The type of work you do may have surprisingly little influence on what you look for in a romantic partner. According to a new international study, biological sex and relationship goals are much stronger predictors of romantic preferences than occupational interests. The findings, published in Personality and Individual Differences, are based on responses from nearly 2,000 adults across seven countries.
Psychologists have long suggested that vocational interests reflect important aspects of personality. People-oriented professions, such as teaching and nursing, are often distinguished from things-focused occupations, including engineering, and more abstract, idea-oriented fields, such as finance and technology.
Because these occupational preferences are thought to reflect relatively stable personality characteristics, some researchers have proposed that they might also influence romantic attraction. The new study investigated whether people drawn to different types of work place different levels of importance on particular qualities in potential partners.
How the researchers tested romantic preferences
The research team, led by Peter K. Jonason of Vizja University and Dritjon Gruda of Católica Porto Business School, recruited 1,974 adults through an online platform. Participants came from seven Western, industrialized countries, including the United States, Germany and South Africa.
Respondents identified their current employment industry, which the researchers classified into three broad occupational orientations: people-focused, things-focused and abstract-focused work. Participants then completed a questionnaire examining the qualities they valued in potential short-term and long-term romantic partners.
To assess their priorities, the researchers used a forced-choice task. Participants repeatedly selected which characteristic they considered more important when presented with competing pairs drawn from five broad categories: physicality, compassion, competence, compatibility and character.
Each participant completed the task twice. First, they considered the qualities they would prioritize in a casual, short-term relationship. They then repeated the exercise while imagining a committed, long-term partnership.
This approach allowed the researchers to examine whether occupational orientation influenced romantic preferences and how those preferences changed depending on the type of relationship being considered.
Job type shows minimal influence
The central finding was that occupational orientation had little meaningful association with partner preferences. People working in people-oriented professions generally made similar choices to those employed in things-focused or abstract-focused fields.
Using equivalence tests, which help determine whether observed differences are sufficiently small to be considered practically negligible, the researchers found that participants across occupational categories placed similar importance on competence, compatibility and character.
These patterns were consistent in both short-term and long-term relationship scenarios.
Even participants in abstract-oriented occupations, whom the researchers had expected might place greater emphasis on character and shared values, showed preferences that were largely indistinguishable from those of other occupational groups.
Because things-focused occupations were more commonly held by men, while people-focused occupations were more frequently represented by women, the researchers also examined sex and occupational orientation together.
A small association initially appeared between things-focused work and a stronger preference for physical attractiveness. However, this relationship became substantially weaker after the researchers accounted for sex, suggesting that the apparent occupational difference was largely explained by the sex distribution across job categories.
Sex and relationship context matter far more
In contrast to occupational orientation, sex and relationship context showed clearer and more consistent associations with romantic preferences.
Across the participating countries, men selected physical attractiveness more frequently than women, while women placed greater emphasis on compassion and competence.
When considering long-term relationships, men prioritized physicality almost twice as often as women. Women, meanwhile, gave relatively greater importance to qualities such as warmth, kindness and intelligence, while also valuing compatibility and moral character.
However, the type of relationship participants imagined produced an even more pronounced shift in priorities.
When evaluating a potential short-term partner rather than a long-term companion, participants selected physicality almost three times as often. At the same time, they placed relatively less emphasis on compassion, character and compatibility.
Despite these differences, character and compatibility remained important considerations for both men and women when evaluating potential long-term partners.
The findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that romantic preferences vary according to relationship goals, with physical attraction receiving greater emphasis in short-term contexts and interpersonal qualities becoming more prominent in committed relationships.
Limits and next steps for research
An important limitation is that the researchers used participants’ current employment industries as indicators of their underlying vocational interests.
However, the industry in which someone works does not necessarily reflect their personal interests or preferred type of work. Employment decisions may be influenced by income, available opportunities, education and other practical circumstances.
This mismatch could obscure more subtle relationships between vocational interests and romantic preferences.
For example, a nurse and a data analyst working in the same hospital may share an industry classification despite performing very different tasks and having distinct professional motivations.
Another limitation concerns the hypothetical nature of the partner-selection task. Participants indicated which qualities they would prioritize in imagined relationships, but these preferences may not fully predict their behavior when choosing partners in everyday life.
Individual attraction is also influenced by combinations of characteristics that may be difficult to capture through comparisons between isolated traits.
The study excluded non-binary participants and people with non-heterosexual orientations from the relevant analyses because their numbers were insufficient for separate statistical examination. Consequently, the findings should not be assumed to apply equally to these groups.
All seven participating countries were also Western and industrialized, leaving unanswered questions about whether similar patterns would emerge in societies with different cultural expectations surrounding work, gender and romantic relationships.
Future research could examine vocational interests more directly through specialized psychological assessments rather than relying on occupational categories. Longitudinal studies following actual relationship choices and outcomes could also help determine how stated preferences translate into real-world partnerships.
Overall, the findings suggest that a person’s sex and relationship intentions provide more information about their stated romantic preferences than the industry in which they work. Although career interests may reflect aspects of personality, they appear to play a relatively minor role in determining which qualities people prioritize in a potential partner.
