|
|
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.
I always recommend that singles pick a big, established, well-trafficked dating site, one that charges a fee. And of course, if you join, you should pay. Here’s a report that backs up some of my rationale—that people who join and pay a fee are more serious and see others posting on the site as more serious too. Underlining below is mine.
The typical online dater is serious, says report
People who date on the internet tend to be serious about the endeavour, a new report asserts.
According to eMarketer, those who use paid-for subscription services to meet prospective romantic mates are doing so because they want to find a specific sort of person who takes the venture as seriously as they do.
Citing comScore figures that reveal 97 million people visited matchmaking websites in December of last year, representing a ten per cent year-on-year fall, the report comments that a specific demographic is drawn to such resources.
“Online dating site users are looking for a pool of other people who are serious about dating, and pay for access to that pool,” the publication notes.
Meanwhile, an International Herald-Tribune article is cited in which the chief executive of Match.com, Thomas Enraght-Moony, describes internet dating as “highly underpenetrated”.
Hitwise has reported that the term ‘Valentine’s poems’ was the most popular search phrase containing the word Valentine in February 2007.
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.
This article below from Reuters describes some really ho-hum research. And with only 25 subjects??? Come on!
However, some common mistakes that women make are illustrated inadvertently. For instance, “But they still wanted the man to make the first move and expected him pick up the tab.” And “Complaints include a preponderance of men who are looking for much younger women, as well as men who misrepresent their looks, interests or marital status, or who show little interest in moving the relationship offline, she said.”
Well, yeah. Why should Internet dating be that much different from the real world in those respects? What needs to change is both women’s and men’s poor attitudes. If you behave the same as always (waiting for men to make the first move, let’s say) or expect the same as always (men—and women—are going to misrepresent themselves, look for younger women or wealthy men), that’s what you will find. People tend to find what they are looking for: Surprise!
I like the image of Internet dating sites as being the world’s biggest singles’ bar: Where else are you going to find so many singles who are looking all in one place? But what is different is: The absence of alcohol, the safety of your own home, and more freedom for women to take the initiative.
Don’t make the same mistake these women seem to: If the match isn’t there, thank heaven or cyberspace for telling you so quickly and move on. Do not lose sleep over the one who is not right.
Online dating brings hope, frustration - survey
Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:02pm IST
By Natalie Armstrong
TORONTO (Reuters Life!) - Online dating renews women’s hope in love and sex, but can be just as disappointing as the real-life dating scene, according to new Canadian research.
Susan Frohlick, an anthropology professor at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, says the women she surveyed gained a sense of empowerment from their online dating experiences.
But they still wanted the man to make the first move and expected him pick up the tab.
“Women are finding it as a useful tool to enter into the dating world, they find that it’s safe, they find that they can be a little more bold than they would in face-to-face relationships,” Frohlick said of her survey, which looks at how women over 30 view online dating.
“But, at the same time, they are experiencing frustration because it does seem that the Internet in many ways is just the same old bar scene.”
Complaints include a preponderance of men who are looking for much younger women, as well as men who misrepresent their looks, interests or marital status, or who show little interest in moving the relationship offline, she said.
“There’s not much of a difference between the virtual world and the real world,” said Linda, 33, a Toronto professional who has used an online dating site on and off, three or four times for a few months each time.
“It’s sad and equally as frustrating.”
Linda says she knows it can work out, noting that a friend met her husband after spending more than two years on different Web sites, but she admits she’s given up on the game.
“At least when you’re in the bar, you know what they look like,” she said, citing examples of meeting bald men whose profile pictures displayed a full head of hair.
“A lot more successful, attractive women are using these tools—I don’t think the men match up.”
Lori Miller, a singles and dating expert for http://www.lavalife.com in Toronto, says dating via the Web can mimic the bar scene. But it also gives women the chance to approach and meet dozens of men while knowing a little something about them beforehand.
“You’re literally thrown into the largest singles bar,” she said. “It is a lot of work, it is the luck of the draw just like being in that coffee shop and meeting the one.”
Frohlick’s small survey, to be completed in April, is questioning up to 25 Canadian women about their online dating habits. She hopes it will become a pilot for a far larger survey of women across North America.
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
I love it as research comes out about online dating, especially when it supports what I have been saying all along. Researchers in Melbourne, Australia, have been looking at online dating and report in below. I have underlined what I think is particularly significant and supports what I have been writing and saying.
Online dating: truth or dare
[ The University of Melbourne Voice Vol. 1, No. 7 11 - 25 June 2007 ]
By Katherine Smith
So-called ‘Gen X’ online daters tend to be well-paid, professional people who are ‘highly instrumental’ and organised in their mission to meet the one special person with whom they can establish an intimate real-world relationship, according to a University of Melbourne study.
Sociologists Dr Millsom Henry-Waring and Dr Jo Barraket found online daters pursue a means to an end. Evidence suggests they fill out truthful in dating profiles because if they later meet the other person any ‘enhancements’ will be obvious.
Dr Henry-Waring says her investigation into the sociology of on-line dating stems from a longstanding academic interest in the social implications of technology and, in particular, how technologies ‘mediate intimacy’.
“One of the main characteristics of online dating is the speed at which a relationship conducted largely by email can become intense. Many daters interviewed during the project described a relationship that moved quickly to intimacy and an easy, rapid revelation of personal information.
“But what may seem like chemistry by email and SMS is often not proved by a physical meeting, which can be disappointing.
“One media report recounted someone establishing a promising online relationship only to feel devastated when a meeting showed her new friend to be an ex-partner, in whom she was definitely no longer interested.”
Intimacy and personal connection rely heavily on visual cues, tone of voice and body language, says Dr Henry-Waring. “Communication through language matters, but not as much as we think. Similarly a set of highly matched personal preferences, characteristics or likes and dislikes doesn’t always lead to a connection.
“Most users of online dating quickly learn there is a danger in over-filtering potential dates and that highly specified profiles don’t attract people with whom they can eventually ‘click’. It seems people need a fairly broad catchment from which to successfully choose a partner.”
She says the study found that despite increased opportunities to meet partners from ‘outside the square’ being facilitated by digital technology, singles still select potential partners according to more conventional norms. Crossing cultural, racial, class and other social boundaries were not as common as the opportunities suggest.
Findings showed people engaged in online dating spent quite a lot of time online, searching sites and responding to emails. They were also familiar with technologies such as Blackberries, I-pods and PDAs and were comfortable engaging in relationships mediated through technology.
Fewer stigmas now exist about meeting people online than even a few years ago, according to Dr Henry-Waring, and she expects this shift to continue.
“The way of telling ‘the story of how we met’ to family or friends will change over time, and people will feel more relaxed about revealing their online meetings.”
Yet to be seriously addressed in the area of online relationships are some of the “unintended consequences” of establishing networks and intimate relationships online.
Dr Henry-Waring says relationships may become more disposable when one is able to ‘shop’ for the perfect partner.
“This raises some interesting questions about trust and fidelity. The decision about when to take your profile offline can be difficult. When you have met someone and established an intimate relationship, there comes a point when you have to decide you are no longer ‘looking’. Commitment can be conflicted by feelings that you will miss the buzz of meeting new people, or that someone better may be out there.”
The most successful online daters, it seems, are honest from the outset, open minded about people, and strive to establish genuine trust in relationships. In the digital age, old-fashioned, truthful straightforwardness still seems to be the key to successful relationships.
|
|
