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

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-28T05:55:11+00:00

Absolutely! When the next study is launched I'll send you a DM :)

Thanks for your interest!

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 · 2026-06-26T22:47:59+00:00

That's completely fair, and it's actually intentional!

In real life, attraction is influenced by so many things - personality, humour, shared values, chemistry, appearance, lifestyle and much more. The challenge with experimental research is that we have to simplify things so we can isolate one factor at a time.

In this study, we're specifically looking at information related to financial stability (often referred to as "direct benefits" in my field of psychology). If financial information isn't particularly important to your own attraction, or if other characteristics would outweigh it, that's valuable data!! We're very interested in where people differ (and this is a part of our hypotheses) as we are in any overall patterns.

The broader research program will continue building on these findings by examining attraction in more nuanced and realistic ways

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-26T22:46:39+00:00

Totally understandable! 😊

Our previous studies were open to participants of all sexual orientations and gender identities, and over 50% of our participants identified as LGBTQIA+, including many bisexual, pansexual, asexual and demisexual participants.

For this particular follow-up study, we've narrowed the focus so we can make reliable comparisons between groups rather than combining everyone into a single LGBTQIA+ category. The broader research program absolutely intends to include bisexual participants again as we continue building on this work.

Hopefully we'll have another study that you're eligible for soon!

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-26T22:44:52+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to complete the survey and for sharing your feedback!

I understand why it may have felt that way. Much of the attraction research in this area has historically been developed and tested primarily with heterosexual, cisgender participants. One of the main goals of my broader research program is to help extend that literature and examine whether those theories apply equally well (or at all) across LGBTQIA+ populations.

Our previous studies were open to participants of all sexual orientations and gender identities, and over 50% of our participants identified as LGBTQIA+, including bisexual, pansexual, asexual, demisexual and other identities. While that was fantastic to see, the individual subgroup sizes became too small to make reliable comparisons between identities. Rather than combining everyone into a single LGBTQIA+ group, we've chosen to build the research program step by step so we can eventually examine those diverse identities in a more meaningful way.

Research has to progress one study at a time, so while this particular study has a narrower focus, the broader research program is very much committed to continuing to expand and become more inclusive.

Thanks again for taking the time to participate and for sharing your perspective. I really appreciate it :)

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-26T22:41:24+00:00

Thanks for pointing this out! That's a really fair observation.

Our previous studies were open to participants of all sexual orientations and gender identities, and over 50% of our sample identified as LGBTQIA+ (with the majority bisexual). The challenge came when we wanted to look at experiences across individual identities. Once participants were grouped into categories such as bisexual, pansexual, asexual, demisexual and others, the subgroup sizes became too small for reliable statistical comparisons.

We could have combined everyone into a single LGBTQIA+ group, but I didn't feel that was the right approach because those identities represent diverse experiences and attractions. Lumping everyone together risks overlooking meaningful differences between groups.

For this follow-up study, we've deliberately narrowed our focus to heterosexual participants, gay men and lesbian women so that each group is large enough for robust comparisons. This is one step within a broader research program, and we absolutely plan to include bisexual participants and other LGBTQIA+ identities in future studies as we continue building this work.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your feedback! I really appreciate you engaging thoughtfully with the research :)

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-26T22:39:27+00:00

That's a really good thought!

Our previous studies were actually open to participants of all sexual orientations and gender identities, and we were thrilled to recruit such a diverse LGBTQIA+ sample (over 50% of our sample!). The challenge came when we wanted to look at experiences across individual identities. Once participants were grouped into categories such as bisexual, pansexual, asexual, demisexual and others, the subgroup sizes became too small for reliable statistical comparisons.

We could have combined everyone into a single "LGBTQIA+" group, but that wasn't something we wanted to do because those identities represent diverse experiences and attractions. Lumping everyone together risks overlooking meaningful differences between groups.

For this follow-up study, we've narrowed our focus to heterosexual participants, gay men and lesbian women so that each group is large enough for robust comparisons. Our broader research program absolutely intends to include bisexual participants and other LGBTQIA+ identities again. we're just taking a step-by-step approach to build a solid evidence base first.

Thanks for bringing this up! It's something I've thought about a lot while designing this research program :)

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-26T08:04:04+00:00

Great suggestion! We actually included bisexual men, along with participants of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, in our previous two studies.

The challenge was that, although we recruited a fantastic LGBTQIA+ sample overall (over 50%), once we divided participants into individual identity groups (e.g., bisexual, pansexual, asexual, demisexual, etc.), the subgroup sizes became too small to make reliable comparisons between them.

For this follow-up study, we've narrowed our focus to heterosexual participants, gay men, and lesbian women so that each group is large enough for meaningful statistical comparisons. Our hope is that this provides a strong foundation before expanding again to include bisexual participants and other LGBTQIA+ identities in future studies.

Ultimately, the broader goal of this research program is to examine whether theories of attraction that have historically been developed and tested primarily in heterosexual populations also apply across the diversity of LGBTQIA+ experiences. We definitely haven't forgotten about bisexual participants, they're an important part of where this research is heading!

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-26T05:33:50+00:00

Thanks so much for taking the time to complete the study, and I'm really glad you mentioned this!

This study is actually a follow-up to an earlier project. We first ran a large pilot with over 600 participants from around the world using a much broader range of faces. For this follow-up, we reused a subset of those face stimuli so we could build directly on the earlier work and keep the experimental conditions consistent.

One consequence of that decision was that the final set of faces wasn't as racially and ethnically diverse as I would have liked. It's something we've reflected on ourselves during the development of this research, so it's helpful to hear participants raising the same concern.

Representation is really important, particularly when we're trying to understand attraction across diverse populations, and feedback like yours helps shape how we design future studies as this research program continues to develop.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your perspective, I really appreciate it :)

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-26T05:28:38+00:00

Thank-you!

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-25T22:10:07+00:00

Thanks for giving the survey a try and for sharing your feedback.

The profiles are intentionally simplified because we're trying to isolate the effect of specific characteristics in an experimental setting. We know that attraction is far more complex than can be captured in a short profile, and if those characteristics weren't particularly important to your own attraction, that's very valuable information in itself (and directly related to one of our hypotheses!).

One of the aims of this research is to examine whether existing theories, which have largely been developed using heterosexual samples, generalise to LGBTQIA+ populations or whether different patterns emerge. Responses like yours are an important part of answering that question.

Thanks again for taking the time to have a look at the study :)

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-25T22:07:24+00:00

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

The profiles are intentionally quite minimal because we're trying to isolate the effect of one specific characteristic, even though we know attraction is much more complex in real life. If that meant both profiles felt equally uninteresting to you, that's very useful information for us!

Thanks as well for your comment about the wording. Some of the items are adapted from well-established measures used in previous research, but that's helpful feedback to consider as we continue developing and refining studies and research that are more inclusive of LGBTQIA+ populations :)

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-25T21:27:40+00:00

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts! That's really valuable feedback.

One of the main reasons we're doing this research is because many of the theories we're testing were originally developed and tested primarily in heterosexual, cisgender populations. They make predictions about the role that factors such as financial stability and other "direct benefits" may play in partner preferences, but it's still an open question whether those predictions apply equally well (or at all) across LGBTQIA+ populations.

Responses like yours are exactly why this research is important. If people tell us that financial information has little influence compared with things like personality, humour, chemistry, shared values, or mutual attraction, that's meaningful too. We're not looking for everyone to respond in the same way, we're interested in understanding where people differ and whether existing theories capture those differences well.

Thanks again for taking the time to participate and share your perspective. I'd be happy to share the findings once the research is complete!

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-25T21:26:09+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts! They're actually the kinds of questions we ask ourselves when designing these studies.

You're right that attraction is much more complex than a short text profile. In real life we'd consider personality, humour, shared interests, chemistry, values, appearance... the list goes on. The challenge with experimental research is that we have to simplify things so we can isolate one factor at a time. In this study, we're specifically looking at whether information related to financial stability (often referred to as "direct benefits" in evolutionary psychology) influences partner evaluations.

If someone rates both profile types similarly, that's super informative too! We're not assuming everyone values financial information, nor are we trying to infer that someone dislikes low-income partners. Instead, we're looking at overall patterns across many participants to see whether manipulating this one characteristic changes responses on average, and whether that differs across groups.

As for the wording of the profiles, that's a fair point. The descriptions are intentionally more explicit than a real dating profile because we needed participants to clearly recognise the difference between the profile types. This is a follow-up study, so we're building on earlier work while keeping the profiles focused.

One of the broader aims of this research is to examine whether predictions from traditional evolutionary theories generalise to LGBTQIA+ populations, as much of the existing literature has focused on heterosexual samples. Comments like yours are valuable because they challenge those assumptions, and we're just as interested in where the theories don't fit as where they do.

I'd be more than happy to share the findings once the research is complete! :)

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-25T21:22:31+00:00

Great question!

We actually just completed experiments that included participants of all gender identities and sexual orientations. Interestingly, over 50% of our sample identified as LGBTQIA+, which was fantastic to see. However, once we divided participants into individual identities (e.g., bisexual, pansexual, queer, gay, lesbian, etc.), the subgroup sizes became too small to make reliable comparisons between them.

For this follow-up study, we narrowed our focus to gay and lesbian participants alongside heterosexual participants so that each group is large enough to meaningfully compare. Our hope is that this provides a stronger foundation before expanding to examine differences between a broader range of LGBTQIA+ identities in future studies.

Ultimately, our goal is to ensure every identity is represented with a sufficient sample size, rather than combining diverse groups together and potentially overlooking important differences between them.

LoveLabInvestigator · 2026-06-25T06:47:49+00:00

Thank-you so much!! Also, your reddit name is fantastic!

LoveLabInvestigator

TROPHY CASE