I just read that over 33,000 eHarmony members got married in a twelve month period ending August 31, 2005.
Dr. Neil Clark Warren:
Soon-to-be-released research has found that eHarmony married couples are significantly happier than married couples who met by any other means. Our unique ability to marry quantity with quality is the reason why eHarmony continues to hold the distinction of more marriages per match than any online dating service.
I wonder what factors were considered in gauging that “eHarmony married couples are significantly happier than married couples who met by any other means?”
Curious to see what the surrounding questions were, because it’s common knowledge the the questions that lead up to and follow specific keystone issues factor into the over responses, especially when the same question is asked several different ways.
In any event, 33,000 people is impressive.
Technorati Tags: eharmony
No related posts.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
If this “soon-to-be-released” research is anything like their last study which purported to show the same finding, then eHarmony couples are not happier than other couples. Their last study (which was never acadmeically published) was debunked academically.
See: Houran, J., Lange, R., Rentfrow, P. J., & Bruckner, K. H. (2004). Do online matchmaking tests work? An assessment of preliminary evidence for a publicized ‘predictive model of marital success.’ North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 507-526.
Moreover, 33,000 marriages is not necessarily impressive. As debunked in a report by Mark Thompson’s WeAttract group, eHarmony’s statistics fail to tell the public and the media how many couples eHarmony unsuccessfully paired or how many of the eHarmony marriages have ended in separation or divorce. With currently a 50% divorce rate, one could also argue that eHarmony’s unproven matching system has increased the divorce rate by 15,000 people.
It’s time for eHarmony to act scientifically and responsibly, if they are going to play the “science and research” angle. So far, they have tried repeatedly to gain academic respect and have failed miserably.
Thanks,
James Houran, PhD
Research Psychologist
I don’t pretend to know all of the scientific mumbo jumbo, but it sounds like in the press release that they did a pretty standard survey with Harris – which I think is a big name in that kind of thing.
All the time on here I see James Houran responding to this or that – James, what is your background and why should what you say carry any water? I don’t know what scientic method you used to figure that eHarmony is responsible for 15,000 divorces – but that seems pretty crazy to me.
Anita
I really don’t know how any “system” could hope to monitor the “happiness” factor in any relationship. Despite all scientific efforts to arrange for the perfect relationship the couple must ultimately go through that long and “expect the unexpected” period of adjustment, before they can register as truly happy. And then what is happy, and how do you measure it against another happy couple? The quanitative and qualitative measurements are more than a hair obscure.
Whether or not online matchmaking tests actually work becomes less a factor than the shear numbers with which EHarmony enjoys with its membership. Perform any sincere matchmaking effort among what must amount to hundreds of thousands if not millions of willing and often desperate souls and surely some will find love or something close enough. In this case 33,000 people found their way to marriage.
It seems more like a numbers factor to me than actual online dating science.
Hi, Anita
Excellent queries. I urge everyone to be skeptical of information, which is why I backed up my comments with a peer-reviewed journal article I co-authored that definitively debunks the reationale and mathematics behind eHarmaony’s matching system.
Harris survey company might have done the study, but that does not impress me. Comparative studies of the type hinted in the eHarmony announcement are extraordinarily difficult to do well. And, most social scientists fail to use proper statistical methods. Most rely on methodologies based in Classical Test Theory — an approach known be outdated for about forty years now. Instead, professionals in the tests and measurements field always use Item Response Theory (IRT). For some info on this approach see: http://www.iknowsys.org.
For a specific example of IRT being applied to compatibility testing, please see:
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2005/True.htm
As for my background… well, I am well known as an industry insider, and aside from being President of 2020Skills.com, I am a regular columnist for Online Dating Magazine (www.onlinedatingmagazine.com).
Also, I am author, public speaker, and a 15-year veteran in the field of research and clinical psychology. I am an internationally recognized expert on the psychology of compatibility and online testing, and I have a deep history in general psychological research and am an accomplished author, with work published in some of the most respected psychology and psychiatry journals.
My research has been featured by numerous media outlets and programs worldwide, including the Discovery Channel, A&E, BBC, NBC’s Today show, Wilson Quarterly, USA Today, New Scientist, Psychology Today, and Rolling Stone.
Previously, I served as the Chief Psychology Officer for True.com – an online relationship service – where I co-developed several proprietary online instruments to assess long-term compatibility, helped build the content and identity of the True U Magazine, as well as helped bring professional testing standards to cyberspace.
Before True.com, I served as an Instructor of Clinical Psychiatry at Southern Illinois School of Medicine, and worked as a therapist and personality researcher. I received a PhD in Psychology from the University of Adelaide and completed extracurricular graduate work for the psychology department of the University of Illinois, Springfield, where I received my Master’s in Clinical Psychology.
Thanks,
James Houran, PhD
Research Psychologist
I strongly agree with the paper “Do Online Matchmaking Tests Work? An Assessment of Preliminary Evidence for a Publicized -Predictive Model of Marital Success-” North American Journal of Psychology, 2004, Vol. 6, pp. 507-526, that says at page#15 “….development and validation of online compatibility testing and disclosing those findings for public and academic scrutiny without divulging proprietary information….” although I think Rasch scaling methodologies could be the correct way to MEASURE but not the correct way to COMPARE results between prospective romantic mates.
Serious OnLine Dating Sites and their Big Databases are NEW sources for scientific research. New Knowledge is waiting to be discovered inside these Big Databases!!!
Sooner I will research in a collaborative environment and try to prove these possible FUTURE TRENDS / NEW DISCOVERIES on Theories of Romantic Relationships Development.
Homophily dominates human attraction but “It seems that what is important in attracting people
to one another may not be important in making couples happy.” Also conclusions from scientific papers obtained using small samples (small scale of researching) seems to not be valid with real world (large scale of researching), e.g. Big Databases of (actual and future/to_be_launched_soon) Serious OnLine Dating Sites == big samples == more than 100,000 persons involved.
Temporal patterns of relationship variables: combination of physique, personality, intelligence, social background, attitudes, habits and leisure preferences may indeed play a significant role between mates / prospective mates:
Early stage of temporal patterns: a combination of high level of infatuation, fantasy, passion,
physical attraction between prospective mates.
Middle stage of temporal patterns: a considerable degree of similarity on social background,
attitudes, habits and leisure preferences between mates.
Last stage of temporal patterns: If only high level on personality similarity between mates /
couples could be the core of relationship stability and satisfaction == Dyadic Success.
Complex mental processes (successful relationships based on a mental set arrangement) could be only exceptions for “couples by convenience” and not for “romantic couples” i.e. old rich man with young pretty lady.
Longitudinal approach will be “a must” in any research, and cross-sectional research must be
discarded because does not take into account temporal patterns of relationship variables.
Big-5 (like N, E, O, A, C; Costa & McCrae) will not be enough any more to evaluate Couple
Similarity between prospective mates; and the complete inventory, 16PF5 test or similar like IPIP-NEO, must be used.
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Wow, thanks so much for sharing your excellent information James. Now I know why you are writing so much stuff on here – you sure know your stuff! I was just looking around when I found this and boy have I stepped into it – between you and this other Fernando fellow its like the best experts are talking.
In your note to me you said that you used to work with TRUE – which is another dating site as you say. I looked at them once because my sister was going to use them to find a boyfriend – or a husband we hoped. Anyway, one thing I saw was that the person in charge of TRUE was always talking about morality and stuff and protecting people and stuff but then I saw the commercials on the internet and I thought that some of them were pretty dirty looking. It made me feel a little embarassed to see all of those ladies with hardly any clothes on.
Anyway, thats not why I was writing again. I just wanted to say that you two are really smart and I am pretty impressed with you both. Keep up the good work!
Anita
Hi again, Anita
I think everyone is pleased to see new people join in debates and discussions! Welcome aboard. And thanks for the kind words.
As you know, I am no longer at True. As a result, I am not in a position to know or explain the reasoning behind their marketing campaign.
Good luck with your explorations into online dating!
Best Wishes,
James Houran, PhD
Research Psychologist
The problem with most studies, in any industry, is that the people who sponsor them are the ones who are likely to benefit from a positive result. I think James raises an excellent point by asking about the number of married people frome Harmony and separation rates. I’m sure they have a standard answer, such as this was not the focus of the study and therefore they cannot draw any conclusions and perhaps in the future it will be something they will look at. I agree with a previous post that stated it’s probably just a matter of the shear numbers, even if 33,000 is high.
I tried e-harmony and I was not impressed with the quality of my matches versus any of the other online dating sites and I have tired Match.com, Yahoo Personals, and Matchmaker.com. I don’t believe these numbers for one second. Something is very skewed somewhere.
TECHNOLOGY FOR TV CHARACTERS OF THE ‘60s & ‘70s
Have you ever wondered how the incorporation of today’s technology would have changed the story lines of our favorite television shows from the ‘60s and ‘70s? Well, I did a little research on this topic and came up with some interesting possibilities.
One show wouldn’t even exist if Global Positioning System Equipment (a.k.a., GPS) had been around back in the ‘60s. Yes, the castaways of Gilligan’s Island never would have gotten lost if they had had GPS equipment on the S.S. Minnow.
And what about The Brady Bunch? If they had only had one of those multi-phone family cell phone plans – and, of course, cell phone technology – Mike Brady wouldn’t have had to install a pay phone in the family room to keep the kids from fighting over the Brady’s one regular home phone.
This last one is more difficult.
What television brothers could have benefited from the online relationship company, eHarmony.com? The answer: The Cartwright brothers of Bonanza fame.
In fact, Little Joe, Hoss and Adam could have written the book on bachelorhood.
Did you know that, despite the fact that the story lines of 38 Bonanza episodes involved at least one member of the Cartwright family falling in love, none of the boys ever married during the show’s eight-year run.
Surely, eHarmony.com could have helped the boys – even Hoss! – meet their soul mates.
RSS feed = http://bobmccartyhumor.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Saying that something is based on science does not make it so. Both eHarmony and Chemistry make such claims, but I have found no objective evidence to justify them. And as for PerfectMatch and their DUET system, the CV of Pepper Schwartz states that she is a “relationship columnist” for perfectmatch.com, and makes no reference whatsoever to DUET.
Under these circumstances, I conclude that these claims of a scientific basis for what these sites are offering are naught but an appeal to authority as justification for charging premium prices for … what?
Hi Bob – I don’t understand your post. On that show they didn’t have computers. In fact, even in real life at that time (whenever that show was made) computers were not common so it would have been hard for them to use something like online dating (which didn’t exist yet I don’t think). You can check the facts but I think I might be right about this.
Caringly,
Anita Spooner
Anita,
Ummm, I’m not totally sure, but I *think* Bob was joking;-)
Oh boy Sam, I feel like a real dodo! I read it again after you said it might be a joke and now I think I get it. I love all of those shows and it sure would be funny if they had computers and cell phones and stuff!
Careingly,
Anita
Just wanted to say that your doing a band up job in this ever changing dating genre.
Keep up the fab. work,
Brian
http://valueprep.com/eharmony.html