Ideology in intimacy: How ideological divides affect what people look for in relationships
by Lucy Morisse-Corsetti (Class of 2027)
Swipe. Swipe. Swipe. Can we get coffee? Swipe. Dinner date? No, nevermind, can we do coffee instead? Swipe.
It’s clear that the dating scene has shifted dramatically over the last 10 years. With the rise of dating apps and internet dating, nearly half of all Americans (47%) say dating is harder in 2019 than in 2009, according to a recent Pew study. This same study found another interesting piece of information: while many singles are open to dating someone different from them, certain characteristics would give some people pause. Notably, 47% of respondents said they would never consider being in a relationship with someone who voted for Donald Trump.
Over the last decade, there has been a notable rise in the ideological divide among genders; young men have seen a 10% increase in identification with the Republican Party over the last four years, while young women are becoming increasingly more liberal. Furthermore, evidence suggests that we select romantic partners with similar political identification to us, with 77% of married and cohabiting partners in the US reporting that their partner belonged to the same political party. This raises an important question: are heterosexual Americans being relegated to a smaller and smaller dating pool as the pool of potential romantic partners becomes more ideologically extreme?
I wanted to investigate if ideology was directly related to what people wanted out of their relationships. Clearly, research shows that people avoid partners on the opposite side of the political spectrum. However, it’s not clear if this avoidance stems from the politics themselves, or if people who are more liberal or conservative value fundamentally different things in their relationships. If the second is the case, this might lead to a decline in the number of heterosexual relationships as young people become increasingly ideologically driven; because there is an intrinsic mismatch between people on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
Respondents to the Tufts 2024 Public Opinion Lab National Poll were asked to select which trait was most important to them in a relationship from randomly selected pairs of traits. Each respondent saw six different pairs of traits, pulled from a list that was developed based on various surveys on relationship quality, including a psychological study of the perceived benefits of a romantic relationship. I asked respondents about 22 traits that were divided into three categories: emotions (ex. passion, contentment), values (ex. religion, marriage, family life), and life organization (ex. financial stability, division of labor). If people who were more liberal were driven towards different trait groups than conservatives, this might indicate that they aren’t romantically compatible with each other.
The first graph shows the percentage of the time people selected emotional, value-oriented, or life organization traits based on their political ideology. While emotion-based traits (such as passion or contentment) are most commonly selected regardless of ideology, value-oriented traits are more commonly selected as important by respondents who are more conservative.
When broken down by gender in the second graph, this upward shift in “values” traits is especially strong among women. Very liberal men didn’t select values-based traits at all, and very liberal women selected them at very low rates (6%). However, the upward swing is primarily due to conservative women, who selected values-based traits 32% of the time, almost double the selection rate of their male ideological counterparts (16% selection). This indicates that values-driven traits are likely the most ideologically relevant, which makes sense: religion, marriage, and desire for children are all historically correlated with conservative thinking. Furthermore, it lends itself to the trend of seeking out a partner within one’s identity group. If conservative individuals are more likely to look for a partner within their own religious group (which tend to be politically similar), they are likely to end up with someone on the same end of the ideological spectrum as them.
Interestingly, life organizational traits are more highly sought after by more ideologically extreme men, as there is significantly higher selection for very liberal and very conservative than for moderates or undecided individuals. This would lead us to think that, while these might be traits related to more extreme ideology, it is not the left or right pull that matters. Rather, it is more likely the fact that ideological identification indicates concrete ideas about what they want their life to look like. This relationship does not seem to be reciprocated by women, which is an interesting dichotomy; women’s value of life organization exists separate from their partisanship. This could stem from a societal sense of responsibility for women — in the US, domestic chores are largely placed on women, with 59% of women saying they do more household chores than their spouse/partner. Therefore, caring about the various “life organization” traits might not be a priority for men, because the status quo serves them. They don’t have to concern themselves with finding a partner that fits their desired image of domestic life, they assume they will get one. On the other hand, women might be more concerned with ensuring they are able to continue their careers after marriage, or that they will not be solely responsible for household chores.
It seems clear that there is some connection between ideology and what people desire in relationships. However, that connection is far more complicated than one may assume. Gender itself seems to hold a large sway over what people want in their romantic partnerships, and this relationship is amplified by partisanship. Further research might investigate these connections further, as well as look into how age might play a role, as that was demonstrated to be a statistically significant factor in trait selection. Specifically, if this effect was more prevalent among younger people, it might lead to the division across genders becoming a more prominent issue over time. If this is a division that is reinforced by parental influence, there could be an even starker divide between conservatives and liberals in 20–30 years from now. In analysis of the results from the survey, however, it was apparent that young people cared far more about emotional traits, and older respondents cared more about life organizational and values traits. As people age, they care more about what someone can tangibly provide (such as financial security) rather than the non-tangible benefits of emotional satisfaction.
From a political perspective, this research might raise a broader question: is a potential lack of romantic capability between ideologies detrimental to American societal expectations (birth rates, marriages, etc), as the political gender gap widens? Luckily, it doesn’t seem as if this is a catastrophic issue: while there were differences, the prevalence of emotional traits above the other categories points to the idea that the lack of cross-party relationships really is an issue of political preference, rather than ideological incompatibility. Emotional traits were valued significantly higher than the other two categories throughout all demographics and identity groups, and had no clear partisan tilt. Life organization and values do seem to have some ideological tension, but in general people tend to be looking for relatively similar things in their partners across all the ideological spectrum.
This, however, does not solve a root issue of increased ideological extremism, especially in relationships. Research from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggests that increased political similarity of relationships on a societal level leads to an increased political echo chamber, which only leads to increased extremism in future generations. This issue is not solved with one simple answer; rather, it is a greater social consideration of where this ideological divide comes from and how to address it.
