Online Dating Insider

16 responses so far ↓

• 1 Fernando Ardenghi (Check me out!) // Aug 30, 2006 at 9:18 pm

  “Personality tests and compatibility reporting are a key part of JLove’s strategy for providing this. ”

  Unfortunately the Personal Profile Analysis (PPA) is a DISC-based system. In the 1920’s, Harvard-trained psychologist and lawyer William Moulton Marston (PhD) developed a theory to better understand human emotional responses. To test his theories, Marston proposed four factors he viewed as the cornerstones of personality: Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Compliance. It is from these four factors that DISC theory takes its name.
  The PPA is a forced-choice ipsative instrument, meaning that it describes the individual in a self-referential way ( i.e.: against themselves).
  Normative instruments by comparison are interindividual, meaning they describe the individuals against a norm group.
  The forced-choice format was developed to minimize the bias introduced by the effects of social desirability and response style. Requiring respondents to answer with only MOST or LEAST, effectively eliminates response variance.

  The compatibility report is only a written one (as many online dating sites are offering or plan to offer). Imagine to read hundreds and hundreds or written reports, it could be impossible to determine which ones suit better!!!

  Why DISC will not work enough for online dating sites with big databases?
  Using DISC, 4 variables 10 degrees, the Ensemble (the whole set of different possibilities) is
  10*10*10*10 == 1 * 10^4 == 10,000 of different possibilities (personality types). Other DISC
  reports use 4 variables 7 degrees and the Ensemble is 7*7*7*7 == 2,401 different possibilities.

  You could also see more info at
  http://www.discprofile.com/whatisdisc.htm

  Note that other online dating sites use a Big-7 model / dimensions of personality: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Self-Esteem and Self-Doubt; 10 degrees per variable, the Ensemble is 10*10*10*10*10*10*10 == 1 * 10^7 == 10,000,000 different possibilities (personality types).
  ONE THOUSAND BIGGER!!!

  As the next generation of prospective subscribers will demand technical information, sooner, any online dating site offering a compatibility / personality matching method (like Chemistry, eHarmony, True, Perfectmatch, Matchwise, YahooPersonals Premier, Cybersuitors, Ulteem) will have to specify:

  1) the ENSEMBLE (the whole set of different valid possibilities)

  2) how exactly the compatibility matching method works (without revealing proprietary information). Is the main matching equation only a simple/multiple linear regression equation?

  3) Which is the average number of “compatible real persons” for one person over the entire database? E.G.: 3 persons in a 100,000 persons database or 12 in 1,000,000. (or the 3 most compatible in 100,000 or the 12 most compatible in 1,000,000).

  4) The whole precision E.G.: “Client#01, please contact Client#04, the probability of being compatible is as high as 92.55033557%, whole precision is 0.00000001%”
  T
  precision as high as 0.00000001% is desired to avoid a big problem at many actual “Compatibility Matching” dating sites: searching by your own could be more precise than the matching algorithm.

  5) if there are Scientific Papers (not books written by an expert) that substantiate the long_term mating success (Which is the weight assigned to personality traits over the whole profile?)

  Kindest Regards,
  Fernando Ardenghi.
  Buenos Aires.
  Argentina.
  ardenghifer@gmail.com
  

  Rate this:

  3.2

• 2 relaxedguy (Check me out!) // Aug 31, 2006 at 2:45 pm

  Ferdando, thanks as always for the fascinating insights. You’ve done a great job outlining some of the demands consumers may bring to the next generation of dating sites.
  

  Rate this:

  2.9

• 3 James Houran (Check me out!) // Aug 31, 2006 at 6:18 pm

  Yes, Fernando is correct.

  The types of testing approaches used by Thomas are outdated in methodology (if you don’t use Item Response Theory mathematics then you don’t have legitimate measurement) and don’t conform to professional testing standards. Moreover, the DISC has not been validated in terms of predicting romantic compatibility — and how could it since it is not a legitimate measurement?!!!

  Making matters worse are response biases that Classic Test Theory approaches can’t address. Measuring the factors that define romantic compatibility is actually quite difficult — as their are gender response bias issues at work for example. 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.

  Houran, J. Lange, R., Wilson, G., & Cousins, J. (2005). Redefining compatibility: Gender differences in the building blocks of relationship satisfaction. Poster presented at the 17th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, Los Angeles, CA, May 28.

  Lange, R., Jerabek, I., & Houran, J. (2004). Building blocks for satisfaction in long-term romantic relationships: evidence for the complementarity hypothesis of romantic compatibility. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Adult Development Symposium for Research in Adult Development (AERA). San Diego, CA, April 11-12.

  Thanks,

  James Houran, PhD

  Research Psychologist

  Online Dating Magazine
  

  Rate this:

  3.0

• 4 Sam Moorcroft, ChristianCafe.com (Check me out!) // Aug 31, 2006 at 8:17 pm

  Actually, Spark and JLove are on the same street in Beverly Hills, but not the same address:

  JDate: 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
  JLove: 8306 Wilshire Blvd #685

  Granted, this is just down the street, but my understanding is that the two have nothing to do with each other. If this is the case, it has to be a real annoyance to Spark to have a former senior employer as a direct competitor pretty much next door.

  Apparently, there were no non-compete clauses to prevent this.
  

  Rate this:

  3.0

• 5 markus (Check me out!) // Sep 1, 2006 at 10:57 am

  None compete clauses are illegal in California.
  

  Rate this:

  3.0

• 6 Patrick Marshall (Check me out!) // Sep 4, 2006 at 2:48 pm

  My science is better than your science. Waaa! Waaa!

  I wouldn’t want to break up Fernando and Dr. Jim’s love-in but here’s a little more info DISC-based tools and the Thomas PPA in particular.

  The Thomas Personal Profile Analysis and its various personality reports are derived from the work of Dr. William Moulton Marston. Dr. Marston received three degrees from Harvard University: an A.B. in 1915, an LL.B in 1918, and a Ph.D. in 1921. Most of Dr. Marston’s adult life was spent as a teaching and consulting psychologist. Some of his assignments included lecturing at the American University, Tufts, Columbia, and New York Universities. A prolific writer, Dr. Marston was a contributor to the American Journal of Psychology, The Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Encyclopedia of Psychology.

  Dr. Marston’s most well-known contribution was his success in lie detection. His work was done at Harvard University and, in 1938 his book, “The Lie Detector,” was published. Lie detectors, including Dr. Marston’s, have been used by law enforcement and crime detection officials in various countries of the world for many years.

  Although still a consulting psychologist, Dr. Marston was most active in the last five years of his life as the originator, writer, and producer of “Wonder Woman,” a successful comic strip which first appeared in book form. In this endeavor, he used the pen name Charles Moulton.

  Dr. Marston’s Theory of Human Behavior

  In 1928 Dr. Marston published a book, “The Emotions of Normal People,” in which he described the theory of behavioral (personality) assessment used by Thomas today. He viewed people as behaving along two axes with their actions tending to be active or passive depending upon the individual’s perception of the environment as either single antagonistic or favorable.

  By placing these axes at right angles, four quadrants were formed with each circumscribing a behavioral pattern (personality).

  Dominance produces activity in an antagonistic environment.

  Inducement produces activity in a favorable environment (called influence in the system).

  Steadiness produces passivity in a favorable environment.

  Compliance produces passivity in an antagonistic environment.

  Dr. Marston believed that people tend to learn a self-concept which is basically in accord with one of the four factors. It is possible, therefore, using Dr. Marston’s theory, to apply the powers of scientific observation to behavior and to be Objective and Descriptive rather than Subjective and Judgmental.

  As far as we know, Walter Clarke was the first person to build a psychological device around the Dr. Marston theory. This form is called “Activity Vector Analysis” (AVA). Some of Clarke’s original associates subsequently left his company, further refining the format as they created their own “adjective checklist forms.” There are at least fifty companies today using the Dr. Marston theory as the basis for examining personality and behavior preferences via a descriptive behavioral device. The Thomas Personal Profile Analysis and its ancillary forms enable us to identify “patterns of behavior,” or personality, in such a way as to make practical application of the Dr. Marston theory.

  Accuracy and Validity of the Thomas PPA

  This report summarizes a study of the Thomas PPA Instrument and the four key descriptions which it assesses (Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Compliance). A substantial sample size (N=2771) makes this data exceptionally stable.

  The Thomas Personal Profile Analysis, while based primarily on Dr. William Marston’s book “Emotions of Normal People,” also draws on the contribution of Carl Gustav Jung. Jung’s work starts from the assumption that there are three pairs of functions that are expressed differently in each person: extroversion-introversion; perception-intuition; thinking-feeling. In each case a person shows a preference of one of the two possibilities; this results in eight possible combinations or types. Dr. Marston’s system is in complete mathematical harmony with the works of Jung.

  Isabel Briggs Meyer added a further pair of functions (judging-perceiving) and developed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a test that places people into sixteen types.

  Validation & Reliability Estimates

  What constitutes validation of behavioral (personality) assessments instruments? There are, for example, four generally accepted methods of test validation:

  CONCURRENT VALIDATION

  PREDICTIVE VALIDATION

  CONTENT VALIDATION

  CONSTRUCT VALIDATION

  Reliability estimates were obtained using the Spearman-Brown split-halves reliability coefficient. This coefficient indicates the degree of internal consistency of response to the instrument as a whole. The coefficients for each dimension are as follows: Dominance r=.92; Influence r=.89; Steadiness r=.91; Compliance r=.90. It is evident from these reliability coefficients that there is an unusually high degree of internal consistency in response to the Thomas Personal Profile Analysis as a whole, and to each of the related dimensions.

  Strength of the Correlation is indicated by the size of the coefficient. The coefficient can vary from +1.00 through 0 to -1.00. A coefficient near 0 tells us that there is no relationship between the variables. The closer a coefficient is to + or -1.00, the stronger the relationship.

  Correlation Examples:

  +/- 1.0 = Perfect correlation (extremely rare)

  +/-.80 to .90 = Unusually high correlation

  +/-.70 to .79 = Very high correlation

  +/-.60 to .69 = High correlation

  +/-.30 to .59 = Moderately high correlation

  +/-.20 to .29 = Very low correlation

  +/-.00 to. 19 = No correlation

  The study duplicates, in part, a study by Dr. Russell J. Watson, Wheaton College, “A Statistical Comparison Between The Thomas Personal Profile Analysis and the Performax Personal Profile System,” 1989.

  Included in Watson’s research, is a reliability check for internal consistency of the Style Analysis using the Spearman-Brown split-halves and the Kuder-Richardson formula 21 reliability coefficients. The mean coefficients for each dimension were as follows: Dominance r=.91: Influence r=.90; Steadiness r=.92; Compliance r=.89.

  The Watson study also compares the Thomas Personal Profile Analysis to the Performax Personal Profile. The study concludes that there is no statistically significant difference between the scores of the Thomas Personal Profile Analysis and the Personal Profile System.

  In 1983, Dr. Sylvan J. Kaplan completed a study of the validity of the Thomas Personal Profile System. In this study the Thomas Personal Profile was compared to the following psychological instruments:

  Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

  Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

  Cattell 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire

  Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

  Strong Interest Inventory

  For additional validity information, please refer to the Kaplan Report by Dr. Sylvan J. Kaplan, 1983. You may also wish to refer to Dr. Russell Watson’s research on behavior and values which analyzes the interrelationships among the dimensions of behavior (personality).

  The Thomas PPA is a self-administered behavioral assessment. Forced-choice methods of evaluation are designed to eliminate the bias inherent in individual responses. In free-response methods of evaluation, social desirability may cause individuals to differ significantly in their responses (consistently rating their choices in either higher or lower ranges, for example). Requiring respondents to answer only most or least, eliminates this variance.

  When completing the Thomas PPA, individuals choose what they are most like and least like in a given environment. They are required to make one “most” and one “least” selection from each of 24 response boxes; the responses are then plotted on two graphs. Graph I represents the “most like” behavior, displaying the intensity of the four factors which allows interpretation of the behavior an individual believes must be projected to achieve success in a given environment.

  The “least” choices are plotted on Graph II. This graph demonstrates the real selfâ€â€? or the intensity of each factor â€â€? while the individual is under pressure and unable to mask behavior. This graph also represents a person totally at ease, or when there is no need to mask behavior. The “least” graph is very important as it represents the real person, allowing conclusions to be drawn on how to best understand, manage, and communicate with this person.

  Depth of the Thomas PPA

  Based on the individual’s responses to the 24 “most” words, 19,630 different graphs can be plotted and 19,680 different graphs can be plotted for the “least” responses. The magnitude of those numbers makes it impractical to write an evaluation of each potential graph, so, for evaluation purposes, these possible graphs are condensed into one of 336 graphs.

  Thomas reports are based on the evaluation of these 336 graphs from both the “most” and “least” responses. Current research indicates that 54% of the population will fall into 16 basic graphs. The remaining 46% of the population is distributed across the remaining 320 graphs. Many instruments simply measure one factor against another in each question. The increased sophistication of the Thomas PPA makes its comparison with other psychological instruments somewhat challenging. This leads to a discussion of face validity.

  A study of the Thomas PPA’s face validity was administered by Dr. Russell J. Watson, Wheaton College. In this study, the participants were asked to evaluate the “perceived accuracy” of their own Thomas reports. The perceived accuracy of the reports was 88.49% with a standard deviation of 6.43%. The perceived accuracy of the reports according to the key dimensions were as follows:

  Primary Dominance 91 %

  Primary Influence 94%

  Primary Steadiness 85%

  Primary Compliance 82%

  This study confirms what behavioral researchers have discovered, that different personality styles see the world in different ways.

  Conclusion

  The Personal Profile Analysis instrument has compared favorably against other Marston-based instruments. One of those instruments was compared against five popular psychological instruments and found to compare favorably to each of them in terms of accuracy and reliability. The researchers concluded that the Thomas Personal Profile Analysis instrument displayed a high degree of similarity to the compared instruments and is an assessment tool that shows much evidence of constructive validity.

  Thomas’ goal in developing the PPA was to make the theories of Dr. Marston and Jung understandable and useful in people’s lives.

  The Thomas PPA is widely used by individuals, business and government including several EEOC agencies in the United States. Since its development in the 1960’s, the Thomas PPA has never been challenged in court. Marston-based instruments similar to the Thomas Personal Profile Analysis have been administered to over 30 million people worldwide and have earned the respect of individuals and professionals alike based on their accuracy and validity.
  

  Rate this:

  2.9

• 7 george (Check me out!) // Jan 19, 2007 at 8:29 am

  I would like to have an online PPA test
  

  Rate this:

  2.4

• 8 wanwa kahar (Check me out!) // Feb 11, 2007 at 3:49 am

  hello
  i will like to register at jlove.com …but it dosent open i dont no why..
  

  Rate this:

  2.4

• 9 James Houran (Check me out!) // Dec 4, 2007 at 11:13 pm

  Patrick,

  Your write up amounts to superficial and ineffective name-dropping.

  Aside from stating that your PPA is a knock-off of the original DISC, all you have told us is that your version shows good statistical reliability from a Classical Test Theory perspective and that some people perceive the questionnaire feedback as being very accurate.

  As for the former…shoe size is also highly reliable, but that doesn’t mean it predicts anything. I did not see any evidence that the PPA is valid predictor of relationship quality.

  As for the latter…”Barnum Statements” are also rated as extremely accurate yet they are general, vague, nonsense statements. The PPA scoring method accounts for the findings you cited. If I say that I am highly creative on a PPA questionnaire with the outdated and invalid ipsative response approach that is used, of course a non-discriminating lay person will be impressed when the feedback says “you are a highly creative person.” The respondent is simply indicating to you what to spit back to them. It’s a verbal mirror in the form of a questionnaire; not a proper psychological assessment that meets professional testing standards.

  It’ s not a love-in, as you irreverently put it; its Psychometrics 101. I take compatibility testing seriously, and I wish vendors would too.

  The prospect that millions of singles are making life-changing decisions based on compatibility tests that are not scientifically sound is a sobering one. Indeed, medical patients would not take a drug that has not been approved by the FDA (unless they are desperate) and likewise people looking for relationships should not so willingly trust online psychological tests and matching systems that have not been independently proven to meet professional testing standards.

  Thx,

  James Houran, Ph.D.
  Online Dating Magazine
  

  Rate this:

  3.0

• 10 kim (Check me out!) // Dec 12, 2007 at 6:22 pm

  I’ve been looking for a reliable company that specializes in software for personality assessment/compatiblity to integrate into our website
  

  Rate this:

  2.4

• 11 David Evans (Check me out!) // Dec 13, 2007 at 10:40 am

  Kim, check out We Atttract as well as Thomas.
  

  Rate this:

  3.2

• 12 Lee S. (Check me out!) // Jul 8, 2008 at 11:33 am

  No discussion involving JLove should be without the following information.

  Mr. Cohen is engaging in a vile and dishonest marketing scam intended to game search engine results. He has created thousands of fake pages using a list of jewish sounding names which produce search links that say something like “Meet other quality Jewish singles like <> at Jlove.”

  I am a victim of this abuse. A search on my very unusual name produces four or five pages of links that pertain only to me. I am the only person with a web presence with my name. As of a few weeks ago the JLove link is consistently the 3rd or 4th link that comes up on Google. The equally unusual — possibly unique — names of my entire family, single and married, living and dead appear on this scummy site as well.

  This is an embarrassment to me and to a growing number of others who have been been posting angrily at an increasing rate since Mr. Cohen decided to go down this path. It’s a stupid ploy as well. If I were considering joining a dating site and came across one that publicly outed it’s members by their full names I would avoid it at all costs. What can Mr. Cohen be thinking?
  

  Rate this:

  2.5

• 13 Curt Monash (Check me out!) // Jul 8, 2008 at 1:46 pm

  Largely at my instigation, JLove’s dishonesty has recently been discussed in a number of venues, including Slashdot, Network World (http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29625), and Text Technologies (om/2008/06/19/jlove-a-classic-example-of-online-dishonesty/).
  

  Rate this:

  3.2

• 14 David Evans (Check me out!) // Jul 8, 2008 at 5:23 pm

  Interesting Curt, I want to talk to you about this, the contact form is the best way to get in touch.
  

  Rate this:

  3.2

• 15 Curt Monash (Check me out!) // Jul 8, 2008 at 5:50 pm

  Dave,

  I emailed back in response to the comment email.

  If you don’t get that, my contact info can be found on monash.com.

  Sorry about the busted URL in my comment above. The real one is http://www.texttechnologies.com/2008/06/19/jlove-a-classic-example-of-online-dishonesty/

  There’s considerable discussion in the comment thread there.

  CAM
  

  Rate this:

  3.2

• 16 Aleta Katonak (Check me out!) // Jul 9, 2008 at 9:25 pm

  I am looking for a traveling mate….retired on fixed investment/IRA/Pension income….but want to see the world in different forms; trekking to helicopt; camping to boating……camera buff to just plain relaxation on a Boa Boa island’s hut in water! Willing to meet at a safe spot first to see what clicks……Aleta
  

  Rate this:

  2.5

Leave a Comment