Online dating preferences of Asian Americans

Abstract

This study investigates the inter- and intraracial dating preferences of heterosexual Asian males and females as well as gay Asian males. Using data collected from 1270 Internet dating profiles, logistic regression is employed to examine the odds of one’s willingness to date someone who is Asian, White, Black, Hispanic, and some other race. The findings suggest that heterosexual females and gay males prefer to date Whites over nonwhites. Moreover, respondents from both sexual orientations were less likely to express a preference to date another Asian compared to their heterosexual male counterparts. Our results also reveal that educational attainment influences the willingness among Asians to date a fellow Asian. Finally, the analyses indicate significant differences in dating preferences based on the region of residence and age. The current results are discussed in relation to both the historical and present sociocultural racial climate, focusing on how media depictions and identity formation may play a part in shaping racial dating preferences for Asians.

Keywords

Asian American dating Internet interracial partner preference

The proliferation and popularity of online matchmaking Web sites, such as Match.com, have provided social scientists with a unique opportunity to examine interracial dating preferences. By analyzing online profiles (which include information such as the desired race/ethnicity of a potential romantic partner), researchers are now in a better position to investigate the racial boundaries and hierarchies that tend to persist within the domain of intimacy. Although the current body of literature on this topic is robust, research that specifically focuses on Asians is less plentiful; there are currently only a handful of studies that draw from samples that consist exclusively of Asian Americans (e.g., Han, 2006a, 2006b; Mok, 1999; Shiao & Tuan, 2008). As a result, a number of questions surrounding the exclusive/inclusive romantic preferences within this burgeoning population remain either understudied or not studied at all. For example, it is unclear whether a racial/ethnic hierarchy exists in dating preferences among Asians. Do Asians prefer Whites over other Asians? Are Blacks and Hispanics viewed as being desirable romantic partners? Similarly, it is also uncertain whether significant differences exist among individuals who are gay or heterosexual. Are gay Asian males more willing to date outside of their own race compared to their heterosexual male counterparts? Do heterosexual Asian females exhibit similar dating preferences compared to heterosexual men? Finally, concerning relevant sociodemographic variables, it is unknown whether region of residence, political orientation, education, and age have a measurable impact on an Asian’s willingness to cross the color line when it comes to dating. To address these types of questions, the current study uses data collected from a nationwide sample of Asian Americans (N = 1270) who were seeking dating partners via Match.com. Unlike past research, this analysis examines the dating preferences of heterosexual males and females as well as gay males, while controlling for relevant individual characteristics such as age, education, and political orientation.

Asian Americans and the construction of sexuality

Asians represent one of the fastest growing racial groups in the U.S. According to a recent U.S. census report (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011), the Asian population grew by 43% between 2000 and 2010, from 10.2 million to 14.7 million. Asians constituted 5% of the total U.S. population in 2010; they are projected to represent 9% (40.6 million) of the population by 2050. As noted earlier, despite their increasing numbers, our understanding concerning the racial dating preferences of Asians is still somewhat limited in scope. Although marriage statistics can provide some information about this particular topic—approximately 28% of Asian newlyweds were married to someone of a different race/ethnicity in 2010 (Wang, 2012)—these numbers and percentages do not always accurately mirror dating patterns. As some researchers have pointed out, individuals who interracially date do not always interracially marry; hence, what we know about intermarriage may not directly apply to interracial daters (Fujino, 1997; Yancey, 2002). Furthermore, using marriage rates as a proxy for dating trends, our knowledge about the dating habits of gays and lesbians will remain underdeveloped since only a handful of states currently recognize same sex marriages.

The sexuality of Asians has historically been largely shaped and controlled by outside forces such as the legal system and the media (Han, 2006a; Larson, 2006; Shim, 1998). Racial stereotypes and antimiscegenation laws were often employed as a means to maintain racial domination when minority members were perceived as a threat by the dominant group. These types of negative actions facilitated the process of otherization in which Asians were consistently seen as outsiders who were unassimilable (Shim, 1998). For example, in the mid-1800s, Asian laborers in the U.S. were characterized as a threat during times of economic depression. They were often described as being subhuman-looking hordes who were trying to take jobs away from Whites and who were also trying to subvert White racial superiority (Shim, 1998). This marginalization is clearly captured in an Encyclopaedia Britannica entry written in 1842 that describes a Chinese person:

A Chinaman is cold, cunning and distrustful; always ready to take advantage of those he has to deal with; extremely covetous and deceitful; quarrelsome, vindictive, but timid and dastardly. A Chinaman in office is a strange compound of insolence and meanness. All ranks and conditions have a total disregard for truth.

As their numbers continued to increase throughout the 1800s, it became imperative for many Whites to control Asian men, especially their sexuality; consequently, in order to ensure that Asian bachelors would not seek out White women as possible romantic partners, 14 states enacted antimiscegenation statutes specifically targeting Asians (Pascoe, 1996).

Although these restrictive laws were eventually deemed legally problematic, the regulation of Asian sexuality has continued to go unabated in the media; movies and television programming constantly depict Asian men as being asexual (Larson, 2006). From effeminate characters, such as Chinese detective Charlie Chan, to action heroes who rarely have any onscreen romantic interests (e.g., Jackie Chan), Asian males are essentially stripped away of any sexual desirability—a process referred to as “racial castration” (Eng, 2001). These unflattering images have the ability to produce negative outcomes. For example, Fisman, Iyengar, Kamenica, and Simonson (2008) found that when it comes to physical attractiveness or sexual desirability, Asian men receive the lowest ratings; their study also revealed that Asian women find White, Black, and Hispanic men to be more attractive than Asian males.¹ Furthermore, Robnett and Feliciano (2011) documented that Asian women were more likely to exclude Asian men (40%) than White men (11%) as possible dates.²

This emasculation or desexualization is not restricted to the heterosexual community—gay Asian men are sexually marginalized as well (Han, 2006; 2007; 2008). For example, in the gay community where hypermasculinity is often valued over femininity (Lanzieri & Hildebrandt, 2011; Sanchez, Vilain, Westefeld, & Liu, 2010), Han (2008) found that gay periodicals tend to feminize Asian males by characterizing them as perpetual foreigners who are passive, nonmuscular, and sexually submissive—qualities that are not highly sought after in the gay community. These stereotypical images perpetuate the notion that gay Asian males are outside of the gay mainstream (Han, 2006b); however, on the other end of the spectrum, young and attractive White upper middle class males (the so-called “All American Boy” or the “Boy Next Door”) are consistently featured in magazines, newspapers, and on Internet Web sites, thus signifying whiteness as the face of the gay community (Berube, 2001; Han, 2008). By negatively stereotyping Asians, while at the same time elevating the status of Whites, the hegemonic ideal concerning gay masculinity and desirability continues to reify itself.

Asian women have also had their image negatively shaped by the dominant group. Rooted in the early days of colonialism, the image of the “Oriental” was created by Whites who sought to distance themselves socially and culturally from Asians. Asian women were frequently depicted as seductresses who sought to corrupt the morals of White men (Uchida, 1998). For example, in the 1870s and 80s, newspaper stories and magazine articles exaggerated the notion that Chinese or Japanese prostitution, if left unchecked, would erode the nation’s morals and physical well-being (Lee, 1999). By characterizing Asian women as lecherous heathens, the dominant group was able to justify discriminatory actions that targeted Asians (e.g., anti-immigration laws). This “controlling image” has not faded over time. Although Asian women are still underrepresented in the media, when shown, they are habitually stereotyped as being submissive, exotic, or sexually available for White men (Larson, 2006). Regarding the latter, popular movies such as The World of Suzie Wong (1960), Year of the Dragon (1985), and Heaven and Earth (1993) have consistently emphasized the notion that the sexual and emotional needs of Asian women are successfully satisfied by White males (Kim & Chung, 2005).

Dating preferences and racial hierarchies

When it comes to dating preferences, who we consider to be desirable or undesirable may be strongly influenced by various social and cultural factors such as the media, family and friends, and racism (Mok, 1999; Robnett & Feliciano, 2011; Tsunokai & McGrath, 2011; Tsunokai, Kposowa, & Adams, 2009; Yancey, 2009). For centuries, institutions in the U.S. have created and maintained structural and ideological constraints that have served to actively discourage individuals from crossing the color line when seeking a romantic partner. Discriminatory laws and practices, combined with unflattering stereotypical media depictions of nonwhites, have served to create a rigid racial hierarchy in our society (Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Larson, 2006). Consequently, studies that examine online dating preferences of heterosexuals tend to highlight norms and behaviors that are reflective of a racial hierarchy, where Whites are often viewed as being the most desirable, and where people of color, especially African Americans, are consistently seen as being less suitable dating partners (Feliciano, Robnett, & Komaie, 2009; Han, 2009; Hitsch et al., 2010; Robnett & Feliciano, 2011; Sweeney & Borden, 2009; Tsunokai et al., 2009; Yancey, 2009).

For example, Robnett and Feliciano (2011) recently found that Whites are more likely to exclude nonwhites when selecting online romantic partners, whereas their Asian, Latino, and Black counterparts were more receptive to dating Whites. They found that over 90% of White heterosexual men and women exclude Blacks when selecting romantic partners; at the same time, however, roughly 71% of Blacks excluded Whites. Similarly, 93 and 53% of White women and males did not want to date Asians, respectively. Conversely, only 11 and 35% of Asian women and men excluded Whites as potential dates. In addition, Robnett and Feliciano (2011) documented that Asians have similar dating preferences to Whites in that they frequently distance themselves from Hispanics and Blacks. Like Whites, they found that more than 94% of Asians did not indicate a willingness to date African Americans.³

Tsunokai et al. (2009) found similar dating outcomes, where Asians preferred dating Whites (they were 2.3 times more likely to state a preference to date Whites compared to Hispanics) and where both Whites and Asians were significantly less willing to date Blacks and Hispanics⁴; for example, regarding the latter, they found that Asians were 31% and Whites were nearly 24% less likely to indicate they would date African Americans compared to their Hispanic counterparts. Some existing studies suggest that Asians tend to impart more positive qualities (including physical attractiveness) to Whites than to even members of their own race (Fujino, 1997; Mok, 1998, 1999). The constant bombardment of negative hegemonic images serves to strengthen the belief system that race is a potent factor in the perceptions of sexual desirability and attractiveness (Mok, 1998).

For instance, when negotiating the online romantic market, Asian women and gay Asian men may have little motivation to select dating partners who are considered to be undesirable (i.e., Asian men). For some, dating a White man may be viewed as dating “up” in status. Pyke (2010) recently found that Asian American women tend to idealize and desire Western White males as romantic “egalitarian knights” who embody masculinity; White men were often viewed as being attractive, romantic, sensitive, and communicative. Pyke also revealed that Asian women frequently used racialized stereotypes to characterize Asian men—males were described as being dominant dictators who tend to treat women like property. This relational construction of hegemonic and subordinated identities is linked to the masculine, superior representation of White males juxtaposed with the unflattering depictions of Asian American men (Kim & Chung, 2005; Pyke & Johnson, 2003).

Although both Asian American men and women are subjected to negative stereotypes, there are distinct gendered differences when it comes to both interracial dating and marriage patterns. More specifically, Asian American women date and marry White partners at greater frequency compared to their heterosexual male counterparts (Mok, 1999; Fisman et al., 2008). Scholars have associated this finding with the gendered nature of the sexual stereotypes imputed to Asian Americans. As noted by Mok (1999), while Asian Americans as a whole do not perceive themselves to be as attractive as their White counterparts, the stereotypes often imputed to Asian American women make them highly desirable dating partners for White males. Additionally, mainstream depictions of effeminate Asian American men reinforce the notion of Asian men as sexless and lacking in physical traits that are typically deemed attractive to women. These messages, to a certain extent, can be attributed to Asian American women’s reluctance to date their racial/ethnic peers and overall preference for dating White men, thus accounting for the discrepancy between the Asian American men and women’s racial and ethnic dating behaviors (Mok, 1999).

Mate selection preferences among gay males may also reflect the desire to date upward; in this case, targeting attractive White individuals as suitable dating partners. Studies have highlighted the existence of a racial/ethnic hierarchy among gay men (Han, 2008; Phua & Kaufman, 2003). Within the gay community, “gay” often means White (Berube, 2001; Han, 2007). Mainstream gay publications tend to elevate the status of White men by normalizing their looks and experiences in ads and stories, while at the same time, marginalizing Asian and other nonwhite males by either ignoring their existence or depicting them as undesirable romantic partners (Han, 2007, 2008). Consequently, it is not surprising to find studies that document gay men of color selecting White men as potential dating partners over other nonwhite men, including members of their own race (Phua & Kaufman, 2003). For example, Phua and Kaufman (2003) found 31% of gay Asian male respondents indicated that they only wanted to date White men. At the same time, only 8% stated a willingness to date another Asian; none of the Asian gay males were willing to date another nonwhite minority member. Han (2006) suggests that assimilation into a perceived White gay community may lead to greater levels of internalized racism and self-hatred among gay Asian males. Hence, it is plausible that some Asian men may feel that dating White men is an affirmative sign of acceptance and status in the gay community; conversely, dating nonwhites may be viewed as a threat to a positive identity.

Based on the link between racial hierarchies and perceived standards of attractiveness, we hypothesize that both Asian heterosexual females and gay males will state a greater desire to date a White person relative to their heterosexual male counterparts. Given the standard of beauty or attractiveness which many people tend to judge themselves and others against (both gay and heterosexual) is largely embodied by White features—a “look” that is constantly reinforced by the media (Chow, 2000; Han, 2006; Mok, 1998)—it is hypothesized that many Asians when negotiating the online dating market may impart more positive qualities (e.g., perceived physical attractiveness) to Whites and thus may be more inclined to date members from this particular racial group. Furthermore, since Asian males of both sexual orientations tend to be constantly depicted in the media as being sexually undesirable (Han, 2008; Shim, 1998), it is also predicted that heterosexual females and gay males will be less willing to date an Asian compared to their heterosexual male counterpart.

In addition, this research assesses the impact of various sociodemographic variables such as age, education, region of residence, and political orientation on respondents’ racial dating preferences. Because past studies frequently utilize mixed race samples when examining this topic (Robnett & Feliciano, 2011; Tsunokai et al., 2009), the direct impact of pertinent sociodemographic variables on the dating preferences of Asian Americans is often unclear. For example, existing research has consistently shown that there is a negative relationship between age and one’s willingness to date interracially (Tsunokai & McGrath, 2011); however, it is not known whether this particular outcome would remain statistically significant if the results were disaggregated by race and ethnicity. Hence, by focusing solely on Asian Americans, this study has the opportunity to shed light on important social factors that may influence whether or not Asians cross the color line when seeking romantic partners.

Data and methods

The current research is a part of a larger project that used data collected from Match.com in the winter of 2006. Information was gleaned from online personal ads of randomly selected users who had completed a dating profile consisting of a mixture of both open- and closed-ended type questions. Users also have the option to post a headshot photo, as well as write narratives about themselves and their ideal match. This “electronic dossier,” which is free and available to all users who have Internet access, showcases such things as the dater’s physical features, personality traits, interests, values, socioeconomic status, as well as the desired characteristics and qualities that the person is seeking in his or her dating partner(s). Concerning the latter, in addition to desired physical features and mutual interests, users are also prompted to indicate (by checking the appropriate box or boxes) which racial or ethnic group(s) they prefer to date. Nine categories are provided to the users; they include White, Asian, African American, Latino/Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Native American, Pacific Islander, East Indian, and other.

In order to obtain a diverse sample of respondents (ages 18 years and over) in the U.S., a multistage sampling procedure was utilized. First, the largest U.S. city (based on the latest census figures) in every state was selected for inclusion, given that metropolitan areas provide single individuals with a large pool of available dating partners from various racial and ethnic backgrounds. To ensure racial/ethnic diversity in the sample, 20 subsampling categories were created (e.g., “White male seeking female,” “White female seeking male,” “White male seeking male,” and “White female seeking female”). These four groupings were also created for African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, and multiracial individuals (respondents who selected more than one racial or ethnic category). To facilitate the sampling process, personal ads were stratified into their appropriate subsampling category via a filtering feature on Match.com that enables users to sort data based on desired social characteristics, such as race and ethnic background, as well as sexual orientation. The population of daters was further narrowed by excluding (via the “photo only” function) all profiles that did not include a picture of the respondent. Individuals who do not post picture(s) of themselves tend to be less likely to fully complete their online dating survey/profile, than are daters who upload photographs.

Approximately 15 respondents were randomly selected for each subsampling grouping, for a total of 300 individuals per state. If a particular subsampling category had less than 15 people, all respondents in that particular category were included in the data set. In addition, some categories for certain cities did not have any respondents to sample from. Since older daters (aged 60+ years) are a minority group on Match.com, an additional sampling strategy was employed to ensure that a sizable sample was obtained. First, all personal ads (with a picture) posted by daters 60 years or over were separated from younger individuals using the appropriate filtering function. Next, 100 individuals were randomly selected from the sexual orientation groupings. A total of 400 nonduplicated respondents were added to the larger data set.

Using a standardized coding sheet, 12 trained coders recorded responses from 14 relevant closed-ended questions.⁵ A total of 14,501 dating profiles were coded and entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences database. The effective sample size is based on the number of cases on which complete information was available. For the present analysis, only heterosexual Asians and gay Asian males (N = 1270) were included in the analysis. Asian lesbians were excluded from the present analysis since their numbers were too small to conduct any meaningful statistical analyses. Table 1 presents summary statistics for the study variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics.

Covariates	Mean (%)	SD
Willing to date White	97.64	–
Willing to date Black	51.02	–
Willing to date Latino/Hispanic	70.00	–
Willing to date Asian	82.99	–
Willing to date other race/ethnicity	73.00	–
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual male	46.14	–
Heterosexual female	36.30	–
Homosexual male	17.56	–
Age (years)	33.12	9.27
Education level
High school	27.01	–
College	37.48	–
Graduate or PhD	35.51	–
Political orientation
Conservative	9.53	–
Moderate	45.28	–
Liberal	35.59	–
Region
West	38.43	–
South	19.45	–
Midwest	17.72	–
Northeast	24.41	–
Religious affiliation
No organized religion	36.85	–
Organized religion	63.15	–

Note. No. of cases: 1270.

In regard to sexual orientation, the majority of the sample was classified as either heterosexual males or females (46 and 36%, respectively). Roughly 18% of the Asian respondents self-identified as being gay. When respondents were questioned about their willingness to date outside their racial/ethnic category, the overwhelming majority of Asian Americans indicated that they were seeking partners who were White (98%), followed closely by Asians (83%), some of other race (73%), Hispanics (70%), and African Americans (51%). The average age for daters included in the present study was 33 years (SD = 9.27; range, 18–86 years). Approximately 19% of the respondents indicated residing in the South, while 38, 24, and 17% reported living in the West, Northeast, and Midwest, respectively.

When examining respondents’ levels of education, roughly 27% of the sample had only obtained a high school diploma. At the same time, the majority of respondents had either completed an Associates or Bachelors degree, or held an advanced degree (37% and 36%, respectively). In regard to political orientation, roughly 45% of all respondents expressed political views that were classified as moderate, while 36 and 10% of individuals self-identified as liberal and conservative, respectively. Finally, when it came to religious affiliation, the majority of individuals identified themselves as being Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish (63%), while the remaining 37% of sample indicated adhering to a nontraditional form of religion (e.g., Agnostic, Atheists, or spiritual).

Variables and measures

The present research examines five dependent variables. These variables were used to assess the degree to which Asian Americans were willing to date Whites, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and some other race/ethnicity (Native Americans, East Indians, Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, and other). Each variable was dichotomized, assigning the value of “1” to respondents who indicated that they were willing to date individuals of a specific racial/ethnic background and a value of “0” to those who were not. Sexual orientation was transformed into two dummy variables, “heterosexual female” (women seeking men) and “gay male” (men seeking men), with heterosexual males serving as the reference group. In regard to relevant control variables, the variable age was measured in number of years. As noted earlier, past studies have continually documented that there is a negative relationship between age and one’s willingness to cross the color line when selecting a romantic partner (Tsunokai & McGrath, 2011). To the extent that education influences individuals’ willingness to date interracially (see Yancey, 2002), respondents’ level of education was captured by two dummy variables, “college” and “graduate or PhD.” Respondents who had only received a high school diploma served as the reference group.

Since previous research (Robnett & Feliciano, 2011) has shown that political orientation directly impacts individuals’ racial/ethnic dating preferences, political orientation was recoded from a seven-category variable (ultraconservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, very liberal, nonconformist, and some other viewpoint) into two dummy variables, “moderate” and “liberal,” with conservatives employed as the reference group. Individuals who selected the categories “nonconformist” or “some other viewpoint” were not included in the analyses. As noted by several scholars (Tsunokai et al., 2009; Yancey, 2009), region of residence has been determined to influence individual perceptions of interracial romance. For example, Tsunokai et al. (2009) found that individuals residing in the South were less willing to cross the color line in terms of racial dating preferences relative to their other regional counterparts. Thus, the variable region was transformed into three dummy variables (West, Midwest, and Northeast) with the variable “South” utilized as the comparison group. Given that religious affiliation has a direct association in terms of individuals’ willingness to date interracially (Tsunokai & McGrath, 2011), the original religion variable that consisted of 10 separate categories (ranging from “Atheist” to “Muslim/Islam”) was delimited into two separate variables. Individuals who identified as Agnostic, Atheist, and/or spiritual were classified as not having any religious affiliation (“no organized religion”), while those respondents who identified themselves as being Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist/Taoist, Hindu, and Muslim/Islam were collapsed into the variable, “organized religion.”

Statistical modeling

Since each of the response variables included in the analysis were dichotomous, logistic regression models were fitted to the data. For each predictor variable, parameter estimates represent the log odds of individuals belonging in a specified category (coded as 1) versus respondents who were not (coded as 0). The likelihood of reporting racial or ethnic dating preferences is represented in the form of odds ratios (ORs). The approximate ORs were calculated by exponentiating the logistic regression coefficients. ORs >1 indicate that respondents have a greater likelihood of stating a specific racial/ethnic preference for their potential dating partners relative to the reference group employed. Conversely, an OR <1 has the opposite interpretation.

Findings

Relevant logistic regression results of the effects of our focal independent variables (“men seeking women,” “women seeking men,” and “men seeking men”) on the willingness among Asian Americans to date Whites, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and some other race/ethnicity are presented in Table 2 (Models 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively).

Table 2.

Logistic regression results of the effect of sexual orientation among Asians on their willingness to date Whites, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and others.

Covariates	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Model 4			Model 5
Covariates	B	OR	95% CI	B	OR	95% CI	B	OR	95% CI	B	OR	95% CI	B	OR	95% CI
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual male	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–
Heterosexual female	0.89*	2.41	1.02, 5.72	−0.83***	0.43	0.34, 0.56	−1.07***	0.34	0.26, 0.45	−1.38***	0.25	0.17, 0.37	−0.94***	0.39	0.29, 0.52
Homosexual male	1.41*	4.11	0.96, 17.66	−0.41**	0.67	0.49, 0.91	−0.05	0.95	0.78, 0.95	−1.87***	0.15	0.10, 0.24	−0.43*	0.65	0.45, 0.94
−2 log likelihood	276.404			1716.123			1480.845			1064.757			1427.122
Model χ^²/df	7.616*/2			43.938***/2			70.750***/2			93.511***/2			44.670***/2
No of events/observation	1240/1270			648/1270			889/969			1054/1270			928/1267

*** p ≤ .001; **p ≤ .01; *p ≤ .05.

As highlighted in Table 2, heterosexual women and gay men were more likely to want to date a White person than were their heterosexual male counterparts. The odds of stating a preference to date Whites were 4.1 and 2.4 times greater for gay males and heterosexual females compared to the reference group, respectively. This pattern was not displayed when it came to one’s willingness to date African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and individuals who were some other race/ethnicity. Compared with heterosexual males, heterosexual females and gay males were less willing to indicate a preference to date someone who was nonwhite. For example, among Asian females, the odds of wanting to date an Asian, Latino, someone who is racially/ethnically “other,” or a black man, were 75, 66, 61, and 53% less than their heterosexual male counterparts, respectively. Similarly, gay Asian males were also less willing to express an interest to date nonwhites. As a group, they were 85, 35, and 33% less likely to state a preference to date other Asians, people who were some other race/ethnicity, and Blacks compared with heterosexual males within the sample, respectively.

Table 3 highlights logistic regression results of the sexual orientation variables and pertinent sociodemographic variables on Asians’ willingness to date Whites and nonwhites.

Table 3.

Logistic regression results of the effect of various sociodemographic variables among Asians on their willingness to date Whites, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and others.

Covariates	Model 6			Model 7			Model 8			Model 9			Model 10
	Willing to date Whites			Willing to date Blacks			Willing to date Latinos			Willing to date Asians			Willing to date other races
	B	OR	95% CI	B	OR	95% CI	B	OR	95% CI	B	OR	95% CI	B	OR	95% CI
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual male	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–
Heterosexual female	0.92*	2.50	1.04, 6.02	−0.83***	0.44	0.34, 0.57	−1.04***	0.35	0.27, 0.47	−1.32***	0.27	0.18, 0.40	−0.90***	0.41	0.30, 0.54
Homosexual male	1.54*	4.65	1.04, 20.78	−0.52**	0.59	0.43, 0.83	−0.15	0.86	0.59, 1.27	−2.07***	0.13	0.08, 0.20	−0.60**	0.55	0.37, 0.81
Age	0.01	1.01	0.96, 1.05	−0.02***	0.98	0.96, 0.99	−0.03***	0.97	0.96, 0.99	−0.03***	0.97	0.95, 0.98	−0.03***	0.97	0.96, 0.99
Education level
High school	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–
College	0.11	1.12	0.43, 2.91	−0.04	0.96	0.71, 1.30	0.12	1.13	0.82, 1.56	0.71***	2.04	1.38, 3.00	0.26	1.29	0.93, 1.80
Graduate or PhD	0.06	1.06	0.40, 2.81	−0.02	0.98	0.72, 1.33	0.23	1.26	0.90, 1.75	0.84***	2.31	1.55, 3.45	0.37*	1.45	1.03, 2.03
Political orientation
Conservative	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–
Moderate	0.18	1.19	0.46, 3.08	−0.25	0.78	0.57, 1.07	−0.17	0.85	0.60, 1.19	−0.37	0.69	0.45, 1.07	−0.61***	0.54	0.38, 0.79
Liberal	−0.04	0.96	0.34, 2.70	0.26	1.31	0.93, 1.84	0.07	1.07	0.74, 1.56	0.15	1.17	0.72, 1.89	−0.16	0.85	0.57, 1.28
Region
West	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–
South	−0.84	0.43	0.17, 1.11	−0.79***	0.45	0.33, 0.63	−0.53**	0.59	0.42, 0.83	−0.44*	0.65	0.41, 1.00	−0.70***	0.50	0.35, 0.70
Midwest	0.68	1.97	0.41, 9.32	0.18	1.20	0.86, 1.69	0.08	1.09	0.74, 1.60	−0.28	0.76	0.47, 1.21	0.07	1.07	0.72, 1.60
Northeast	−0.67	0.51	0.19, 1.34	−0.50**	0.61	0.45, 0.83	−0.28	0.76	0.54, 1.06	−0.51**	0.60	0.40, 0.92	−0.15	0.86	0.60, 1.23
Religious affiliation
No organized religion	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–	–	1.00	–
Organized religion	−0.44	0.64	0.28, 1.48	0.09	1.09	0.86, 1.40	−0.22	0.80	0.61, 1.05	0.05	1.05	0.76, 1.46	0.03	1.03	0.78, 1.36
−2 log likelihood	276.740			1650.423			1445.582			1019.156			1374.911
Model χ^²/df	16.280/11			109.638***/11			106.014***/11			139.112***/11			96.882***/11
No. of events/observation	1240/1270			648/1270			889/1270			54/1270			893/1270

***p ≤ .001; **p ≤ .01; *p ≤ .05.

When control variables are added to subsequent models, the direction and magnitude of the two sexual orientation variables remain relatively unchanged from the first set of results. As highlighted in the model, Asian females and gay males were still more likely to express a greater willingness to date a White person compared to their heterosexual male counterparts; however, it is important to note that the 2 log likelihood did not reach statistical significance. In regard to the desire to date someone of the same race/ethnicity, Asian females and gay males were approximately 73 and 87% less willing to express a preference to date another Asian compared to the reference group. At the same time, however, these two same groups were more likely to indicate a preference to date Blacks and Hispanics. Gay Asian males and heterosexual females were only 41 and 56% less willing to date an African American compared to heterosexual males, respectively. Females were also 65% less likely to indicate a preference for Hispanics as potential dating partners. In regard to one’s willingness to date someone from another race or ethnicity (e.g., Native Americans, East Indians, Middle Easterners, and Pacific Islanders), the odds of females and gay males to state a preference were 59 and 45% less compared to heterosexual males.

With the exception of African Americans (OR = .98), the present results indicate the odds of stating a preference to date a Hispanic, Asian, and a person of some other race/ethnicity declined by 3% for each additional year of age, respectively. The findings also suggest that Asians who possessed a Bachelor’s or advanced degree had more favorable attitudes toward dating other Asians than did their high school counterparts. Both groups were two times more willing to state a dating preference for Asians. Concerning region, Asians living in the South were 55, 50, 41, and 35% less willing to date an African American, a person who was racially/ethnically “other,” Hispanic, and Asian, relative to their Western counterparts, respectively. Similarly, Asians residing in the Northeast were 39 and 40% less likely to desire a black and Asian dating partner. In terms of political orientation, the only significant finding suggested that Asians who identified themselves as moderates were less likely to state a preference to date someone who was racially or ethnically “other,” compared to daters who were conservative (OR = .54; confidence interval = .38, .79).

Discussion and conclusion

The present study examined inter- and intraracial/ethnic dating preferences of heterosexual Asian males and females as well as gay Asian males. Since mate selection is often impacted by various social institutions and psychological factors (e.g., standards of attractiveness), we predicted two hypotheses: (1) both Asian heterosexual females and gay males will indicate a greater willingness to date Whites compared to their heterosexual male counterparts and (2) Asian heterosexual females and gay males will be less willing to date an Asian compared to their heterosexual male counterparts. This research clearly illustrates that there are significant differences in terms of racial dating preferences based on individuals’ sexual orientation. Consistent with previous research (Mok, 1999; Phua & Kaufman, 2003), our analyses indicate that Asian females and gay males are more willing to date Whites than are their heterosexual male counterparts. Moreover, results revealed that Asian females and gay Asian males expressed less desire to date Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians compared to heterosexual males. As noted in the findings, there were several key sociodemographic variables (e.g., age, education, and region of residence) that directly impacted Asian’s willingness to cross the color line in terms of dating preferences.

Whites have historically exhibited the most resistance when it comes to crossing the color line (Han, 2007; Phua & Kaufman, 2003; Tsunokai & McGrath, 2011); however, our findings, like other recent studies (see Robnett & Feliciano, 2011), have documented that Asian Americans (heterosexual females and gay males) are now adopting similar patterns of racial exclusion to that of Whites. This particular outcome has added to the larger debate as to whether Asians are gradually becoming “White” due to their “success” in mainstream society. For example, assimilation-type indicators such as educational and income attainment tend to suggest parity between Whites and Asians (although it is important to reiterate that the assertion that Asian Americans are a “model minority” continues to be problematic [see Wong & Halgin, 2006]). Consistent with Gordon’s (1964) notion of assimilation, successful integration within the public realm often leads to more personal and intimate relationships between minority and majority group members within the primary sphere (e.g., Asian Americans marrying Whites constitute the largest proportion of interracial marriages in the U.S. [Hwang, Saenz, & Aguirre, 1997]). Moreover, increased acceptance by the majority group often facilitates the process by which minority group members begin to adopt the racialized views of the dominant group (Yancey, 2003). It is important to note that many of these conclusions from previous studies are based upon samples pertaining to only heterosexual Asian Americans. In turn, the present analysis helps shed light on the relevance of these trends among understudied populations, such as gay Asian males.

As discussed earlier, nonwhites—both gay and heterosexual—have historically been depicted by the media as possessing less desirable qualities and traits. Consequently, this racial hegemonic attitude has pervaded the gay community as well (Han, 2008). Gay White men are consistently perceived as being more desirable than their nonwhite counterparts (Han, 2009). Although the present study is unable to determine whether our respondents harbored any prejudice against Asian men, it is still reasonable to believe that some Match.com users may have been negatively influenced by racial stereotypes when deciding who they prefer to date. Accordingly, future studies should examine the extent to which stereotypes impact interracial dating preferences.

There were a number of interesting findings surrounding several sociodemographic variables that were used in the study. For example, concerning educational attainment, the present findings reveal that possessing a college or graduate degree increases the odds that Asian Match.com users are more willing to date Asian Americans and people who are racially classified as “other,” compared to their counterparts with only a high school education. As is often the case, institutions of higher education tend to promote cultural diversity and awareness through their curriculum, programs, and events. Within these settings, individuals may develop greater levels of tolerance and cognitive sophistication on issues surrounding race and ethnicity (Bobo & Licari, 1989). This knowledge or awareness could positively impact mate selection preferences. For instance, more educated daters may be less inclined to subscribe to negative racial stereotypes concerning physical attractiveness or desirability. If this is true, they may also be more willing to expand their pool of possible dating partners by including people from every race and ethnicity. Although Match.com data do not allow us to directly test these particular assumptions, our findings still suggest that education tends to have a liberalizing effect on racial dating preferences.

Another intriguing finding was the impact that age had on one’s willingness to cross the color line. Consistent with past research (Tsunokai & McGrath, 2011; Tsunokai et al., 2009), older daters expressed greater resistance to date people who were not of the same race or ethnicity. Interestingly, however, our findings also suggested that age had a negative impact on the willingness to date another Asian American. Since many older daters were raised during a period where structural inequality and racial oppression and segregation promoted racial homophily (1950s and 1960s), it was hypothesized that Asian Americans would be less willing to date African Americans and Hispanics. Our anticipated finding may be related to the presence of more patriarchal gender roles in Asian American families and relationships. In their research, Fong and Yung (1995) found that both Asian men and women expressed the desire to marry outside of their race to, among other reasons, achieve relationships that were more egalitarian and less similar to the structure of their parents’ marriages. With the ongoing change in the roles and status of women in America, it is possible that older generations of Asian Americans may be more likely to have experienced such patriarchal familial structures, which could leave them with relationships that differ from their more traditional Asian parents and families, and consequentially less willing to date other Asians.

The current findings also documented the impact that region had on dating preferences. According to our results, Asians living in the South and Northeast were less willing to cross the color line when selecting a potential romantic partner compared to their western counterparts. This particular outcome may be partly related to geographic propinquity. With the exception of New York, the largest southern and northeastern cities selected for inclusion in the present sample did not have sizable Asian populations. For example, according to a recent U.S. census report (Humes et al., 2011), the Asian alone population was only 2.8 and 5.5% in the South and Northeast, respectively (compared to 9.3% in the West). It is possible that the Asian Match.com users may have restricted their dating preferences to majority group members.

Although the current analyses present unique insights about racial dating preferences, there are limitations associated with the use of Match.com data. Despite the fact that a significant percentage of the U.S. population has Internet access, there remains the possibility that our sample does not reflect the attitudes and behaviors of individuals who do not access the World Wide Web. Accordingly, the sample used in the present study may not be generalized to daters who do not utilize online dating Web sites. Dating preferences may differ between those individuals who use online services versus those daters who do not; however, it is important to point out that recent research has shown that nearly three quarters of single individuals have utilized the Web to pursue romantic partners (Robnett & Feliciano, 2011).

Although our findings seemingly support the contention that dating preferences may be impacted by racial hierarchies based on perceived standards of attractiveness, the present data do not allow for a direct test of this specific notion. More specifically, there were no questions available on the Match.com questionnaire that assessed the respondents’ attitudes about racial/ethnic stereotypes surrounding physical desirability; thus, we are unable to state with any degree of certainty that the observed racial preferences were significantly impacted by the negative influence of anti-Asian stereotypes.

Finally, there is often a risk that respondents may provide socially desirable answers to survey questions when they are asked about topics of a sensitive nature (like interracial dating). This creates the possibility that attitudes expressed by respondents may not be consistent with, or predict their actual behaviors. For example, online daters who indicated a preference to date interracially may not do so, even if they were given the opportunity. As noted by Hitsch et al. (2010), there are distinct gender differences regarding individuals’ racial dating preferences and actual behavior; within their study, they found that women reported racial preferences that did not reflect their stated dating behaviors, while their male counterparts’ racial dating preferences corresponded to their actual behaviors. Although this issue is of concern, it is believed to be less prevalent in this particular study because the purpose of an online matchmaking questionnaire is to aid prospective daters in finding suitable partners, not to conduct research. The goal of finding a compatible partner may lead respondents to provide answers more truthful to their behavior when asked about dating preferences (e.g., desired race, educational level, occupation, etc.). Furthermore, as noted by Yancey (2009), respondents of online dating networks are often unaware that they are being studied, thus reducing the likelihood of potential social desirability effects. Despite these limitations, Match.com provides social scientists with unique opportunities to analyze online interracial dating preferences among Asian Americans of various sexual orientations.

Since it is well documented that Asians are not a homogenous group, future research should investigate whether differences exist between native and foreign-born Asians in regard to online dating patterns and preferences. Approximately 60% of the U.S. Asian-origin population is foreign-born (Zhou, 2007); unfortunately, however, Match.com does not ask their users to indicate their generational status. In one of the few studies that investigated this particular topic, Qian and Lichter (2001) found that racial minority immigrants were more likely to have interpersonal relationships with same-race immigrants compared to their native born counterparts who were more willing to cross the color line when seeking romantic partnerships. Their results seemingly support integration-type theories that suggest greater levels of acculturation may lead to the development of close, personal interactions with dominant group members within the “private” sphere (Gordon, 1964). Additional research on this topic will help us to better understand the acculturation process among Asians.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Berube

. (2001). How gay stays white and what kind of white it stays. In B. Rasmussen, E. Klinenberg, I. Nexica, & M. Wray (Eds.). The making and unmaking of whiteness (pp. 234–265). Durham: Duke University Press.

Bobo

Licari

. (1989). Education and political tolerance: Testing the effects of cognitive sophistication and target group affect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 318–329.

Bonilla-Silva

(2010). Racism without racists. Oxford, England: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Chow

(2000). The significance of race in the private sphere: Asian Americans and spousal preferences. Sociological Inquiry, 70, 1–29.

Eng

(2001). Racial castration: Managing masculinity in Asian America. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Feliciano

Robnett

Komaie

(2009). Gendered racial exclusion among white Internet daters. Social Science Research, 38, 39–54.

Fisman

Iyengar

Kamenica

Simonson

(2008). Racial preferences in dating. Review of Economic Studies, 75, 117–132.

Fong

Yung

. (1995). In search of the right spouse: Interracial marriage among Chinese and Japanese Americans. Amerasia Journal, 21, 77–98.

Fujino

(1997). The rates, patterns and reasons for forming heterosexual interracial dating relationships among Asian Americans. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 809–828.

10.

Gordon

(1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origin. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

11.

Han

(2006a). Being an oriental, I could never be completely a man: Gay Asian men and the intersection of race, gender, sexuality, and class. Race, Gender and Class, 13, 82–98.

12.

Han

(2006b). Geisha of a different kind: Gay Asian men and the gendering of sexual identity. Sexuality and Culture, 10, 3–28.

13.

Han

(2007). They don’t want to cruise your type: Gay men of color and the racial politics of exclusion. Social Identities, 13, 51–67.

14.

Han

(2008). Sexy like a girl and horny like a boy: Contemporary gay ‘western’ narratives about gay Asian men. Critical Sociology, 34, 829–850.

15.

Han

(2009). No fats, femmes, or Asians: The utility of critical race theory in examining the role of gay stock stories in the marginalization of gay Asian men. Contemporary Justice Review, 11, 11–22.

16.

Hitsch

Hortacsu

Ariely

(2010). What makes you click?—Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8, 393–427.

17.

Humes

Jones

Ramirez

(2011). U.S. census bureau 2010 census briefs: Overview of race and Hispanic origin—2010 (C2010BR-02). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

18.

Hwang

Saenz

Aguirre

B. E.

(1997). Structural and assimilationist explanations of Asian American intermarriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 758–772.

19.

Kim

Chung

(2005). Consuming orientalism: Images of Asian/American women in multicultural advertising. Qualitative Sociology, 28, 67–91.

20.

Lanzieri

Hildebrandt

(2011). Using hegemonic masculinity to explain gay male attraction to muscular and athletic men. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 275–293.

21.

Larson

(2006). Media and minorities. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

22.

Lee

(1999). Orientals: Asian Americans in popular culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

23.

Mok

(1998). Asian Americans and standards of attractiveness: What’s in the eye of beholder. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 4, 1–18.

24.

Mok

(1999). Asian American dating: Important factors in partner choice. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5, 103–117.

25.

Pascoe

(1996). Miscegenation law, court cases, and ideologies of “race” in twentieth century America. The Journal of American History, 83, 44–69.

26.

Phua

Kaufman

(2003). The crossroads of race and sexuality: Date selection among men in Internet “personal” ads. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 981–994.

27.

Pyke

(2010). An intersectional approach to resistance and complicity: The case of racialised desire among Asian American women. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 31, 81–94.

28.

Pyke

Johnson

(2003). Asian American women and racialized femininities: “doing” gender across cultural worlds. Gender and Society, 17, 33–53.

29.

Qian

Lichter

(2001). Measuring marital assimilation: Intermarriage among natives and immigrants. Social Science Research, 30, 289–312.

30.

Robnett

Feliciano

(2011). Patterns of racial-ethnic exclusion by Internet daters. Social Forces, 89, 807–828.

31.

Sanchez

Vilain

Westefeld

Liu

(2010). Masculine gender role conflict and negative feelings about being gay. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 41, 104–111.

32.

Shiao

J. L.

Tuan

(2008). Some Asian men are attractive to me, but for a husband … Korean adoptees and the salience of race in romance. Du Bois Review, 5, 259–285.

33.

Shim

(1998). From yellow peril through model minority to renewed yellow peril. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 22, 385–409.

34.

Sweeney

Borden

(2009). Crossing the line online: Racial preference of Internet daters. Marriage and Family Review, 45, 740–760.

35.

Tsunokai

Kposowa

Adams

(2009). Racial preferences in Internet dating: A comparison of four birth cohorts. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 33, 1–15.

36.

Tsunokai

McGrath

(2011). Baby boomers and beyond: Crossing racial boundaries in search for love. Journal of Aging Studies, 25, 285–294.

37.

Uchida

(1998). The Orientalization of Asian women in America. Women’s Studies International Forum, 21, 161–174.

38.

Wang

(2012). The rise of intermarriage: Rates, characteristics vary by race and gender. Washington, DC: PewResearchCenter.

39.

Wong

Halgin

(2006). The “model minority”: Bane or blessing for Asian Americans? Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 34, 38–49.

40.

Yancey

(2002). Who interracially dates: An examination of the characteristics of those who have interracially dated. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33, 179–190.

41.

Yancey

(2003). Who is white? Latinos, Asians, and the new black/nonblack divide. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

42.

Yancey

(2009). Crossracial differences in the racial preferences of potential dating partners: A test of the alienation of African Americans and social dominance orientation. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 121–143.

43.

Zhou

(2007). Are Asian Americans becoming white? Context, 3, 64–69.