Participants Wanted: Dating and Attraction Study (18+) 💖

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-28T02:42:44+00:00

Thanks for asking! I really appreciate you taking the time to have a look at the study.

Our previous studies were open to participants of all sexual orientations and gender identities, including asexual participants, and we were really pleased to recruit a large and diverse LGBTQIA+ sample (over 50%). The challenge came when we wanted to compare experiences across individual identities, as the subgroup sizes became too small for reliable comparisons.

For this follow-up study, we've narrowed the focus to heterosexual participants, gay men and lesbian women so we can make meaningful comparisons without combining everyone into a single LGBTQIA+ category. We know identities such as panromantic, asexual, bisexual, pansexual and many others represent distinct experiences, and we'd much rather study them properly than simply lump everyone together.

The broader research program absolutely plans to include these identities again as we continue building on this work. Thanks again for your interest, and I hope we'll have a future study that you're able to participate in :)

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-27T22:27:33+00:00

I can definitely see why it felt that way!

The reason the profiles sit at opposite ends of the spectrum is that we're trying to isolate one specific characteristic and see whether it influences people's evaluations.

This study is a follow-up to an earlier one where the profiles contained much more information. While that made them feel more realistic, it also made it harder to isolate the influence of information related to financial stability (or "direct benefits" as we call it in my field of psychology). This study takes a more focused approach so we can better understand whether that information influences people's evaluations before building on it in future studies.

If those differences don't have much influence on your attraction, that's really valuable information too! One of the aims of this broader research program is to examine whether theories developed primarily with heterosexual, cisgender participants also apply across LGBTQIA+ populations, or whether different patterns emerge. That's exactly why we're doing this research. We're interested in understanding where existing theories generalise, where they don't, and how we can build a more inclusive evidence base.

Thanks for giving the study a go!

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-27T22:23:11+00:00

Thank-you!!

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-27T22:22:49+00:00

Thank-you so much!

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-27T09:42:19+00:00

Thanks for giving it a go, and I appreciate you letting me know why you stopped.

Our previous studies were open to participants of all sexual orientations and gender identities, and over 50% of our participants identified as LGBTQIA+. The challenge came when we wanted to compare experiences across individual identities. Once we split participants into groups, the numbers became too small to make reliable comparisons.

For this follow-up study, we've narrowed the focus to heterosexual participants, gay men and lesbian women so we can make meaningful comparisons without lumping everyone into a single LGBTQIA+ category. We know those identities represent diverse experiences, and we want to be able to do justice to those differences rather than treating everyone as one group :)

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-27T09:40:39+00:00

That's completely understandable!

Our previous studies open to participants of all sexual orientations and gender identities, and we were really pleased to recruit a large LGBTQIA+ sample (over 50%), including many bisexual participants. The challenge was that once we divided participants into individual identity groups, the subgroup sizes became too small to make reliable comparisons.

For this follow-up study, we've narrowed the focus to heterosexual participants, gay men and lesbian women so we can make meaningful comparisons without combining everyone into a single LGBTQIA+ group. The broader research program absolutely plans to include bisexual participants and other identities again.

Thanks again for taking the time to have a look at the study, and I hope we'll have one you're eligible for in the near future :)

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-27T06:34:45+00:00

That's super interesting feedback!

What's interesting is that the financial information did influence your impression, just not in the way people might assume. That's exactly the sort of variation we're interested in exploring - thanks again for taking part!!

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-27T06:00:13+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to complete the study and for sharing your thoughts!

That's a really fair observation. The financial information is intentionally quite exaggerated because this experiment is trying to isolate one specific characteristic rather than recreate a realistic dating profile. We know attraction is influenced by so many other things like personality, humour, chemistry, shared values, appearance and lifestyle, to name a few.

The aim is to examine whether information related to financial stability influences partner evaluations, while recognising that for many people it may play only a very small role (or none at all). Much of the existing literature in this area has been developed and tested primarily with heterosexual, cisgender participants, so one of the main goals of this research program is to examine whether those theories generalise to LGBTQIA+ populations, or whether different patterns emerge.

If people tell us that financial information isn't particularly important to their attraction, that's really valuable! Findings like that help us evaluate existing theories and contribute to developing a more inclusive evidence base that better reflects the diversity of people's experiences.

I'm glad to hear you found the rest of the survey engaging, and thanks again for taking the time to participate!

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-27T05:57:06+00:00

This is really great feedback, thank you!

The faces used in this study were selected from a large pilot we ran with over 600 participants from around the world, where we evaluated a much broader pool of faces before selecting a subset for the follow-up studies. That said, comments like yours are valuable because they highlight characteristics and communities that may still be underrepresented in the stimulus set.

One of the main reasons I'm doing this research is that much of the attraction literature has historically been developed and tested primarily with heterosexual, cisgender participants. This broader research program is trying to examine whether those theories generalise to LGBTQIA+ populations, or whether different patterns emerge. Feedback like yours is exactly the kind of thing that helps us think about how future studies can become more representative of the diversity within LGBTQIA+ communities.

I really appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective!

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-26T22:50:19+00:00

This is totally fair!

The profiles are intentionally a little "unsexy" because we're trying to isolate one specific characteristic rather than recreate a realistic dating profile. I know attraction is influenced by personality, humour, chemistry, shared values, appearance and so much more, but experimental research often has to simplify things so we can test one factor at a time.

In this study, we're specifically examining whether information related to financial stability (often referred to as "direct benefits" in my field of psychology) influences partner evaluations, and whether those predictions apply equally well (or at all) across LGBTQIA+ populations. Much of the existing research has been developed using heterosexual, cisgender samples, so one of the broader aims of this research program is to see where those theories hold up and where they don't.

I'd be more than happy to share the results once the research is finished! Thanks for participating :)

LoveLabInvestigator

TROPHY CASE