New Study Shows Stereotypes About Online Dating Are True

And heterosexual daters really like to pursue people out of their league.

takasuu/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

You know the type: Those friends who think they’ve found the best way to game Tinder, insist wearing a dress instead of jeans will catch someone’s attention, or that the most fruitful way to find love is by going on the Bachelor. There is so much dating lore and folk wisdom out there, but we’ve never really had hard data behind it—at least until now. A group of researchers recently attempted to decode the world of heterosexual online dating and found not just that women go for older men and men for younger women, but that so many Americans are seeking a partner “out of their league.” On average, researchers found, both heterosexual men and women go after people who are around 25 percent more “desirable” than themselves.

But, you’re probably wondering, how the hell are they defining what makes someone “desirable”?

It’s a little confusing, but think of it sort of like how Google ranks web pages. Researchers employed an algorithm to rank more than a hundred thousand daters on an undisclosed popular online platform in New York, Chicago, Boston, and Seattle based on the number of initial messages they received, crossed with the desirability of the people sending those messages. The study, which looks at activity for the month of January 2014, was published Thursday in the journal Science Advances.

“We wanted to ask, who on these dating sites in particular cities has the most ‘market power’?” Elizabeth Bruch, an associate professor of sociology and complex systems at the University of Michigan and the lead author on the study, tells Mother Jones. “Who is getting the most messages from the most desirable people?”

(Left) Desirability by age for women and men. (Middle) Desirability by ethnicity. (Right) Desirability by highest educational level completed.

Science Advances

Across all cities, every dater fell somewhere between a zero and 100th percentile for desirability, with the most desirable people in the top percentile. The vast majority of online daters, men and women both, only received a “handful” of messages, about 10 to 15 during the study period, with a small fraction of lucky users getting more than one first message, on average, per day. Of all four cities, the most popular person was a 30-year-old woman in New York, who received a total of 1,504 messages during the study period, an average of one message every 30 minutes. 

In addition to discovering that men and women tend to pursue others “aspirationally” online, the study, unfortunately, confirmed some stereotypes about the dating habits of men and women. For example, women’s desirability, on average, decreased with age from 18 years old to 60, but men’s desirability actually increased as they aged, at least until they turned 50 years old, at which point it began to decline again.

Desirability also varied by race and education. Across the cities, Asian women and white men were the most desirable, based on the algorithm’s metrics, while men with postgraduate degrees and—surprise, surprise—women with undergraduate degrees, but no further degrees, were the most desired.

Another key finding is that desirability drives people’s communication. Bruch found that individuals use different tactics depending on their love interest’s level of desirability, with varying success. For example, both men and women who messaged people more desirable than themselves wrote longer messages on average than those sending messages to undesirable mates—which, for the record, didn’t help either sex make their case to the potential partner, except in Seattle, where men were more likely to be messaged back after sending a long message.

Daters also chose a different vocabulary when messaging those more desirable than themselves. A woman reaching out to a more desirable man will use more positive words—like “happy,” “nice,” or “beautiful”—when communicating with him, says Bruch, than she would an undesirable man. For men, it’s the opposite effect: The more desirable a woman, the fewer positive words he’ll send.

Despite that, there is some good news: attracting the attention of someone out of your league is “entirely possible,” the authors write. “The chances of receiving a reply from a highly desirable partner may be low, but they remain well above zero.” Online dating has become an increasingly common way to find a mate, so the odds are better than ever. Still, says Bruch, online daters are really only successful if they put themselves out there and send messages. 

“There’s something that’s really optimistic in this study,” she says. “People are successfully garnering responses from people ‘out of their league’…and our study suggests that persistence pays off.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate