A new study finds that how people express choosiness links to partnered sex in opposite ways.
The study may change how singles, therapists, and educators view modern dating (Archives of Sexual Behavior) (study).
The research matters because partnered sex affects wellbeing and relationship satisfaction.
International surveys show rising sexual inactivity among young adults in recent decades (study background).
The team surveyed 340 single heterosexual adults aged 18 to 40 in the United States.
They measured choosiness two ways and asked about sexual activity in the past year (study).
The first measure asked people to name traits they saw as essential in a partner.
The researchers called this measure “stated choosiness” (study).
The second measure showed participants 24 dating profiles to rate.
The researchers called this behavioral measure “revealed choosiness” (study).
The results produced a surprising paradox.
People higher in stated choosiness reported more partnered sex last year (study).
People higher in revealed choosiness reported less partnered sex last year.
This negative link held after adjusting for age, gender, and self-rated attractiveness (study).
The paradox suggests that choosiness is not one simple trait.
Different measures capture different motives and behaviors (study discussion).
The lead author said the team did not expect the opposite associations.
He noted the difference between personality-based and appearance-based choosiness (PsyPost interview).
The study places its findings in a wider context of sexual decline among young people.
For example, nearly 31% of US men aged 18–24 reported no sex in the last year in 2018 (study background).
The authors offer possible explanations for the positive link with stated choosiness.
They suggest that clear standards may signal confidence and higher mate value (study discussion).
They also propose that people who state many essential traits may be more committed to dating.
Such people may take more steps to meet partners and thus have more sex (study).
The negative link with revealed choosiness may reflect early rejection on dating apps.
High selectivity at first glance may reduce opportunities to meet partners (study discussion).
The pattern differed by whether people wanted a partner.
For people who preferred to be in a relationship, revealed choosiness predicted less sex (study).
For people who chose to be single, revealed choosiness did not predict sexual frequency.
This suggests intent and motivation shape how choosiness matters (study).
The study also tested gender differences.
Women reported higher stated choosiness than men, but gender did not change the choosiness-sex links (study).
The research used both self-report and behavioral measures.
This multi-method approach strengthens the claim that choosiness is multifaceted (study methods).
The authors caution that the study is correlational.
They do not claim choosiness causes changes in sexual frequency (study limitations).
They note reverse causation is possible.
Less sexual success could increase revealed choosiness over time (study limitations).
The team also acknowledged measurement limits.
They did not ask which sexual activities participants valued most (study limitations).
Experts in clinical practice may find the findings useful.
Therapists could help clients distinguish between types of choosiness (study implications).
The lead researcher said he sees clients who spend hours swiping.
He warned that endless swiping can give dopamine hits without real dates (PsyPost interview).
What do these findings mean for Thailand?
Thailand shares demographic shifts found elsewhere, such as later marriage and smaller families (UNFPA Thailand report).
Thai data show rising age at first marriage over recent decades.
This trend may increase the pool of single adults navigating dating apps (UNFPA Thailand report).
Thai young adults also face urban pressures and economic concerns.
Financial stress and long working hours can reduce time for dating and relationships.
Thai culture emphasizes family and respect for social norms.
These norms can shape expectations about partner qualities and marriage timing.
Buddhist values affect relationship choices in Thailand.
Many Thais place family harmony and long-term stability high on their list of partner traits.
The study suggests that clarity about values can help dating success.
In Thailand, stating clear non-negotiables may signal confidence to potential partners (study implications).
Conversely, over-focus on initial appearance may limit opportunities.
Thai singles using apps may benefit from balancing appearance with other qualities.
Public health systems should note the mental health links to sexual isolation.
Sexual inactivity can associate with loneliness, depression, and lower wellbeing (study background).
Thai mental health services have expanded in recent years.
Providers can integrate relationship coaching into services for young adults.
Universities and schools can add relationship education.
Curricula can teach healthy choice, consent, and realistic dating expectations.
Dating apps have become prominent in Thailand.
App design and user habits may shape revealed choosiness.
Dating coaches and counselors can teach practical strategies.
They can help clients test preferences in real settings rather than only on apps.
Community groups and temples can play a supportive role.
Buddhist sanghas often provide social networks for young people.
Policy makers can monitor sexual health alongside demographic trends.
Sexual activity links to fertility, mental health, and social wellbeing.
Researchers should replicate the study in Thailand and Southeast Asia.
Local samples could show how culture and norms moderate choosiness effects.
Researchers should include LGBTQ+ and partnered people.
The original study limited itself to single, heterosexual adults (study).
A longitudinal design could test causality.
Tracking choosiness and sexual outcomes over time would clarify direction (study limitations).
Clinicians should assess both stated and revealed choosiness.
This assessment can guide tailored interventions for clients who want more connection.
For Thai singles who want more sexual or romantic contact, simple steps may help.
Clarify your core values and communicate them early in dating.
Avoid automatic rejection based only on one profile photo.
Give profiles a chance by reading bios and exchanging brief messages.
Limit swiping time to avoid burnout.
Set a daily time limit to keep dating balanced with work and family.
Seek feedback from trusted friends and family.
Thai families often offer practical match-making help.
Use university counseling services if dating stress affects wellbeing.
Counselors can help with self-esteem and realistic goal setting.
Therapists can teach skills to translate stated preferences into healthy behavior.
They can coach clients on approach, timing, and realistic standards.
Dating educators can teach app-based social skills.
They can run workshops that focus on bio writing and photo selection.
At the policy level, include relationship skills in public health campaigns.
Simple messages can encourage balance, consent, and realistic expectations.
The new study helps explain why choosiness can both help and hinder dating.
It shows that measurement matters when we talk about human behaviour (study).
Thai readers should take away two clear points.
Be clear about your values. Give people more than a single swipe to make a judgement.
Researchers and practitioners should keep studying sexual inactivity as a public issue.
They should include cultural context and diverse sexual orientations in future work.