Political Behavior

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 519–538 | Cite as

The Dating Preferences of Liberals and Conservatives

  • Casey A. Klofstad
  • Rose McDermott
  • Peter K. Hatemi
Original Paper

Abstract

American politics has become more polarized. The source of the phenomena is debated. We posit that human mate choice may play a role in the process. Spouses are highly correlated in their political preferences, and research in behavioral genetics, neuroscience, and endocrinology shows that political preferences develop through a complex interaction of social upbringing, life experience, immediate circumstance, and genes and hormones, operating through one’s psychological architecture by Hatemi et al. (J Theor Politics, 24:305–327, 2012). Consequently, if people with similar political values produce children, there will be more individuals at the ideological extremes over generations. This said, we are left with a mystery: spousal concordance on political attitudes does not result from convergence over the course of the relationship, nor are spouses initially selecting one another on political preferences. We examine whether positive mate assortation—like seeks like—on non-political factors such as lifestyle and demographics could lead to inadvertent assortation on political preferences. Using a sample of Internet dating profiles we find that both liberals and conservatives seek to date individuals who are like themselves. This result suggests a pathway by which long-term couples come to share political preferences, which in turn could be fueling the widening ideological gap in the United States.

Keywords

Ideology Polarization Human mate choice Mate assortation 

References

  1. Agrawal, A., Heath, A. C., Grant, J. D., Pergadia, M. L., Statham, D. J., Bucholz, K. K., et al. (2006). Assortative mating for cigarette smoking and for alcohol consumption in female Australian twins and their spouses. Behavioral Genetics, 36, 553–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99, 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alford, J. R., Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2011). The politics of mate choice. The Journal of Politics, 73, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereczkei, T., Voros, S., Gal, A., & Bernath, L. (1997). Resources, attractiveness, family commitment: Reproductive decisions in human mate choice. Ethology, 103, 681–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bobo, L., & Licari, F. C. (1989). Education and political tolerance: Testing the effects of cognitive sophistication and target group affect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryan, A. D., Webster, G. D., & Mahaffey, A. L. (2011). The big, the rich, and the powerful: Physical, financial, and social dimensions of dominance in mating and attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 62, 713–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Cavior, N., Miller, K., & Cohen, S. H. (1975). Physical attractiveness, attitude similarity, and length of acquaintance as contributors to interpersonal attraction among adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chadwick Martin Bailey (2010). Recent trends: Online dating. Retrieved from http://cp.match.com/cppp/media/CMB_Study.pdf.
  12. Coffé, H., & Need, A. (2010). Similarity in husbands and wives party family preference in the Netherlands. Electoral Studies, 29, 259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cowden, J. (2001). Southernization of the nation and nationalization of the South: Racial conservatism, social welfare and white partisans in the United States, 1956–92. British Journal of Political Science, 31, 277–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Curry, T. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1974). The effects of perceived and actual similarity in values and personality in the process of interpersonal attraction. Quality & Quantity, 8, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eaves, U., & Eysenck, H. J. (1974). Genetics and the development of social attitudes. Nature, 249, 288–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eaves, L. J., Eysenck, H. J., & Martin, N. G. (1989). Genes, culture and personality: An empirical approach. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Eaves, L. J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2008). Transmission of attitudes toward abortion and gay rights: Parental socialization or parental mate selection? Behavior Genetics, 38, 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eaves, L. J., Heath, A. C., Martin, N. G., Maes, H. H., Neale, M. C., Kendler, K. S., et al. (1999). Comparing the biological and cultural inheritance of personality and social attitudes in the Virginia 30,000 study of twins and their relatives. Twin Research, 2, 62–80.Google Scholar
  19. Feliciano, C., Robnetta, B., & Komaiea, G. (2009). Gendered racial exclusion among white Internet daters. Social Science Research, 38, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  22. Fowler, J. H., Baker, L. A., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). Genetic variation in political participation. American Political Science Review, 102, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerson, M. 2010. Liberals resort to conspiracy theories to explain Obama’s problems. The Washington Post.Google Scholar
  24. Greenlees, I. A., & McGrew, W. C. (1994). Sex and age differences in preferences and tactics of mate attraction: Analysis of published advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010). Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hatemi, P. K., Byrne, E., & McDermott, R. (2012). What is a “gene” and why does it matter for political science? Journal of Theoretical Politics, 24, 305–327.Google Scholar
  27. Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Medland, S. E., Keller, M. C., Alford, J. R., Smith, K. B., et al. (2010). Not by twins alone: Using the extended family design to investigate genetic influence on political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 798–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heath, A. C., Kendler, K. S., Eaves, L. J., & Markell, D. (1985). The resolution of cultural and biological inheritance: Informativeness of different relationships. Behavioral Genetics, 15, 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economics Review, 100, 130–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huckfeldt, R. (1983). Social contexts, social networks, and urban neighborhoods: Environmental constraints on friendship choice. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 651–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Imai, K., King, G., & Lau, O. (2007a). Zelig: Everyone’s statistical software. Retrieved from http://gking.harvard.edu.
  32. Imai, K., King, G., & Lau, O. (2007b). ls: least squares regression for continuous dependent variables. In K. Imai, G. King, & O. Lau (Eds.), Zelig: Everyone’s statistical software. Retrieved from http://gking.harvard.edu.
  33. Imai, K., King, G., & Lau, O. (2008). Toward a common framework for statistical analysis and development. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 17, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. (1968). The transmission of political values from parent to child. The American Political Science Review, 62, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jennings, M. K., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political similarity and influence between husbands and wives. Prepared for the 2000 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, M. (2012). Obama ratings historically polarized. Retrieved from www.gallup.com.
  37. Jost, T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 33–57.Google Scholar
  39. Klofstad, C. A., McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. K. (2011). Do bedroom eyes wear political glasses?: The role of politics in human mate attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.06.002.
  40. Kofoed, E. (2008). The role of political affiliations and attraction in romantic relationships: Why can’t we all just get along? Advances in Communication Theory & Research, 2. Retrieved from http://www.k-state.edu/actr/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4kofoed-politics-and-attraction.pdf.
  41. Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Madden, M. & Lenhart, A. (2006). On line dating. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org.
  44. Mare, R. D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martin, N. G., Eaves, L. J., Heath, A. C., Jardine, R., Feingold, L. M., & Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Transmission of social attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 83, 4364–4368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McGraw, K. J. (2002). Environmental predictors of geographic variation in human mating practices. Ethology, 108, 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Milbank, D. 2012. Rick Santorum cries Nazi. The Washington Post.Google Scholar
  48. Pawlowski, B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (1999). Withholding age as putative deception in mate search tactics. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sailer, S. (2004). Baby gap: How birthrates color the electoral map. The American Conservative. Retrieved from http://amconmag.com.
  50. Stelter, B. 2012. After apology, national advertisers are still shunning Limbaugh. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  51. Stoker, L., & Jennings, M. K. (1989). Life-cycle transitions and political participation: the case of marriage. American Political Science Review, 89, 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stoker, L., & Jennings, K. M. (2006). Political similarity and influence between husbands and wives. In A. S. Zuckerman (Ed.), The social logic of politics. Philadelphia: Temple.Google Scholar
  53. Todd, P., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104(38), 15011–15016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vandenberg, S. G. (1972). Assortative mating, or who marries whom? Behavior Genetics, 2, 127–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waynforth, D., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (1995). Conditional mate choice strategies in humans: Evidence from “lonely hearts” advertisements. Behaviour, 132, 755–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiederman, M. W. (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zietsch, B. P., Verweij, K. J., Heath, A. C., & Martin, N. G. (2011). Variation in human mate choice: simultaneously investigating heritability, parental influence, sexual imprinting, and assortative mating. The American Naturalist, 177, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zuckerman, A. S., Fitzgerald, J., & Dasovic, J. (2005). Do couples support the same political parties? In A. S. Zuckerman (Ed.), The social logic of politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Casey A. Klofstad
    • 1
  • Rose McDermott
    • 2
  • Peter K. Hatemi
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  2. 2.Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations