Online dating is an inefficient endeavor. The majority of the time it’s a time-sucking experience full of expensive dinners, mind-numbingly boring conversation, failed expectations and disappointment.
And then there is the down side.
I read with interest the study People Are Experience Goods: Improve Online Dating With Virtual Dates. The study was authored by Dan Ariely, who keeps popping up when dating is mentioned in academic circles, Jeanna Frost, who I met with a few years ago when the system that acts as the basis for the study was developed and Michael Norton at Harvard Business School.
I’ve quoted a few of the more interesting passages, be sure to download the entire study to view the data in context.
We suggest that online dating frequently fails to meet user expectations because people, unlike many commodities available for purchase online, are experience goods: Daters wish to screen potential romantic partners by experiential attributes (such as sense of humor or rapport), but online dating Web sites force them to screen by searchable attributes (such as income or religion).
(survey) Participants reported spending an average of 5.2 hours per week searching through profiles (using the searchable attributes available such as age, income, and education) and another 6.7 hours writing and responding to e-mails, all for a payoff of just 1.8 hours of offline interactions.
Finally, we introduce and beta test the Virtual Date, offering potential dating partners the opportunity to acquire experiential information by exploring a virtual environment in interactions analogous to real first dates (such as going to a museum), an online intervention that led to greater liking after offline meetings.
They are right on the money in regards to the online dating industry short-changing singles by not providing them with information (experiential attributes), instead relying on searchable attributes.
We suggest that the failure of online dating sites to live up to user expectations is due in part to a fundamental gap between the kinds of information people both want and need to determine whether someone is a good romantic match and the kind of information available on online dating profiles.
Online dating follows an information-processing consumer model of choice in which each option has a set of features (e.g., height, religion, hobbies) from which consumers must create an overall impression, analogous to attempting to predict the flavor of a packaged food based on its nutritional information.
I’m glad to see more academics getting involved with the process of improving online dating. I hope it won’t be as difficult as I expect to translate their research into dating site functionality.
Related Posts
Online Matchmaking With Virtual DatesBadOnlineDates.com Expands the Online and Social Dating Experience
WeAttract
An Analysis of Online Dating Behavior
On an Omnidate
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Online Dating had evolved: from
“Browsing/Searching Options”
to
“Matching based on Self-Reported Data”
and now Online Dating is evolving from
“Matching based on Self-Reported Data”
to
“Compatibility Matching Algorithms”
[b]The study “People Are Experience Goods: Improve Online Dating With Virtual Dates” is only good for improving Online Dating sites only offering “Browsing/Searching Options” [/b]
and
that [b]study does not take into account a new discovery uncovered [/b] by Eastwick and Finkel 2008; also Kurzban and Weeden, 2007; Todd, Penke, Fasolo, and Lenton, 2007 who [b]found that people often report partner preferences that are not compatible with their choices in real life.[/b]
“Study 1: Participants (N = 132; 49 male, M age = 39.4, SD = 11.9) completed the survey by following a link on an online dating Web site. ”
My answer to Dr. Ariely et al.
SMALL SAMPLE and QUITE OLD PERSONS!!! Those persons are better candidates for Online Dating sites offering “Compatibility Matching Algorithms” including personality traits as main core.
“Study 2: Participants (N = 47; 37 male, M age = 24.2, SD = 7.7) were unmarried individuals who completed this survey online as part of an unrelated series of experiments.”
My answer to Dr. Ariely et al.
VERY SMALL SAMPLE and QUITE YOUNG PERSONS! Dan Ariely et al. are wrong when they suggest virtual dating to improve online dating sites.
[b]
Virtual dating is terrible slow and boring, looks like *SpeedDating with Joe 90 puppets*.
[/b]
———————————————————
The study “People Are Experience Goods: Improve Online Dating With Virtual Dates” is not for Online Dating sites offering “Compatibility Matching Algorithms”.
[i]“I’m glad to see more academics getting involved with the process of improving online dating. I hope it won’t be as difficult as I expect to translate their research into dating site functionality.” [/i]
Latest Research in Theories of Romantic Relationships Development outlines: [b] compatibility is all about a high level on personality similarity between prospective mates for long term mating with commitment. [/b]
Chapter 11 of the Book “Strangers in a strange lab: How personality shapes our initial encounters with others” (Oxford University Press, 2009) written by Dr. William Ickes
” … In summary, birds of a feather (couples with similar personalities) are not only more likely to flock together (that is, to select each other as marriage partners), but are also more satisfied with their relationships to the extent that they are globally similar. … Although odd couples (those with globally mismatched personalities) may occasionally find each other and form committed relationships as well, the statistical odds of these odd couples being satisfied with each other tend to work against them. In contrast, the statistical odds for the success of committed relationships involving not-so-odd couples (those with globally similar personalities) are substantially better” page 25
” …. highly similar couples will probably always have an advantage over the odder, highly dissimilar ones. That doesn’t mean that you can’t win against long odds, but it does mean that it’s a real gamble trying to make things work with a person you’re just too different from.”
page 26
PAPERS
#1
Charania & Ickes (2009)
paper: “Personality influences on marital satisfaction: Integrating the empirical evidence using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) model”
“… substantial level of inter-partner personality similarity for seven of the thirteen personality traits studied, with four of the similarity correlations exceeding 0.38 …”
#2
Rammstedt & Schupp (2008)
paper: “Only the congruent survive – Personality similarities in couples. Personality and Individual Differences”
“…. Results reveal that among the Big Five dimensions, there are strong differences in spouses’ congruences. While for Extraversion and Emotional Stability, congruence is close to zero, correlations averaging at 0.30 are found for Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness.”
Dr. Ickes’ opinion about this paper:
“I think a closer look will reveal that couples involving one high and one low conscientious partner tend to be dissatisfied because the conscientious partner feels that he or she has to ‘take care of’ the low conscientious partner. Couples involving one partner who is open to experience and one partner who is closed to experience will also tend to be dissatisfied because their political views and leisure time preferences are likely to diverge, and because the more ‘adventurous’ partner is likely to find the other partner somewhat boring. In initial interactions, an agreeable partner is able to compensate for the faults of a disagreeable partner, so that the interaction proceeds reasonably well. Having to constantly compensate for a disagreeable partner over a long period of time is a different proposition, however, and I can well imagine that the agreeable partner eventually gets disaffected and dissatisfied with having to do that so much.”
#3
Barelds & Dijkstra (2008)
paper: “Do People Know What They Want: A Similar or Complementary Partner?”
“In The Netherlands, where this study was conducted, almost 40% of the divorcees report mismatches in personalities as the major cause of their break-up (De Graaf, 2006; Amato and Previti, 2003). …. although several studies have revealed similarities between partners in their personalities (e.g., Buss, 1984; McCrae, Martin, HrebÃcková, Urbánek, Boomsma et al., 2008) only few studies have investigated the extent to which similarity in personality leads to romantic attraction (Barelds and Dijkstra, 2007). From their finding that couples across age groups show the same partner similarities (McCrae et al. 2008) conclude that mate selection, rather than convergence over time, accounts for personality similarity among partners.”
“Finally, the present study explored a recent issue uncovered by Eastwick and Finkel 2008; also Kurzban and Weeden, 2007; Todd, Penke, Fasolo, and Lenton, 2007 who found that people often report partner preferences that are not compatible with their choices in real life.”
#4
McCrae, Martin, HrebÃcková, Urbánek, Boomsma et al. (2008)
paper: “Personality Trait Similarity Between Spouses in Four Cultures”
“… Most assortment effects were small, but correlations exceeding 0.40 were seen for a subset of traits, chiefly from the Openness and Agreeableness domains. … This suggested that mate selection, rather than convergence over time, accounted for similarity”
#5
Barelds & Dijkstra (2007)
paper: “Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among partner personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and love”
“… partner personality trait similarity was related to relationship quality as a function of both relationship onset and specific personality traits. ”
#6
Gonzaga, Campos & Bradbury (2007)
paper: “Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples.”
#7
Figueredo, Sefcek & Jones (2006)
paper: “The ideal romantic partner personality ”
“… Individuals sought mates that were matches of themselves to some degree (a concept that we termed aspirational positive assortative mating) but also sought mates that were somewhat higher in Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Mate Value, but lower in Neuroticism than themselves.”
#8
Bekkers, van Aken & Denissen (2006)
paper: “Social Structure and Personality Assortment Among Married Couples”
“… Personality characteristics like agreeableness and neuroticism are good predictors of
marital conflicts and ultimately of union dissolution, even across different relationships
(Robins, Caspi & Moffitt, 2002). …. In sum: spouses with higher levels of neuroticism and openness, spouses with lower levels of agreeableness, and couples with more dissimilar personalities at the time of marriage are more likely to divorce.”
#9
Gaunt (2006)
paper:”Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier?”
#10
Amodio & Showers (2005)
paper: “Similarity breeds liking revisited: The moderating role of commitment”
While opposites attract for short term affairs, similarity is preferred for marriage.
Although none of the above papers use the 16PF normative personality test (they mostly use different versions of the normative Big5 personality test instead) and linear or logistic multivariate regression equations to calculate similarity, they clearly show a connection between personality similarity and marital happiness / dyadic success (stability and satisfaction) for some persons.
*Similarity is a word that has different meanings for different persons or companies, it exactly depends on how mathematically is defined.
Kindest Regards.
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Online dating success depends on ones perseverance and a lil bit of luck.
Fernando,
Do you have a day job?
Sam
You made me laugh today Sam.
Fernando makes a lot of good points. Too many, in fact, as Sam points out.
Quoting studies to prove a point doesn’t help when we’re talking about matching people, because it’s an inexact science, this isn’t CSI Match after all.
Divorce rate is 50% in the US. One person says opposites attract, others say sameness is the general rule of thumb. Which is right? Both. If a test is based on an assumption that opposites attract, consumers should know this and be free to select a site which believe sameness is more effective.
Then you have the people who pick one style of person, only to change to another style after simply taking a test. The mind boggles…
I think my point related more to the incomprehensible jibberishcoming coming from our good friend Fernando on a regular basis. Or, in this particular case, a post consiting of a long list of quotes.
It all comes across like so much verbal diarrhea, to be frank. This isn’t a meeting with your thesis advisor (I’d pity him/her if it was). It’s a dating blog. Whatever happened to the concept of succinctness? Short, sweet, and to the point. Please. We’re begging you.
There are two sides of online dating either it will work for you or not. All you got to have is patience and have the determination to make it work at all cost.
I think Fernando needs to try the white-label sites, if to just earn some income. Its not just the back-end technology, its also a marketing problem and building a brand that makes a site successful. It might be the language barrier, but I can’t tell the quotes from his original thoughts, but I’m sure there’s something interesting in there somewhere.
Great post! Online dating can really work for everyone. You just have to know how to go about it.
@Fernando
You sure get around. If you put half as much effort into doing something productive as you do complaining on every single dating post you just might make some progress on your LifeProject Method. Something to think about. You’ve said it all before and kind of just repeating yourself now….
btw, your comments on how this and that don’t work mean absolutely nothing without proof. Use your time more wisely. Best of luck to you. Prove the big dating sites wrong, validate your claims, and watch people line up to listen to you. Until then, you’re pissin’ in the wind.
@Robert
You see the comments I post, but not the emails I receive.
As you should well know, I am the person who discovered “the online dating sound barrier” for Compatibility Matching Algorithms.
I had understood FIRST and BETTER than anybody how to solve than problem:
The only way is:
- using the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of members, or a proprietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5.
- expressing compatibility with eight decimals, like The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4 is 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
Using a quantized pattern comparison method (part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation) to calculate similarity between prospective mates.
The success rate* of Chemistry is less than 6%**.
The success rate* of eHarmony is less than 10%**.
*success rate == percentage of persons who leave the site because they found someone compatible.
**estimated by Fernando Ardenghi using reverse engineering.
The majority, over 90% of their members are not going to achieve a long term relationship with commitment (or marriage) using those sites.
eHarmony, True, PerfectMatch, Chemistry and others like them should had proved their matching algorithms can match prospective partners who will have more stable and satisfying relationships and low divorce rates than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other technique as the control group in a peer_reviewed Scientific Paper. But they could not proved nothing because they are only fueled by big marketing budgets and their executives are more worried in attracting, converting and retaining subscribers, than offering a good compatibility matching method; and of course scamming paying members with marketing and credit card billing trickery.
The entire Online Dating Industry for serious daters in 1st World Countries is a HOAX, performing as a Big Online Casino, with low successful rates.
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
Sooner or later, the entire Online Dating Industry will fall under its own weight.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Fernando,
This “discovery” you claim (“I am the person who discovered “the online dating sound barrier” for Compatibility Matching Algorithms.”) – what proof (if any) do you have that it works?
- you don’t have a dating site
- you don’t have a partnership with any dating site
Consequently, you have ZERO evidence that it works.
As so many of us have been asking, provided us all with PROOF, not ramblings about theories and discoveries. The need for a mate is a biological imperative, so the idea that ” the entire Online Dating Industry will fall under its own weight” is a ridiculous and unfounded claim.
Please do not forget that reverse engineer is my main expertise and since the beginning of 2003, I had been testing online dating sites -intended for serious daters- by creating dummy (fake) Male/Female profiles and using them as test points for reverse engineering purposes.
Have you seen that eHarmony, True, Meetic, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, Be2, Parship, MyType, RewardingLove, PlentyOfFishChemistryPredictor, no one has published any credible peer reviewed Scientific Paper about the effectiveness/efficiency of their matching algorithms?
Please see my online dating project in detail at http://vator.tv/c/13a5
where you can find a more detailed explanation
Fernando, you keep saying dating is a hoax in first world countries. Do you have an example where it is not a hoax in your opinion?
Yes, the Matchmaking Industry for serious daters is not a hoax.
The Online Dating Industry should reach the effectiveness/efficiency levels of the Matchmaking Industry using compatibility matching methods.
So, Fernando, what you are (finally) admitting is that you have no proof that your system works, other than you creating fake profiles on dating sites. That’s statistically insignificant and you can’t draw any reliable conclusions from them.
An engineer you may be, but a statistician you are not. Until you have an actual dating site of your own or partner with one, either being of a *statistically significant size*, you can’t claim *anything at all*.
Why not have an expert in the subject, e.g. Dr. James Houran, weigh in on this and prove me right?
I am betting, however, that you’ll ignore what I (and anyone else) am saying and continue making nonsensical comments.
Sam:
What you really want to see is confidential information, part of a commercial secret, the basis of LIFEPROJECT METHOD. As is the law in most countries, commercial secret protection depends largely on the owner keeping the secret confidential. So I cannot disclose here or in any blog / forum / or by email.
Anyway eHarmony, True, Meetic, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, Be2, Parship, MyType, RewardingLove, PlentyOfFishChemistryPredictor and others ARE THE ONES who should prove they can match persons better than chance, better than searching on one’s own and better than mutual filtering techniques.
There are also other kind of proofs.
* Implicit
* Explicit
* Externals
* Implicit:
- eHarmony 2 billion served
http://www.pinoy.ca/eharmony/1880
Shows its matching method is like a machine gun shooting flowers, good for nothing.
- Helen Fisher publised the book “Why Him? Why Her?: Finding Real Love By Understanding Your Personality Type” for marketing purposes but she never published a paper for public scrutiny of her findings.
* Explicit:
- Markus Frind is his blog post “New Research Study raises questions about the scientific validity of some matchmaking sites.”, he had written “…markus Says: July 27, 2009 at 5:11 pm my test is only 20% better than chance. But its not validated and niether is any other sites test. …..”
http://plentyoffish.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/new-research-study-raises-questions-about-the-scientific-validity-of-some-matchmaking-sites/
- Although it is a clause to avoid being sued by dissatisfied customers, it is an explicit proof
“You understand that eHarmony makes no guarantees, either express or implied, regarding your ultimate compatibility with individuals you meet through the Singles Service or as to the conduct of such individuals.”
http://www.eharmony.com/about/terms
The same in Chemistry “prior to using the Service. You understand that Match.com makes no guarantees, either express or implied, regarding your ultimate compatibility with individuals you meet through the Service. ”
http://www.chemistry.com/help/terms.aspx
- Complaints from dissatisfied customers in differents blogs / forums you can find using Google.
* Externals:
- 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…. ”
Year 2010, still waiting for eHarmony, PerfectMatch, Chemistry, Meetic, Be2, Parship, and others.
- article “Researchers Skeptical of Claims by Online Dating Sites”
http://www.physorg.com/news164292891.html
- The comic “Zack Hill’s mom joins eHarmony”
Lois: Are you telling me that out of all these guys, you didn’t like one?
Jan: I did not.
Lois: This is like the phone directory for a small town!
Jan: The town of LoserVille.
http://www.pinoy.ca/eharmony/1810
- The report from Catalyst Group
http://www.pinoy.ca/eharmony/1881
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Fernando,
I’m not interested in anything confidential about your method. I could care less how it works. My point is simply that you cannot claim *anything* about your system with *any substance at all* because you have no proof. You only have statistically insignificant results based on you yourself creating random profiles on different dating sites. That’s totally and completely unscientific.
Until you have proof that your system is effective, you need to stop making claims about it. That was my point. And, I am sure i speak for numerous other dating executives out there when I say that.
Commercial secret, groan. You are all talk Fernando, literally. And how many times do I have to tell you, enough with the 2-screen comments. I’ve never banned anyone from commenting in 7 years but you may be the first.
It’s kind of scary that you don’t realize that your credibility is trashed in the dating industry. Your OCD-style repetition of the EXACT SAME statistics for years on end means one thing: you get off on hyping vaporware and have nothing to contribute except annoying everyone with your repetitive ranting.
You need to seriously look at IntroAnalytics. They may be selling snake oil to you, but they have customers, who pay them money. They have a website. They go to conferences, they pick up the phone and tell me what they’re up to. They do not sound crazy.
If you leave another ranting long comment I’m going to ban you. You have been warned. Keep it short and to the point or you’re gone.