Skip to main content
. 2023 Aug 9;53(1):177–203. doi: 10.1007/s10508-023-02665-9

Table 6.

Descriptive statistics for differences in the domains of mate selection preferences of lesbian women, gay men, bisexual and heterosexual women and men

Domains of mate selection preference Heterosexual men Heterosexual women Gay men Lesbian women Bisexual men Bisexual women
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
I. Caring 4.32 0.47 4.50 0.43 4.27 0.62 4.53 0.45 4.27 0.58 4.43 0.51
II. Adventurous 3.54 0.53 3.78 0.49 3.71 0.62 3.87 0.53 3.62 0.59 3.82 0.61
III. Enlightened 3.44 0.61 3.74 0.61 3.38 0.77 3.66 0.62 3.48 0.74 3.69 0.69
IV. Cultivated 3.76 0.62 4.00 0.57 3.83 0.72 4.05 0.61 3.88 0.80 3.92 0.70
V. Physically attractive 3.87 0.70 3.61 0.72 3.98 0.76 3.67 0.73 3.98 0.71 3.70 0.79
VI. Wealthy and generous 2.42 0.70 3.00 0.77 2.74 0.83 3.05 0.83 2.60 0.83 2.97 0.85
VII. Approachable 4.02 0.60 4.07 0.63 4.14 0.65 4.17 0.64 4.10 0.64 4.02 0.72
VIII. Comedic 3.91 0.68 4.09 0.68 4.01 0.72 4.16 0.62 3.95 0.75 4.12 0.75
IX. Domestic 2.86 0.72 2.75 0.73 3.07 0.88 2.91 0.82 3.04 0.87 2.86 0.86
X. Like-minded 3.77 0.67 3.99 0.61 3.73 0.86 4.11 0.61 3.90 0.78 3.91 0.75
XI. Child-friendly 3.22 1.08 3.13 1.16 3.12 1.35 3.38 1.17 3.15 1.14 3.21 1.25

We used items which were represented in both the LGB (n = 710) and heterosexual (n = 21,245) sample (after conducting an EFA with Promax rotation in both LGB and heterosexual sample) to compute the new unit-weighted scales