Kathryn's Blog: What the Research Says

Check the numbers

Here’s some recent research, article reprinted below—what do you think?  “Couples in which the woman was more than five years older than the man were three times as likely to split up as those where both partners were the same age. And those in which the woman was more than five years older, neither partner was well-educated and one had a previous divorce, stood the least chance of surviving.” I took the fluff out (where the hearts are) of the following long article and kept the parts that I thought interesting, what the research says about a couple’s potential for staying together. 

What’s the formula for the perfect marriage?

By Dani Garavelli

IF YOU thought the secret to choosing a lover who will last a lifetime was down to chemistry, then think again. According to new research, the best way to tell if a marriage will go the distance or fall at the first hurdle is by trusting another science altogether – mathematics.
Keen to rid society of the blight of divorce, mathematicians assessed the staying power of 1,074 Swiss couples and came up with a formula for a long-lasting union. Ditching such airy-fairy notions as love, romance and sexual compatibility, they used the “linear assignment model” – a methodology used by businesses to match workers to appropriate tasks – to “optimise spousal allocation”. Yes, that means helping people end up with the best possible partner.

The results were dramatic. Having assessed the age difference, cultural and educational background and divorce history of all the couples, the academics found the marriages most likely to succeed were those in which the woman was five or more years younger than her partner, and also better educated.

Couples in which the woman was more than five years older than the man were three times as likely to split up as those where both partners were the same age. And those in which the woman was more than five years older, neither partner was well-educated and one had a previous divorce, stood the least chance of surviving.



“Being able to choose our partners in the way we do is a bit of a luxury,” says Emmanuel Fragnière, a lecturer in management science at Bath University and co-author of the report. “As recently as a few decades ago, marriages were a matter for the community. We know divorce has an economic, social and psychological cost, so why not try to improve the odds of a marriage succeeding?”

But is a mathematical approach to dating really more likely to improve the odds of a successful marriage than a sociological or psychological one? And can immutable facts such as age difference or educational background really do more to keep a relationship afloat than empathy, tolerance, compromise and a healthy sex life?

Fragnière makes no apology for looking beyond the factors usually credited with keeping love alive. “It appears that men and women ‘choose’ their mates on the basis of feelings of love, physical attraction, similarity of tastes, beliefs, attitudes, and shared values,” he says. “All of these determinants are supposed to help them be happy together. However, research has shown that the longevity of marriages or partnerships also depends on objective attributes such as differences in age, family history, and educational levels.

“We imagined what it would be like if you had a regime like in North Korea, say, and marriages could be coordinated by a central agency. After looking at the impact of age difference, and cultural and educational background, we reallocated around 68 per cent of individuals to a new couple that we posited had a higher likelihood of survival.”

It all sounds a bit Brave New World. But could it perhaps throw light on some of the great love affairs of history? If only Cathy had been just a couple of years younger, might she and Heathcliff have escaped from the gloomy Yorkshire moors and settled down to a life of domestic bliss in a town house in Kensington? If only Anne Boleyn had stuck in at school, could she have kept her head?

The notion that husbands should be older than their wives goes back centuries and spans several continents, although most cultures believe there should be a limit to the age gap. (In the West, one theory has it that the women should be no less than half her partner’s age plus seven).

The tradition probably stemmed from the expectation that a man would be able to provide for his wife and future family. “It is received wisdom that men choose younger women for evolutionary reasons, because they look like better breeders,” says Barbara Bloomfield, a counsellor with Relate and an author of books on love and dating. “But then, of course, they may trade off looks for kindness and intelligence.” Equally, received wisdom says men look for women of lower social or educational status so as not to feel threatened.

A study carried out by Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Bristol universities in 2005 found that the likelihood of marriage increased by 35 per cent for men for each 16 point increase in IQ, whereas for women, there was a 40 per cent drop for each 16 point rise, suggesting either that men aren’t interested in clever women, or that clever women have no interest in getting married.

So why do relationships where the woman is better-educated stand the best chance of survival? “As a counsellor for 14 years, I have found that women do tend to set the emotional bar,” says Bloomfield. “They are far more likely to divorce men than the other way around, so you could hypothesis that maybe better educated women make better choices.”



Fragnière – who, it has to be said, has his tongue firmly in his cheek – accepts his research is unlikely to revolutionise dating, but wonders if it could have an application in the world of internet dating. Sites such as Match.com promise you will find someone special within six months or they will give you your money back.

At Edinburgh-based Datetheuk, for example, members have myriad options for checking out their compatibility with a potential partner. They can draw up their own profiles, look at other members’ profiles, rely on recommendations from the agency or suss out other people’s personalities by reading messages posted on public forums.

Checking the age or educational backgrounds of potential matches is no doubt part of the process – but it probably comes second to that first glance at the potential suitor’s photo.

A more obvious problem with the report is that it fails to take couples’ happiness into account. Not all long-term married couples are happy with their lot, after all. “It was not one of the criteria we included, but it might be possible to develop the model further and include some psychological criteria, and then, I suppose, happiness could be included,” says Fragnière.

posted by Kathryn Lord on 11.08.09 at 5.12 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • What the Research Says • CyberCouples and Marriage • 0 Comments

OKCupid is counting the words

One thing that is simply great about computers is their ability to count.  OKCupid puts this skill to work in its analysis of what people are actually doing on their dating site.  The following article is from the OK Cupid blog, and it is about optimum length for first email messages.  Combine that with the earlier posting about what words to use, and you should be able to write a winner.

Online Dating Advice: Optimum Message Length

Picture this online dating scenario:

1. You see someone you like.
2. You read their profile, and wow.
3. You send them a long message.
4. You hang tight and…
5. …you never get a reply.

Sadly, this is a typical story. Even on a lively site like OkCupid, only about a third (32%) of first messages get any response.

Some people, however, get much better results.

In the next several posts here on OkTrends, we’ll be taking a closer look at messaging and finding some ways to improve your own message response rate. We will not be dispensing generic advice. No. We’ve done research, and we have actual numbers.

As we began to dig into OkCupid’s messaging data, the first thing we noticed was that most people’s contact attempts are way too lonnnng. Almost 16% of first messages are over 2000 characters (roughly 400 words), and the average is 743! At least in terms of using your time efficiently, your messages should be much shorter. Let’s start with this chart:  [go to OKCupid’s blog to see the actual graphics]

The y-axis is reply percentage; the x-axis is message length, in characters; and the two lines are as follows. Red is the ratio of messages that get any reply. Green is the ratio of messages that get a reply that in turn gets replied to by the original sender. The idea is that this is the ultimate goal of the first message: to start a conversation with someone.

Messages sent by guys are, overall, only about half as likely to get replies as similar messages from women. But when you consider we’re including dudes who send out messages such as:

Your hot

DAm I got inch for you

and

Your people need to get out of Israel

a baseline reply rate of 22% is looking pretty darn great. (All those were actual first messages, by the way.)

Now, our graph clearly shows that in raw terms, it helps guys to write longer messages. But when we factor in the actual time it takes to compose a given message, it becomes clear that in terms of time put in vs. likelihood of starting actually having a conversation, shorter is actually better. If we imagine that people type messages at about 200 characters per minute, we get the following table:  [go to OKCupid’s blog to see the actual graphics]

Of course, we shouldn’t forget that there’s a certain amount of overhead involved with contacting someone (scanning her profile for common interests, thinking of jokes to make, taking a deep breath, clicking around, and so on). If we include 5 minutes of forethought, we find that the actual ideal first message length is 200 characters, or 1 minute’s worth of typing for the average writer.

Yes, brevity is key. Something we learned building SparkNotes, in our pre-OkCupid days. If you’re the kind of person who spends a little more time reading a profile and thinking about your message, say, 10 minutes, then the optimal length goes up a few words (to 270 characters), but, still, short is better. Savor this advice, men, for there are not many things in your world that fit this paradigm.

For women, the most efficient message is even shorter.

The shortest messages get almost the best absolute response rate, and the reply rate actually goes down as messages approach extreme length. Apparently, after about 360 words (1800 characters), you start scaring people off. A message like that is the online equivalent of a face tattoo. Of your life story. Let’s generate our efficiency table for women:  [go to OKCupid’s blog to see the actual graphics]

Incredibly enough, the optimal first outreach from a woman to a man is just 50 characters long! I’m willing to speculate that this graph is telling us that a guy decides whether or not to reply to a woman’s message regardless of what the message actually says, and that the first message’s true function is simply to bring her profile to his attention.

My guess is that he looks at her picture and if she’s his type, he writes back. On the one hand, such a superficial reality is depressing. On the other, over 40% of female-to-male first messages do get replied to, so, as a woman, if you’re writing to a few people who fit your basic demographic the odds are very good you’ll get a response. Anyhow, all this implies that the average woman’s time is better spent looking for the right people to write to, rather than composing detailed messages.

posted by Kathryn Lord on 10.06.09 at 10.28 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • What the Research Says • Proactive Dating • 0 Comments

Internet addicted?

Anyone who has spent much time on dating sites knows what a time sink Internet dating can be.  Not only does working the sites take concerted effort and time, but also, the whole process can become rather addicting. 

I equate it to the kind of addiction that happens with gamblers at slot machines.  Slot machines pay off randomly.  In behavioral terms, this is called “variable ratio schedules.” “The variable ratio schedule produces both the highest rate of responding and the greatest resistance to extinction” according to Wikipedia.  This means that the individual does not know when the machine is going to pay off, but knows that it DOES pay off eventually.  This kind of “payoff” gets the most response (continual play) from the individual and is the hardest kind of behavior to get rid of (extinguish).

This is exactly the way Internet dating works, though the sites are not programmed to behave that way, while slot machines are.  Dating sites “pay off” indirectly, when someone contacts you or responds to your invitation.  But you never know when it is going to happen, or with whom.  All the ingredients for a budding addicition.

Now addiction specialists are getting into the act: treatment for Internet addictions.  Treatment for dating site addicts cannot be far behind. 

Internet Addicts Get First U.S. Treatment Clinic

Hardcore Internet junkies now have their very own version of the Betty Ford clinic.

The Heavensfield Retreat Center, located in Fall City, Wash., claims to be the first U.S in-patient center to treat Internet, video game and texting addictions. Enrollment in the clinic’s 45-day Internet addiction recovery program, called reStart, costs roughly $14,500.

The program is designed to wean patients off the Internet by combining traditional talk therapy with social skills training, such as lessons in conversation techniques and dating. Patients also feed goats, raise chickens and do home-maintenance work as a way of getting reoriented with the offline world.

The clinic’s first patient is a 19-year-old boy from Iowa who admitted to being hooked on the online game World of Warcraft.

While it may seem like an extreme (not to mention pricey) way to get unplugged, Stuart Fischoff, a psychologist and Senior Editor at the Journal of Media Psychology, believes the rehab approach can be helpful.

“For patients in clinical settings, exposing them to friendly animals has had very positive effects,” said Fischoff, who is not affiliated with the new clinic. “The purpose here is to get the patient to experience gratification from something that doesn’t require an Internet connection. So giving the patient someone who needs them, appreciates them and doesn’t judge them allows them to reach out to the flesh-and-blood world.”

Is Web addiction real?

The program’s Web site cites research that suggests “anywhere from 6 and 10 percent of the online population is dependent on one or more aspects of cyber technology and the Internet.”

However, the emerging notion of “Internet addiction” remains controversial. The term has yet to be recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a disorder and is not listed in the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). But some experts have lobbied for its inclusion in the manual’s upcoming revision, due out in 2012.

Ronald W. Pies, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Tufts University, said much of the debate hinges on whether Internet abuse is a distinct disorder or merely a symptom of deeper psychological problems.

“There are often underlying or co-occurring psychiatric disorders, such as anxiety, depression or a disturbance in interpersonal relationships, all of which may explain the person’s internet problems,” Pies told LiveScience. “The question is, do we need another ‘disorder’ in our DSM, if the manifestations of Internet addiction can already be accounted for by well-described and better-validated conditions?”

Though very little research on Internet addiction exists, one notable study conducted by Stanford University researchers found that more than one out of eight Americans displayed signs of “problematic Internet use,” such as having difficulty staying away from the Internet for several days at a time. But the study’s authors admitted that the results were “too premature” to warrant a medical diagnosis. The conclusions were based on a telephone survey of 2,513 adults in 2006.

As of now, “there has not yet been sufficient investigation of the question using well-defined criteria for Internet addiction,” Pies said.

Fischoff doesn’t view the Internet itself to be “addictive,” but rather “it’s the various things people can do online such as gambling, porn or gaming, that are addictive.”

“The Web is simply a very good delivery system for activities that are potentially addictive,” Fischoff said in a telephone interview.

Will it work?

Meanwhile, Internet addiction treatment is not a new concept.

In China, there are roughly 400 Internet addiction clinics, where some patients have been reportedly subjected to shock therapy. On Aug. 2, a 15-year-old Chinese boy was beaten to death less than a day after his parents checked him into one of the Internet addiction boot camps, according to news reports.

Although he finds the treatment methods outlined on reStart’s web site to be based on sound psychotherapeutic principles, Fischoff doesn’t expect rehab alone to have a long-lasting effect.

“I don’t think rehab will be a cure-all for anybody, whether it’s a drug addiction, gambling or the Internet,” he said. “You can modify people’s behavior in a particular environment, but if they have not developed the proper social skills, they’ll retreat back into their old ways once they get back out into the real world.”

“The hope here is that what is introduced to the patient would at least get them on the path toward expanding other parts of their life,” Fischoff added.

posted by Kathryn Lord on 09.08.09 at 10.59 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • What the Research Says • Be Safe • 0 Comments

Not for losers anymore…

I love it when I see research come out about Internet dating.  Here’s an article below that cites research that refutes the common belief that Internet dating is for losers.  Read why, see my underlines for what I think is particularly significant:

Who Uses Internet Dating?
By John M Grohol PsyD

Who Uses Internet Dating?Ever wonder who uses Internet dating services like Match.com and eHarmony.com? The answer may surprise you. I think, “Well, gee, everybody uses them!” But that’s not the case. There’s a particular psychological profile that researchers have discovered of users of Internet dating services.

The researchers (Kim et al., 2009) surveyed 3,345 people in the U.S., of which 1,588 (47.5 %) were men and 1,757 (52.5 %) were women. Ages ranged from 19 to 89 with a mean of 48 years old. They gathered their data using a number of standardized questionnaires and psychological measures.

The researchers found that people who are more “sociable are more likely to use Internet dating services than are those who are less sociable. This finding challenges the stereotypical profiling of Internet daters as being just lonely and socially anxious people.”

Indeed, that finding confirms the idea that Internet dating is firmly in the mainstream now. While that may have not been the case 10 years ago, times have changed and using the Internet as a means of finding a prospective partner is no longer thought of as unusual. The researchers finding in this regard is not unique — previous research has come to the same conclusion, so it’s considered a robust research finding. For people who are already sociable, using the Internet as a dating method is just one more tool at their disposal.

But not all sociable folks consider the use of Internet dating. If you have high self-esteem and consider romantic relationships to be an important part of your life, you’re more likely to use Internet dating. If you have low self-esteem and consider romantic relationships not to be an important part of your life, you’re also more likely to use Internet dating.

So the researchers found that if you have low self-esteem and put some value on to your romantic relationships, you’re actually less likely to use Internet dating.

The researchers explain the findings this way:

If the success of romantic relationships is the domain of self worth, one may try to increase the prospect of success and avoid failure in romantic relationships. In the context of Internet dating, when sociable people consider romantic relationships to be an important domain for self-worth, those with high self-esteem will be more likely than those with low self esteem to use Internet dating services.

The reason is that when sociable people consider romantic relationships to be an important domain for self-worth, those with high self-esteem will find it comfortable to present themselves to a multitude of anonymous people, whereas those with low self-esteem will be more likely to experience a higher level of stress just thinking about disclosing and promoting themselves on the Internet. Less confident individuals may not want their negative self-views publicized or viewed by others.

To reduce such negative feelings and protect their self-worth, those with low self-esteem will adopt avoidance strategies and distance themselves from Internet dating services.

Makes sense. High self-esteem folks feel like they have little to lose by trying Internet dating. Low self-esteem folks have more to lose, since more of their own self-value is tied up in the process — unless they say, “Ah, yeah, it’s nice to have a partner, but whatever. I’m also just fine without one.”

The upshot is that Internet dating is no longer the domain of the desperate nor those with low self-esteem (if it ever was).

The New York Times has a related article about the science (or lack thereof) behind the sites that claim such science helps you make better choices about dating. I think the science of such sites is ultimately of limited value, since no amount of data is going to predict whether two people will experience that indefinable quality of a “spark” on a first date. Without that, there will be no relationship.

Technology Review also weighed in this past week about the overwhelming number of choices of online dating and the research that has shown the more choices we have, the harder it can be sometimes to make a decision (”cognitive overload”). That’s why the sites try their best to offer you a way to limit the results displayed, but ultimately can fail in paring things down enough to make a difference to your brain.

Reference:

Kim, M., Kwon, K-N & Lee, M. (2009). Psychological Characteristics of Internet Dating Service Users: The Effect of Self-Esteem, Involvement, and Sociability on the Use of Internet Dating Services. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4). DOI: 10.1089=cpb.2008.0296. 

posted by Kathryn Lord on 08.06.09 at 8.09 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • What the Research Says • 0 Comments

Online dating and turning 100

Here’s a little piece about turning 100—seems that centenarians are on the computers, too, and using technology to stay in touch with family and friends.  Have you seen any 100 year olds on dating sites?  Just a matter of time.  My mother’s new husband (they’ve been married a little over three years now) turns 90 on September 11. Here they are on their wedding day. Mom and George did not meet online, but they both did know a good thing when they saw it.  And I have to admit that I gave advice. 

100-Year-Olds Using Latest Technology to Stay Connected to Family, Friends, Current Events, According to Third Annual Poll

MINNEAPOLIS, Jul 29, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE)—The third annual Evercare 100@100 Survey(TM) released today finds that the keys to longevity are staying connected to family, friends and current events. The poll of 100 centenarians shifts conventional stereotypes on aging by revealing that some of the oldest Americans are using the latest technologies to keep up and stay close - talking on cell phones, sending emails, “Googling” lost acquaintances, surfing Wikipedia and even online dating.

-- Love 2.0: As many Centenarians as Baby Boomers (3 percent) say they have dated someone they met on an online dating site.

posted by Kathryn Lord on 10.17.08 at 5.52 am
permalink | Categories: • Over 50? • Dating Tips • What the Research Says • 1 Comments

The importance of a good screen name

I love it when I see research results tied directly to the needs of singles.  Here’s some out of Great Britain on screen names and their relative appeal.  Take note, those of you who have yet to sign up on a dating site:  Often the screen name you start with is the one you are stuck with, so put some thought in before you sign up.

Finding true online love lies just in your screen name

London, Apr 4 : It’s all in the name, it seems, if you’re hunting for love on the Internet. A new research has suggested that while dating online, people should take care of what screen name they use, in order to maximize their digital appeal.

According to the study, playful and flirtatious names such as ‘fun2bwith’ or ‘i’msweet’ were ranked top by both men and women daters as those they would most like to contact.

Physical descriptors such as ‘cutie’ or ‘blueeyes’ were close behind.

“These names suggest an outgoing or fun nature, or clarify the user’s positive physical appearance,” Times Online quoted Dr Monica Whitty, a lecturer in cyber-psychology at Nottingham Trent University and co-author of the paper, as saying.

These types of screen names may go some way to making up for the major drawback with Internet dating - not being able to see for sure what people look like.

However she advised female lonely hearts to avoid screen names, which attempt to be classy, or show how clever they are.

According to the study, male daters would less likely to contact screen names such as ‘wellread’ or ‘welleducated’, although the research found that women were more drawn to names that suggested men were cultured.

“Less flirtatious names may be more appealing to women because they are wary of men who might be using the site to find one-night stands rather than long-term relationships,” said Whitty.

Straightforward or plain names such as ‘smith24’ or ‘justme’ were also considered less appealing.

But bottom of the heap for both men and women came names denoting wealth such as ‘wealthyandwise’, ‘lovemyporsche’ or ‘entrepreneur’.

“This was a very surprising finding. We believe wealthy-sounding names fared poorly because showing off about one’s wealth from the outset might reflect a superficial personality or deceit,” said Whitty.

The finding will be presented at the British Psychological Society’s annual conference in Dublin.

posted by Kathryn Lord on 04.21.08 at 7.18 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • What the Research Says • Perfect Profiles • 0 Comments

The NYT does Matchmaking sites

Yesterday’s New York Times had a great article about Internet dating, specifically sites that do the matching for you, like eHarmony and Chemistry.com What was REALLY juicy was the companion article and the comments attached.  Wanted: Single or Married Adult with Online Matchmaking Story asks for stories from couples who met online, and WOW! Did folks write in or what?  You know how I love love stories, so I’ll copy off a bunch here.  And I’ll put up “Wanted: Single or Married Adult with Online Matchmaking Story” in another post as well. 

Here’s the first article below:

January 29, 2008
Findings
By JOHN TIERNEY

PASADENA, Calif. — The two students in Southern California had just been introduced during an experiment to test their “interpersonal chemistry.” The man, a graduate student, dutifully asked the undergraduate woman what her major was.

“Spanish and sociology,” she said.

“Interesting,” he said. ‘‘I was a sociology major. What are you going to do with that?”

“You are just full of questions.”

“It’s true.”

“My passion has always been Spanish, the language, the culture. I love traveling and knowing new cultures and places.”

Bogart and Bacall it was not. But Gian Gonzaga, a social psychologist, could see possibilities for this couple as he watched their recorded chat on a television screen.

They were nodding and smiling in unison, and the woman stroked her hair and briefly licked her lips — positive signs of chemistry that would be duly recorded in this experiment at the new eHarmony Labs here. By comparing these results with the couple’s answers to hundreds of other questions, the researchers hoped to draw closer to a new and extremely lucrative grail — making the right match.

Once upon a time, finding a mate was considered too important to be entrusted to people under the influence of raging hormones. Their parents, sometimes assisted by astrologers and matchmakers, supervised courtship until customs changed in the West because of what was called the Romeo and Juliet revolution. Grown-ups, leave the kids alone.

But now some social scientists have rediscovered the appeal of adult supervision — provided the adults have doctorates and vast caches of psychometric data. Online matchmaking has become a boom industry as rival scientists test their algorithms for finding love.

The leading yenta is eHarmony, which pioneered the don’t-try-this-yourself approach eight years ago by refusing to let its online customers browse for their own dates. It requires them to answer a 258-question personality test and then picks potential partners. The company estimates, based on a national Harris survey it commissioned, that its matchmaking was responsible for about 2 percent of the marriages in America last year, nearly 120 weddings a day.

Another company, Perfectmatch.com, is using an algorithm designed by Pepper Schwartz, a sociologist at the University of Washington at Seattle. Match.com, which became the largest online dating service by letting people find their own partners, set up a new matchmaking service, Chemistry.com, using an algorithm created by Helen E. Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers who has studied the neural chemistry of people in love.

As the matchmakers compete for customers — and denigrate each other’s methodology — the battle has intrigued academic researchers who study the mating game. On the one hand, they are skeptical, because the algorithms and the results have not been published for peer review. But they also realize that these online companies give scientists a remarkable opportunity to gather enormous amounts of data and test their theories in the field. EHarmony says more than 19 million people have filled out its questionnaire.

Its algorithm was developed a decade ago by Galen Buckwalter, a psychologist who had previously been a research professor at the University of Southern California. Drawing on previous evidence that personality similarities predict happiness in a relationship, he administered hundreds of personality questions to 5,000 married couples and correlated the answers with the couples’ marital happiness, as measured by an existing instrument called the dyadic adjustment scale.

The result was an algorithm that is supposed to match people on 29 “core traits,” like social style or emotional temperament, and “vital attributes” like relationship skills. (For details: nytimes.com/tierneylab.)

“We’re not looking for clones, but our models emphasize similarities in personality and in values,” Dr. Buckwalter said. “It’s fairly common that differences can initially be appealing, but they’re not so cute after two years. If you have someone who’s Type A and real hard charging, put them with someone else like that. It’s just much easier for people to relate if they don’t have to negotiate all these differences.”

Does this method actually work? In theory, thanks to its millions of customers and their fees (up to $60 a month), eHarmony has the data and resources to conduct cutting-edge research. It has an advisory board of prominent social scientists and a new laboratory with researchers lured from academia like Dr. Gonzaga, who previously worked at a marriage-research lab at U.C.L.A.

So far, except for a presentation at a psychologists’ conference, the company has not produced much scientific evidence that its system works. It has started a longitudinal study comparing eHarmony couples with a control group, and Dr. Buckwalter says it is committed to publishing peer-reviewed research, but not the details of its algorithm. That secrecy may be a smart business move, but it makes eHarmony a target for scientific critics, not to mention its rivals.

In the battle of the matchmakers, Chemistry.com has been running commercials faulting eHarmony for refusing to match gay couples (eHarmony says it can’t because its algorithm is based on data from heterosexuals), and eHarmony asked the Better Business Bureau to stop Chemistry.com from claiming its algorithm had been scientifically validated. The bureau concurred that there was not enough evidence, and Chemistry.com agreed to stop advertising that Dr. Fisher’s method was based on “the latest science of attraction.”

Dr. Fisher now says the ruling against her last year made sense because her algorithm at that time was still a work in progress as she correlated sociological and psychological measures, as well as indicators linked to chemical systems in the brain. But now, she said, she has the evidence from Chemistry.com users to validate the method, and she plans to publish it along with the details of the algorithm.

“I believe in transparency,” she said, taking a dig at eHarmony. “I want to share my data so that I will get peer review.”

Until outside scientists have a good look at the numbers, no one can know how effective any of these algorithms are, but one thing is already clear. People aren’t so good at picking their own mates online. Researchers who studied online dating found that the customers typically ended up going out with fewer than 1 percent of the people whose profiles they studied, and that those dates often ended up being huge letdowns. The people make up impossible shopping lists for what they want in a partner, says Eli Finkel, a psychologist who studies dating at Northwestern University’s Relationships Lab.

“They think they know what they want,” Dr. Finkel said. “But meeting somebody who possesses the characteristics they claim are so important is much less inspiring than they would have predicted.”

The new matchmakers may or may not have the right formula. But their computers at least know better than to give you what you want.

posted by Kathryn Lord on 01.30.08 at 12.30 pm
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • What the Research Says • News About Dating Sites and Types • Chemistry.com • eHarmony • PerfectMatch.com • 3 Comments

Too Much Petting

LOVE ME, LOVE MY PET. Heavy petting prevents singles from finding love.

• Nearly half of Britain’s singles now own a pet – 6.1 million people
• Singles spend £5.6 billion each year pampering their pets
• Owning a pet can reduce your chances of finding love by as much as 40%
• One in four men wouldn’t date a woman with two or more cats
• A third of women won’t date a man who shares his pillow with a pet
• If push came to shove 25% of singles would choose their pet over a new partner
• Nearly two thirds of singles say they really love their pet and think of him/her as a member of the family

According to new research from PARSHIP, the UK’s largest serious online dating service, more singles than ever before are turning to pets for companionship. Nearly half (47%) of Britain’s 13 million singles now own a pet, spending an average of £928 and dedicating 21 days a year to their animal’s wellbeing and upkeep. However, PARSHIP advises that single pet-owners could be putting romance at serious risk: owning a pet could reduce your chances of finding love by as much as 40%.

Treating pets as children (12% of respondents), sharing your bed with your pet (33%), over-indulging your pooch with the latest designer accessories (40%), or simply owning two cats or more (23%) – these were just some of the factors that influenced other singles against dating a pet-owner. What’s more, if push came to shove 25% of singles would favour their pet over a new partner.

The implications of this could be serious, considering Britain’s singles own 1.24 million cats, 1.18 million dogs, 624,000 fish, 436,800 hamsters, rats and gerbils, 187,200 birds, 124,000 horses, donkeys and pigs, 64,000 snakes, and 120,000 exotic animals as pets – which includes spiders and insects. That’s a lot of two-, four-, six- and eight-legged creatures edging their way between Britain’s singles and their potential happiness with another human being.

• The puss on the pillow reduces your chances of finding love by a third

In conjunction with YouGov, and covering 2,000 singles, PARSHIP conducted a wide-ranging study exploring singles’ relationships with their pets. A third of singles say they wouldn’t date someone who shares their bed with their pet, (29% of men/36% of women), 23% are turned off by owners of two or more cats (26% of men/21% of women), and 22% are repelled by owners of snakes (18% of men/26% of women) and spiders 40% (33% of men/48% of women). 40% wouldn’t date people who overindulge their pets by spending £100 or more a week on animal upkeep (44% of men/37% of women), while going as far as treating a pet as a member of your family will alienate you from 13% of men or 11% of women; on the other hand, NOT doing so will alienate you from 11% of men or 12% of women

• The animal attraction

So what’s driving this animal love affair? Nearly two thirds (58%) say they love their pet and think of him/her as a member of the family, compared to just 27% who love their pet as an animal, but not as a surrogate human. In fact, singles love their pets so much that in some instances they would put their pet’s feelings above their own.

• Pets over partners

Sometimes they will even put their pet’s feelings above their lover’s. One quarter (25%) of men and women say that if their live-in partner developed an allergic reaction to their pet, under no circumstances would they put their boyfriend or girlfriend before the animal: Mr or Ms Right would just have to find somewhere else to live. More encouragingly, 15% of men and 22% of women said they’d visit a top Harley Street specialist – no matter what it cost – in the hope of finding an effective treatment for the allergy, while 32% of men and 19% of women said they’d find a loving new home for the problem-causing pet.

Dr Victoria Lukats, psychiatrist and PARSHIP’s dating and relationship expert commented:

“People invest a lot in their pets emotionally, but whilst some singles may see their pets as surrogate partners or children, this research shows that these people are in the small minority. Rather than the stereotype of a spinster with several cats, the reality is that many singles simply enjoy owning a pet but they would probably put their human relationships first.”

“Provided the balance is there and pet owners don’t avoid socialising or dating and that they maintain a healthy attitude to their pet then it shouldn’t interfere with their love life. But perhaps single pet owners would be wise to take note of this research: if there’s seems to be potential for a long-term relationship developing then it might be best not to boast about how much you indulge your pet and avoid making harsh statements about how your pet comes first, especially on the first few dates.”

• Is it time to put the cat out?

25% of singles wouldn’t date someone with two or more cats. In most cases this is attributable to an allergy, with 26% of adults suffering from sneezes and discomfort when close to a feline. There are very few treatments available to counter the allergic reaction. However, there’s good news for the 40% of singles who wouldn’t date someone who owned a pet spider: Even a single session of real-life exposure based therapy can be effective for up to 90% of phobic individuals. (Ost, Brandberg and Alm, 1997, Ost, Salkovskis and Helstrom, 1991)), so you really could learn to love your partner’s little (or not so little) eight-legged friend ….

PARSHIP is Europe’s largest and most successful serious online matchmaking service, with over 2.4 million members, PARSHIP draws its strength from its unique psychometric compatibility test and a methodology which ensures that its members are only matched with people who are genuinely right for them.

Dr Victoria Lukats, explains how the test works:

“The factors that make two people a good romantic match are highly complex. Common interests such as a love of animals can help but the importance of complimentary personality traits in determining the long-term success of a relationship cannot be underestimated.”

“PARSHIP uses a unique psychometric test to match members with similar and complimentary characteristics. Many people believe that opposites attract, whereas others believe that similar personalities are compatible with one another. In fact, both these points of view can be valid, as research conducted over many years by leading psychologists has demonstrated. “

“For example, if an individual highly values domesticity or has a high need for emotional intimacy, then he or she would be well matched with a partner with similar values.”

“For other characteristics, differing scores on the test can be acceptable, even desirable, although wildly opposing scores could spell disaster. A member who is extremely assertive in their communication style would not be well matched with someone who was similarly assertive as this could lead to a major clash of personalities. Likewise, an individual who is slightly shy might be drawn out of themselves by someone who is slightly more outgoing, whereas a complete introvert is less likely to be successfully matched with someone who is the complete opposite.”

In addition to matching members through their personality profiles, members can also choose to specify what they are looking in a potential partner including age, height, location, whether they prefer a non-smoker and whether a potential partner has a pet.

Overall the PARSHIP test has been shown to be an accurate reflection of an individual’s personality and furthermore it has proven to be a highly successful method to help people find the love of their life.

For Further information or case studies please contact Penny Conway on 020 7014 4046, 07775 992350 or email

The research was conducted by YouGov between 30th June and 4th July 2007 questioned 2,353 adults over the age of 18 and by PARSHIP questioning 200,000 singles from its UK database.

About Dr Victoria Lukats (http://www.drlukats.com)

Dr Victoria Lukats, MBBS MRCPsych MSc is a psychiatrist, agony aunt and dating and relationship expert. As well as working as a relationship and dating expert for PARSHIP Dr Lukats is a Specialist Registrar in Psychiatry at Sussex Partnership NHS Trust in Brighton

References:

Ost LG, Salkovskis P M and Hellstrom K (1991) One-session therapist directed exposure vs. self-exposure in the treatment of spider phobia. Behaviour Therapy. 22: 407-422

Ost L G, Brandberg M and Alm T (1997) One versus five sessions of exposure in the treatment of flying phobia. Behaviour research and Therapy. 35: 987-996

posted by Kathryn Lord on 12.08.07 at 5.24 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • What the Research Says • Just for Fun • Technology, Academia, and Dating • 0 Comments