily motivated to avoid Republicans. Tafflinger noted in a related press release that many Democrats who participated in the survey were not necessarily looking for fellow Democrats. Rather, they were looking for someone who was not just a Republican. This suggests that for Democrats, negative partisanship drives dating choices more strongly than positive in-group loyalty.
This avoidance was especially pronounced among Democratic women. This study provides evidence that Democratic women showed the strongest rejection of the opposing party of any group tested. Their avoidance of Republican profiles was about twice as strong as the avoidance exhibited by Democratic men. Republican men and women showed moderate rejection of Democrats in the middle.
“People rely heavily on partisan labels to form impressions of others,” Hade told SciPost. “When you don’t know someone well and then reveal where you stand politically, that single piece of information determines how they view you, whether they think you’re like them, and how they judge you on traits like intelligence and integrity.”
These results provide evidence of how important a simple profile badge is for singles navigating modern relationships. “Our study uses an online dating scenario as a test case, so it may be of particular interest to people who use dating apps,” Hade said. “Most of these apps allow you to choose whether or not to display your political orientation.”
“If you put it on display, a lot of people are going to notice it and it’s going to influence their judgment of you and how well you get along,” Hadde continued. “And there’s an asymmetry. People on the other side of the political divide are more likely to penalize your politics than people on your side reward your politics.”
As with all research, there are some limitations. Because this study required the use of fictitious dating profiles, participants may have behaved slightly differently than in real-world dating scenarios. In this experiment, political information was also presented in advance. In real life dating, you often reveal your partner’s political views later in the process of getting to know them.
Additionally, the researchers only tested Democratic and Republican labels. It remains unclear how participants will respond to profiles labeled as independent, apolitical, or supporting a third-party candidate. The single-item measure used for expecting social approval also combined family and friends. People can face very different reactions from their parents compared to their peer group, but this study could not differentiate that.
Future research may investigate how these mechanisms operate in different cultural contexts. In European countries with multiparty systems, love compatibility may depend on whether supporters of different political parties belong to the same broader political spectrum. The authors suggest that the mechanisms discovered in this dating experiment may apply to other areas of life. Similar social judgments can influence how a job applicant is evaluated if an employer discovers a person’s political affiliation during the hiring process.
The study, “Why do young Americans avoid cross-partisan dating? A closer look at moderators and variations by gender and political party,” was authored by Shannon Taflinger and Ansgar Hade.
