See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325808795

Perceived inequity predicts prejudice towards age-gap relationships

Article  in  Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · June 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s12144-018-9895-6

CITATIONS READS

0 250

2 authors, including:

Brian Collisson
Azusa Pacific University
31 PUBLICATIONS   187 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Brian Collisson on 12 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Current Psychology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9895-6

Perceived inequity predicts prejudice towards age-gap relationships

Brian Collisson 1 & Luciana Ponce De Leon 1

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Age-gap couples often elicit negative stereotypes and prejudice. According to social exchange and equity theories, we predicted
that prejudice towards age-gap couples may stem from perceived relational inequity. We hypothesized that age-gap, as compared
to age-matched, couples were perceived as less equitable and, as a result, less liked. To test these hypotheses, people evaluated,
and inferred the equity of, age-gap and age-matched relationships. We found that age-gap, as compared to age-matched, couples
were more disliked and perceived as less equitable. Within age-gap relationships, older men and women were perceived as
reaping greater rewards than their younger partners. Importantly, perceived inequity predicted prejudice towards age-gap, but not
age-matched, couples. In exploratory analyses, age-gap couples consistently elicited significantly more prejudice than other types
of couples. Implications for age-gap relationships and future research are discussed.

Keywords Romantic relationship . Age . Prejudice . Age-gap . Cougar . Cradle robber

Within romantic relationships, age is more than a number.
Couples who differ in age - commonly referred to as age-gap
or May–December relationships - often elicit negative stereo-
types and prejudice (Banks and Arnold 2001; Lehmiller and
Agnew 2011). For example, people often denigrate those who
date someone much younger or older than themselves by call-
ing them Bcougars^ and Bcradle robbers,^ or Bgold-diggers^
and Bsugar daddies/mommas.^ Such negative stereotypes sug-
gest that age-gap relationships are inequitable, with the one
partner benefitting more than the younger partner. Indeed,
Bcougar^ implies that older women may be reaping greater
rewards by predatorily preying upon younger men. Likewise,
Bcradle robber^ implies that older men are thieves, benefiting
by taking younger, more valuable women to whom they may
not have access. Terms, such as Bgold-digger^ and Bsugar dad-
dy/momma^ imply that the younger partner is taking advantage
of the older partner’s financial resources.
In these instances, the younger or older partner within an
age-gap relationship may aggressively pursue an age-
discrepant partner because such relationships are unlikely to
form otherwise. Research on assortative mating suggests
* Brian Collisson
bcollisson@apu.edu
1
Department of Psychology, Azusa Pacific University, 901 E. Alosta
Ave, Azusa, CA 91702, USA
similar partners are more likely to form and maintain relation-
ships than dissimilar partners (Berscheid et al. 1971; Bryne
and Nelson 1964; Crow and Felsenstein 1968). Certainly, cul-
tural differences exist regarding acceptable age gaps within
relationships (United Nations 2000). Nonetheless, within
North America, the average age difference among married
couples is small (2.30 years; United Nations 2000). Within
the United States, 60% of married couples have age differ-
ences less than three years; 92% less than 10 years (U.S.
Census Bureau 1999). Thus, it appears large age-gaps within
romantic relationships are atypical.
Evolutionary theory argues that heterosexual men should
prefer partners slightly younger than themselves and women
should prefer partners slightly older than themselves (Buss
1989; Kenrick et al. 1996; Kenrick and Keefe 1992). Such
small age differences, favoring slightly older males, maximize
reproductive fitness and long-term resource attainment for men
and women (see Kenrick et al. 1996). Larger age-gaps, espe-
cially those containing older women, violate evolved mate pref-
erences. To the extent to which people dislike evolutionarily
disadvantageous relationships, people should express prejudice
towards age-gap couples (Banks and Arnold 2001).
Surprisingly, and unfortunately, few studies have assessed
age-gap relationships (e.g., Banks and Arnold 2001; Kenrick
and Keefe 1992; Lehmiller and Agnew 2006, 2008) and even
fewer have asked why people dislike age-gap couples. Indeed,
a chapter reviewing the potential reasons why people would
form age-gap relationships relied mostly on theoretical

speculation because there are so few studies on the topic
(Lehmiller and Agnew 2011). Only one qualitative study ma-
nipulated the age-gap within couples (Banks and Arnold
2001). Its findings suggest that people think age-gap couples
are socially unacceptable, less satisfying, short-lived, and
overly maternal or paternal (Banks and Arnold 2001). This
single study’s findings also revealed that people believe larger
age-gaps are related to a greater emphasis on an older partner’s
resources. That is, people infer younger men and women date
older partners for financial benefit (i.e., in search of a sugar
mama or sugar daddy; Banks and Arnold 2001). These find-
ings fit evolutionary theory and imply that people do not typ-
ically form age-gap relationships because of a perceived im-
balance or inequity within the relationship.
Given the lack of research on people’s prejudicial attitudes
towards age-gap relationships, the current study seeks to
quantitatively measure people’s prejudice and determine
whether such prejudice is related to perceived inequity within
the relationship. In an exploratory fashion, we also compare
whether people’s own age or gender may moderate their prej-
udicial attitudes towards age-gap couples. To better under-
stand the extent of people’s prejudice towards relationships,
in general, we explore how the prejudice elicited by age-gap
couples compares to that of other marginalized couples, such
as those who differ in race, weight, and socioeconomic status.
Theoretical Framework
Drawing upon social exchange and equity theories, we pro-
pose that people may express prejudice towards age-gap cou-
ples because they are perceived as inequitable. According to
social exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley 1959), people
view romantic relationships much like behavioral economists
view business exchanges - as cost/benefit analyses. A roman-
tic relationship is a series of transactions of valued resources.
Relationships which accrue greater rewards (e.g., feelings of
satisfaction, meaningfulness) than costs (e.g., conflict, emo-
tional baggage) are evaluated positively and are likely to per-
sist (Nakonezny and Denton 2008). Furthermore, people are
likely to compare their contributions to a relationship with
their partner’s contributions (Festinger 1954; Markey and
Markey 2011). According to equity theory, relationships are
less positive if one partner believes he or she is contributing
much more, or less, than the other (Adams 1963). Therefore,
people should evaluate equitable relationships, in which both
partners contribute and reap equally positive rewards, more
favorably than inequitable relationships.
Age-gap relationships, in particular, may stereotypically be
viewed as one-sided. The relational attractiveness and per-
ceived mate-value of younger partners is higher than that of
older partners (Edlund and Sagarin 2010). Younger partners,
presumably, provide greater reproductive fitness, long-term
Curr Psychol
investment, and vitality to a relationship (Buss 1989; Kenrick
et al. 1996; Kenrick and Keefe 1992). Indeed, age-gap relation-
ships may only form when older partners provide similarly
positive and equitable contributions, such as wisdom, maturity,
or financial resources (Lehmiller and Agnew 2011). If people
stereotypically infer that older partners are contributing less to
age-gap relationships than their younger counterparts, then peo-
ple may dislike age-gap couples.
Current Research and Hypotheses
To test whether perceived inequity predicts prejudice towards
age-gap relationships, we asked people to evaluate the rela-
tionships of romantic couples with similar (age-matched) and
dissimilar (age-gap) ages. Specifically, we asked people to
express the degree to which they liked age-gap and age-
matched couples and the degree to which one partner was
benefitting more than the other. We first predicted that age-
gap couples would elicit greater prejudice than age-matched
couples. Second, we predicted that age-gap couples would be
perceived as less equitable than age-matched couples, such
that older partners reaped greater rewards within age-gap re-
lationships. Third, and most importantly, we predicted that
perceived inequity would predict prejudice towards age-gap,
but not age-matched, couples. Age-matched couples offer
similar contributions to their relationships. Therefore, any
prejudicial attitudes elicited by age-matched couples should
be unrelated to perceived inequity.
In an exploratory fashion, we also explored the degree to
which age and gender may moderate people’s prejudicial atti-
tudes towards age-gap couples. Furthermore, we compared the
level of prejudice elicited by age-gap couples to other margin-
alized couples, specifically those who differ in regard to race,
weight, and socioeconomic status. Although we do not make
explicit predictions about gender or age differences, nor about
the comparative prejudice levels among couples, such explor-
atory analyses may reveal meaningful avenues for future re-
search and, potentially, lead to future theoretical developments.
Method
Participants
Ninety-nine participants (Mage = 29.49; SD = 7.23) were re-
cruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and paid
US$0.26 as remuneration. MTurk is a public website where
participants can voluntarily agree to participate in psychology
studies for a small payment credited to their Amazon.com
account. Researchers in the social sciences often choose to
collect data from MTurk participants, rather than traditional
undergraduate students, because MTurk participants tend to
Curr Psychol
be a more diverse and representative population (Buhrmester,
Kwang, & Gosling, 2011).
The online sample consisted of 62 males, 35 females, and 2
participants choosing not to report a gender. Participants iden-
tified as Caucasian (50%), Asian (37%), African American
(7%), and Hispanic (4%). Participants ages ranged from 19
to 63 years.
Materials and Procedure
Participants were presented with a BSocial Attitudes Survey,^
which they were told would assess their feelings towards a
variety of different social topics and groups. At the beginning
of the survey, participants were presented with an Informed
Consent Form. After consenting, participants were presented
with a total of 16 relationships which varied in regard to race
(i.e., White/Black man and a White/Black/woman), weight
(i.e., skinny/fat man and a skinny/fat woman) socioeconomic
status (i.e., a rich/poor man and a rich/poor woman), and most
importantly, age (i.e., a young/old man and a young/old wom-
an). Instead of specifying a numerical age-gap (see Banks and
Arnold 2001), we chose to use the colloquial wording of
Byoung^ and Bold^ to mirror colloquial wording of other cou-
ples (e.g., White/Black, skinny/fat, rich/poor). For each couple,
participants expressed their prejudicial attitudes and perceived
inequity (see below). They then completed basic demographic
items, were thoroughly debriefed, and remunerated.
Prejudicial Attitudes The primary dependent variable was par-
ticipants’ evaluations of randomly presented romantic
Fig. 1 Prejudice as a function of Prejudice as a function of men’s and women’s ages.
men’s and women’s ages. Note.
Higher scores indicate more
favorable attitudes. Error bars
represent 95% confidence
intervals
Rating of Couple
Note. Higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes. Error bars represent 95% confidence
intervals.
couples. Participants indicated the degree to which they felt
favorable towards each relationship using a feeling thermom-
eter bar, which slid from 0 (cold, unfavorable) to 99 (warm/
favorable).
Perceived Inequity Participants inferred the extent to
which each relationship was inequitable using a 7-
point scale, ranging from 1 (He is getting a much better
deal than she is) to 7 (She is getting a much better deal
than he is). The midpoint of the scale was labeled 4
(They are both getting the same, equal deal).
Results
Do People Express Prejudice towards Age-Gap
Couples?
To assess whether prejudice varied as a function of each part-
ner’s age, we conducted a 2 (Men’s age: young, old) X 2
(Women’s age: young, old) repeated measures ANOVA.
There was a significant main effect of men’s age, F(1,96) =
6.03, p < .05, partial η2 = .06, such that relationships of older
men were liked less than relationships of younger men. There
was no main effect of women’s age, F(1,96) = 1.07, p = .30,
partial η2 = .01. As predicted, prejudice significantly varied as
a function of men and women’s age, F(1,96) = 73.11, p < .001,
partial η2 = .43. As seen in Fig. 1, people expressed greater
prejudice towards young men’s relationships when they
partnered with older (M = 55.45, SD = 32.60), rather than
100
Young man
90 Old man
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Young woman O ld w oman
Woman’s Age

younger women (M = 81.95, SD = 20.17), t(97) = −7.45, p
< .001, d = .97.1 Similarly, people expressed greater prejudice
towards older men’s relationships when they partnered with
younger (M = 50.70, SD = 33.04), rather than older women
(M = 80.08, SD = 22.45), t(97) = −8.34, p < .001, d = 1.04.
Planned contrasts revealed that, in general, age-gap couples
(M = 52.84, SD = 31.36) were liked significantly less than
age-matched couples (M = 80.70, SD = 19.19), t(97) =
−8.61, p < .001, d = 1.07.
Are Age-Gap Relationships Inequitable?
To assess whether perceived inequity varied as a function of
each partner’s age, we again conducted a 2 (Men’s age: young,
old) X 2 (Women’s age: young, old) repeated measures
ANOVA. There was a significant main effect of men’s age,
F(1,96) = 33.70, p < .001, partial η2 = .26, such that older men
were perceived to reap greater rewards within relationships
than younger men. Similarly, there was a significant main
effect of women’s age, F(1,96) = 21.87, p < .001, partial
η2 = .19, such that older women were perceived to reap greater
rewards within relationship than younger women. There was
also a significant interaction between men and women’s age,
F(1,96) = 8.67, p < .01, partial η2 = .08.
As seen in Fig. 2, people perceived greater inequity within
older men’s relationships when they partnered with younger
(M = 3.44, SD = 1.91), rather than older women (M = 4.44,
SD = 1.08), t(97) = 5.70, p < .001, d = .65. Such that, older
men were perceived to benefit more when they partnered with
younger women than older women.2 Similarly, people per-
ceived significantly greater inequity within younger men’s
relationships when they partnered with older (M = 4.95,
SD = 1.60), rather than younger women (M = 4.58,
SD = 1.06), t(96) = −2.02, p < .05, d = 0.27. Planned contrasts
revealed that, in general, age-gap couples (M = 52.84,
SD = 31.36) were liked significantly less than age-matched
couples (M = 80.70, SD = 19.19), t(97) = −8.61, p < .001,
d = 1.07.
Does Perceived Inequity Predict Prejudice towards
Age-Gap Couples?
Before testing whether perceived inequity predicts prejudice
towards age-gap and age-matched couples, we first explored
1
It is important to note that participants’ prejudice was directed towards the
couple, rather than the man or woman specifically. Therefore, the interaction
results listed previously could also be written with a focus on women (e.g.,
Bpeople expressed greater prejudice towards older women’s relationships
when they partner with younger, rather than older, men.^)
2
This interaction could also be written with a focus on women (e.g., Bpeople
perceived greater inequity within younger, rather than older, women’s relation-
ships when they partnered with an older man. Such that younger women were
perceived to benefit less than older women when they partnered with an older
man.^)
Curr Psychol
the zero-order correlations between inequity and prejudice for
the two, specific age-gap couples (i.e., young man/older wom-
an, old man/young woman) and the two, specific age-matched
couples (i.e., young man/young woman, old man/old woman).
For age-gap couples, the relation between inequity and preju-
dice was surprisingly not significant for young man/older
woman relationships, r(97) = .11, p = .28; as expected, the re-
lation between inequity and prejudice was significant for older
man/young woman relationships, r(97) = .33, p < .001. Such
that, the more people perceived the old man was getting a
better deal than the young woman, the more prejudice they
expressed towards the relationship. For age-matched couples,
the relation between inequity and prejudice was not significant
for young man/young woman relationships, r(97) = .16,
p = .11 and for old man/old woman relationships,
r(97) = .08, p = .45 (Table 1).
To assess whether perceived inequity predicted prej-
udice towards age-gap couples, we first created a single
measure of perceived inequity in age-gap versus age-
matched relationships. To do this, we subtracted each
inequity item from the midpoint of the scale (i.e.,
They’re each getting the same, equal deal), saving its
absolute value. Thus, larger scores indicated greater in-
equity. We then averaged the inequity scores for the two
age-gap items (i.e., younger man/older woman, older
man/younger woman) together, creating a single inequi-
ty score for age-gap relationships. We did the same for
the two age-matched items.3 Finally, we regressed the
inequity score for age-matched relationships onto the
inequity score for age-gap relationships, saving the un-
standardized residuals. Thus, we created a single item
which captured the unique variance of the extent to
which people perceive age-gap relationships as less eq-
uitable than age-matched relationships. Afterward, we
created a measure of age-gap prejudice by averaging
the two prejudice ratings for age-gap couples (younger
man/older woman, older man/younger woman). We did
the same to create a measure of age-matched prejudice
as well.
Two linear regression analyses were then used to test wheth-
er perceived inequity predicted age-gap and age-matched
3
For this direct test of our hypothesis, we needed to create a combined per-
ceived inequity for age-gap couples (i.e., older man/younger woman, younger
man/older woman) and age-matched couples (i.e., young man/young woman,
old man/old woman), respectively. Because the inequity variable was scored
from 1 (He’s getting a better deal) to 7 (She’s getting a better deal), we could
not simply average these variables together because any perceived inequity
among age-gap couples (older man/younger woman, younger man/older
woman) would not be captured by an average score. That is, if someone
perceived a great deal of inequity among the age-gap older man relationship
(score of 1 - He’s getting a much better deal) and age-gap younger man
relationship (score of 7 – She’s getting a much better deal), the average (7 +
1)/2 would incorrectly reveal 4 (They’re each getting the same equal deal).
Therefore, we needed to take the absolute value of each score from the mid-
point of 4 before averaging the scores.
Curr Psychol

Fig. 2 Perceived inequity as a 7

function of men’s and women’s
ages. Note. Error bars represent Young man Old man
95% confidence intervals 6

1
Young woman Old woman

prejudice, respectively. As predicted, perceived inequity pre-
dicted age-gap prejudice, F(1,96) = 7.28, p < .01, r2 = .07, such
that greater perceived inequity predicted more negative atti-
tudes towards age-gap couples (β = −.27, p < .01). However,
and as predicted, perceived inequity did not predict age-
matched prejudice, F(1,96) = 0.03, p = .87, r2 < .01.
Exploratory Analyses
Age To explore whether participants’ own age was related to
their prejudicial attitudes towards age-gap couples, we corre-
lated participants’ age with their rating of the two age-gap
couples (i.e., old man/young woman couple, young man/old
woman couple). Age was not significantly related to the prej-
udice elicited by an old man/young woman couple, r (97) =
−.06, p = .59, nor by a young man/old woman couple, r (97) =
−.08, p = .41. Therefore, we did not continue further, explor-
atory regression analyses because age was uncorrelated with
either variable.
Gender To explore whether participants’ own gender related
to their prejudicial attitudes towards age-gap couples, we con-
ducted independent samples t-tests, with gender as the quasi-
independent variable. Men and women did not significantly
differ in regard to their prejudicial attitudes towards an old
man/young woman couple, t(94) = −0.14, p = .89, d = 0.03,
nor a young man/old woman couple, t(95) = 0.10, p = .92,
d = 0.02.
Comparisons among Couple Types To explore how the level
of prejudice elicited by age-gap couples compared to other
dissimilar couples (i.e., couples who differed in race, weight,
and socioeconomic status), we first created a total prejudice
score for each couple by averaging participants’ ratings of
each dissimilar couple (e.g., old man/young woman, young
man/old woman; White man/Black woman, Black man/White
woman). The newly created prejudice scores for age-gap
(α=.91), mixed-weight (α=.88), interracial (α=.76), and
mixed-socioeconomic status (α=.82) couples each demon-
strated acceptable reliability.
We then used a repeated-measures, one-way ANOVA to
test whether people’s prejudice scores varied by couple type.
Interestingly, prejudice significantly depended on the type of
couple, F(3, 94) = 19.85, p < .001, ω2 = .33. As seen in Fig. 3
and follow-up Helmert contrasts, people expressed signifi-
cantly more negative attitudes towards age-gap couples than
all other couples, F(1,96) = 51.15, p < .001, ω2 = .50.
Discussion
In sum, our hypotheses were largely confirmed. People
expressed greater prejudice towards age-gap couples than

Table 1 Summary of regression

results testing whether perceived Criterion variable B SE (B) β t p r2
inequity predicts prejudice
Prejudice towards age-gap relationships −8.71 3.23 −.27 17.21 <.01* .07
Prejudice towards age-matched relationships 0.34 2.05 .02 0.16 .87 <.01

Fig. 3 Prejudice towards Prejudice towards dissimilar couples as a function of couple type.
dissimilar couples as a function of
100
couple type. Note. Higher scores
indicate more favorable attitudes.
Error bars represent 95%
confidence intervals
Rating of Couple
Note. Higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes. Error bars represent 95% confidence
intervals.
age-matched couples. People also perceived greater inequity
among age-gap couples, such that they perceived that older
partners reap greater rewards than their younger partners.
Furthermore, perceived inequity predicted prejudice towards
age-gap, but not age-matched, couples. That is, the more one-
sided people perceived age-gap relationships to be, the more
prejudice they expressed.
However, it is also important to note that for both types of
age-gap couples (i.e., old man/young woman, young man/old
woman), people expressed greater prejudice and perceived
greater inequity than they did for age-matched couples (i.e.,
young man, young woman, old man/old woman). However,
the relation between perceived inequity and prejudice was
greater for old man/young woman couples than young man/
old woman. Although this null effect should be interpreted
cautiously, it does suggest that the degree to which people
perceive certain relationships as inequitable may better predict
prejudice towards some couples more than others.
Furthermore, our exploratory analyses found that partici-
pants own age and gender did not moderate their prejudice
towards age-gap couples. However, exploratory analyses did
reveal differences in the amount of prejudice elicited by dif-
ferent types of couples (e.g., those who differ in race, weight,
or finances). Interestingly, people evaluated age-gap couples
less favorably than interracial, mixed-weight, or mixed-
socioeconomic status couples. Because this finding was not
predicted, it should be interpreted cautiously. Nonetheless, it
suggests the need for further research on age-gap couples, in
general, and the potential reasons why age-gap couples might
elicit greater prejudice than other types of couples,
specifically.
Curr Psychol
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Age-gap Mixed-Weight Interracial Mixed-SES
Couple Type
Although exploratory analyses are interesting and poten-
tially meaningful for future theory development, exploratory
findings should be interpreted cautiously. They were not pre-
dicted and are currently not supported by theory. For instance,
it is possible that people may perceive that age-gap couples are
more inequitable than other types of couples and therefore,
elicit greater prejudice. It is also possible that people perceive
age-related prejudice as more socially acceptable than race or
weight-related prejudice and therefore, feel more comfortable
rating age-gap couples negatively. Replicating and explaining
why age-gap couples elicit greater prejudice than other cou-
ples may be a fruitful avenue for future research.
Implications
These findings may have implications for people currently
within, or who may later form, age-gap relationships. For those
currently in age-gap relationships, people’s perceptions of in-
equity and corresponding prejudice may stigmatize the couple
and possibly lead to relationship dissolution. Indeed, age-gap
couples tend to be less committed to their relationships than
non-stigmatized couples (Lehmiller and Agnew 2006, 2008).
Future research is needed to more clearly identify how preju-
dice towards age-gap relationships may lead to increased con-
flict, dissatisfaction, and possibly relationship dissolution.
Future research studies may also explore whether age-gap,
and other marginalized, couples’ lower levels of commitment
to their relationships reflect societal disapproval and stigma or
true differences in inequity. More research is needed to survey
actual age-gap couples and determine the extent to which one
partner contributes more, or less, than the other. If people’s
Curr Psychol
stereotypic perceptions of inequity are accurate, then actual
age-gap couples may be less committed than other couples
because of their inequitable investment. Certainly, more re-
search is needed to explore the commitment experienced with-
in age-gap relationships.
For those who may later form age-gap relationships, a
younger partner may stereotypically infer that the older part-
ner contributes more to the relationship as an effort to equalize
the partnership. Similarly, it is possibly that the partner per-
ceived to benefit more may feel pressure to highlight the re-
wards he or she may bring to a relationship to provide equity.
For instance, older partners may highlight their wealth or
wisdom to attract younger partners and combat perceived in-
equity inferences from others (e.g., friends and family).
Conversely, people may stereotypically infer that the youn-
ger partner in an age-gap relationship contributes more than
his or her partner. It is possible that this inference may pressure
younger partners to downplay his or her contributions to the
relationship and thus avoid perceived inequity from others.
Future studies which survey the experiences of actual couples
within age-gap relationships seems like a logical extension of
the current research.
Furthermore, the current research may also have implica-
tions for later stigma-reduction interventions. If perceived in-
equity underlies people’s prejudice towards age-gap couples,
then future studies which manipulate perceived equity may
find decreases in prejudice. Indeed, other studies regarding
Bmismatched^ couples, such as interracial relationships
(Miller et al. 2004a, b) and mixed-weight relationships
(Collisson et al. 2016) show that perceived inequity is indeed
related to people’s attitudes towards couples. It is possible that
highlighting equity among age-gap couples, and other dissim-
ilar couples, may reduce prejudice.
Strengths & Limitations
The current research has many strengths, as well as limita-
tions. In regard to strengths, first, the current research repli-
cates and extends the only study which qualitatively assessed
age-gap prejudice (Banks and Arnold 2001) and provides the-
oretical support for the role of equity within age-gap relation-
ships (Lehmiller and Agnew 2011). Second, the current re-
search draws upon social exchange and relationship theories
to offer an empirically supported explanation regarding why
people may dislike age-gap relationships. Indeed, it bridges
romantic relationship and prejudice literatures in a novel and
theoretically meaningful way. Third, the current research
shows the relationship between perceived inequity and preju-
dice towards age-gap couples in a hypothetical context.
Indeed, people may describe unknown couples in such generic
terms, such as the Byoung man^ dating the Bolder woman.^
Regardless, given psychology’s concern about replicability
(see Klein et al., 2014), these findings would be replicated
using other, more naturalistic paradigms. Indeed, viewing a
picture or video of an age-gap couple may be another way to
assess people’s perceived inequity and prejudicial attitudes. In
the current study, it may have been difficult for participants to
imagine age-gap couples given its hypothetical and generic
wording. In more realistic scenarios, people may have more
information of the couple to base their level of prejudice and
perceptions of equity. When this information is lacking, it
appears that people generally express prejudice towards age-
gap couples and perceive them as inequitable.
Furthermore, people’s prejudicial attitudes towards age-
gap couples were limited to response scales. Future research
may choose to assess prejudice and potential discrimination
towards age-gap couples in more ecologically valid, real
world situations, such as dating scenes or marriage venues.
Additionally, the findings were limited in their experimental
realism. For instance, asking participants to rate hypothetical
couples not reflect the true feelings people may experience
when witnessing such couples. Future studies may ethically
replicate and extend the current research in more natural
settings.
In addition, the current research offered a more general
description of age-gaps (e.g., a young person dating an old
person). Future studies may choose to use more specific inter-
val ranges (e.g., dating someone 5, 10, 15 years younger/
older). More specific age ranges would allow researchers to
test whether the specific age range affects people’s prejudice
and perceptions of equity.
Another limitation of the current research is in regard to its
online sample of participants. Although Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk allows researchers to recruit a significantly
more diverse and representative sample than traditional col-
lege students (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011), it still is
not a fully representative sample. Online samples tend to be
more educated and participate for intrinsically motivating rea-
sons, such as enjoyment of research. Future studies may
choose to selectively recruit a representative sample which
varies more widely in age, education, and ethnicity to more
aptly test whether participants’ own demographic variables
relate to their perceptions of age-gap couples. It may be pos-
sible, for instance, that younger people may give greater
weight to appearance and vitality; whereas, older people
may give greater weight to financial stability and life manage-
ment skills.
Conclusion
Within age-gap relationships, partners are often derogatorily
referred to Bcougars,^ Bcradle robbers,^ Bgold diggers,^ and
Bsugar daddies/mommas.^ Such negative stereotypes pre-
sume that the relationship is inequitable, such that one partner
is predatorily preying upon, stealing away, or financially
benefiting from the other. In the current study, we provided

evidence that people perceive greater inequity, and express
greater prejudice towards, age-gap couples than age-matched
couples. Furthermore, perceived inequity positively predicted
prejudice towards age-gap couples. In sum, the more people
believe older partners reap greater rewards than younger part-
ners within age-gap relationships, the more prejudice they
express towards age-gap couples.
Acknowledgements We acknowledge and greatly appreciate the contri-
butions of my research team: Juliana D’Aoust, Camille Brandon, Angele
Doakes, Gabriel Lee, Marlene Martinez, and Crystal Saludes.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Ethical Approval All applicable international, national, and/or institu-
tional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All
procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in
accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national
research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later
amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest The author has not received research grants to sup-
port this research nor has any conflict of interests.
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.
Banks, C. A., & Arnold, P. (2001). Opinions towards sexual partners with
a large age difference. Marriage and Family Review, 33, 5–18.
Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physical
attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(2), 173–189. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(71)90065-5.
Bryne, D., & Nelson, D. (1964). Attraction as a function of attitude
similarity-dissimilarity: The effect of topic importance.
Psychonomic Science, 1(5), 93–94. https://doi.org/10.3758/
BF03342806.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences:
Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's
Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high quality,
data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.
Collisson, B., Howell, J. L., Rusbasan, D., & Rosenfeld, E. (2016). Date
someone your own size. Prejudice and discrimination towards
mixed-weight relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
View publication stats
Curr Psychol
Relationships. First published online April, 27, 2016–2540. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0265407516644067.
Crow, J. F., & Felsenstein, J. (1968). The effect of assortative mating on
the genetic composition of a population. Eugenics Quarterly, 15,
85–97.
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2010). Mate value and mate preferences:
An investigation into decisions made with and without constraints.
Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 835–839. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.004.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7, 117–140.
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect
sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 15, 75–133.
Kenrick, D. T., Gabrielidis, C., Keefe, R. C., & Cornelius, J. S. (1996).
Adolescents’ age preferences for dating partners: Support for an
evolutionary model of life-history strategies. Child Development,
67, 1499–1511.
Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Jr., Bahník, Š.,
Bernstein, M. J., et al. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability:
A Bmany labs^ replication project. Social Psychology, 45(3), 142–
152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178.
Lehmiller, J. J., & Agnew, C. R. (2006). Marginalized relationships: The
impact of social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 40–51. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167205278710.
Lehmiller, J. J., & Agnew, C. R. (2008). Commitment in age-gap hetero-
sexual romantic relationships: A test of evolutionary and socio-
cultural predictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 74–82.
Lehmiller, J. J., & Agnew, C. R. (2011). May-December paradoxes: An
exploration of age-gap relationships in western society. In W. R.
Cupach, B. H. Spitzberg, W. R. Cupach, B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.),
The dark side of close relationships II (pp. 39–61). New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Markey, C., & Markey, P. (2011). Romantic partners, weight status, and
weight concerns an examination using the actor-partner interdepen-
dence model. Journal of Health Psychology, 16, 217–225. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1359105310375636.
Miller, S. C., Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2004a). Perceived reactions to
interracial romantic.
Miller, S. C., Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2004b). Perceived reactions to
interracial romantic relationships: When race is used as a cue to
status. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 354–369.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430204046143.
Nakonezny, P. A., & Denton, W. H. (2008). Marital relationships: A
social exchange theory perspective. American Journal of Family
T h e r a p y, 3 6 ( 5 ) , 4 0 2 – 4 1 2 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 /
01926180701647264.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups.
New York: Wiley.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). America’s families and living arrangements.
Retrieved April 8, 2009 from: http://www.census.gov/population/
www/socdemo/hh-fam/p20-537_99.html
United Nations. (2000). World Marriage Patterns 2000. Retrieved April
17, 2009 from: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/
worldmarriage/worldmarriage.htm