Studies

All of us, at least once, no matter how much we profess to love dating, have wished we could just snap our fingers and magically make the perfect partner appear.

Well…I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is that researchers at the University of Iowa believe they may have found the secret to online dating success. The bad news is that no magic is involved, and snapping your fingers probably won’t help.

The key, says the University of Iowa team, is for online dating sites to match users based on their past interests and actions, rather than on what they say they’re interested in. Think about your Netflix account. Netflix recommends movies based on what you’ve watched and the amount of time you spent watching it – so even if you profess to be a documentary lover, if all you watch is Gossip Girl, Netflix is probably going to suggest more CW-style teen dramedies.

Love and attraction are about as inexplicable as it gets, but that doesn’t mean scientists aren’t determined to try. More and more studies are attempting to uncover the secrets of attraction, especially when it comes to dating online, the big question being: if we figure out how the process works, can we learn to hack it?

Eli Finkel and Paul Eastwick of Northwestern University are two of the researchers studying online dating. In a breakthrough 2008 study, the duo found that, although men and women say they look for different things in a mate (men tend to prioritize looks, while women prioritize money), there’s no difference in the types of partners the two sexes actually choose in real life.

Finkel and Eastwick took their research farther, finding that there’s little association between the traits people claim that want in a partner and what they are actually attracted to when they meet potential dates face to face. In other words, that laundry list of must-haves and dealbreakers you’ve created is probably useless. At the end of the day, attraction and compatibility just don’t work like that.

In part, Finkel and Eastwick say, this is because the way we pair up on online dating sites is different from the way we evaluate our relationships later on. When we search through profiles on an online dating site, we’re in “joint evaluation mode,” in which we compare multiple potential dates against one another based on factors like income and attractiveness. On the other hand, when we make relationship decisions, we’re in “separate evaluation mode,” in which we judge only one person against the question “Are they right for me?”

In joint evaluation mode, we are likely to focus on the qualities we think are important rather than the qualities that are actually predictive of a healthy relationship. A profile on a computer screen is unable to convey the information we really need to know – hence the importance of in-person meetings, where the real work of assessing compatibility can begin. So although online dating sites do a great job of expanding the dating pool for users, they “do not always improve romantic outcomes; indeed, they sometimes undermine such outcomes.”

Still, despite their limitations, Finkel and Eastwick aren’t totally down on online dating services. When asked if he would use them, Finkel responded enthusiastically:

“Hell yes. It’s probably a bit worse than meeting people organically through one’s existing social network, but, outside of that option, it’s probably as good an approach as any. But it’s important to realize what online dating can and can’t do. It can expand the pool of potential partners, making available a whole slew of people who otherwise would have been unavailable. That’s a huge, huge benefit. But, at least thus far, it can’t figure out who’s compatible with you. That’s your job.”

Related Article: How To Date Like A Social Scientist: Part I

Ashley Madison, the infamous dating website that makes its revenue from matching married people looking for affairs, has now admitted to spying on its own users.

A recent study published by the company was gathered from emails the sites’ users sent to each other under what they assumed was a condition of anonymity. According to a recent article in Time Magazine, Eric Anderson, a professor at the University of Winchester in England who conducted the study, claims that “women who seek extra-marital affairs usually still love their husbands and are cheating instead of divorcing, because they need more passion.”

“It is very clear that our model of having sex and love with just one other person for life has failed— and it has failed massively,” Anderson tells Time.

As it turns out, Ashlay Madison seems to have commissioned this study to boost its membership numbers - that is, to prove that almost every person in a monogomous relationship is looking to cheat, (and therefore should join their website). But for those who join the site on a strict condition of anonymity because they don’t want their partners to find out, this study is a direct infringement on their right to privacy.

So Ashley Madison is now in a tricky spot. Has it alienated its members, since now they know their emails are no longer strictly confidential, but subject to studies and read by a third party? Perhaps it was in the fine print when they joined the site, as most dating sites collect user information for the purposes of research. But most don’t analyze individual emails being sent back and forth between individual users.

As Time Magazine also points out, because of the nature of the dating site, and the fact that most of its members are being dishonest or lying by the mere fact that they are using the site for an extramarital affair, it calls into question the integrity of the data itself. Who knows what is true and what isn’t in each email? Who can say that anyone on the site is honest in any email they send to another site user?

According to Anderson, his data “included profile information that the women supplied when they signed up for the site (information not made available to other Ashley Madison users),” as well as information other users could see. “We also acquired all private message conversations that [users] had with men on the website for one month,” Anderson told Time.

The results of the study are still somewhat questionable. Anderson claims that in our sexualized culture, married folks could feel as if they are missing out when they are only having sex with one partner.

While this might be true for the users of Ashley Madison, it doesn't mean that it's applicable to the majority of married couples in the U.S.

There is quite possibly nothing in this world that perplexes us more than that strange collection of physical and emotional responses we call love. Humans have been trying to understand it since the dawn of…well…humans, in poetry, in art, in music, and in laboratories.

Writer Olga Khazan, in an article for The Atlantic, explores recent research being done into the murky, inexplicable world of online dating. These studies are designed to determine “what makes people desire each other digitally,” she writes, “as well as whether our first impressions of online photos ultimately matter.”

What do social scientists know that you don’t?

First, your face plays an important role in your romantic fate – which means yes, your photos matter. Some evidence suggests that qualities like extraversion, emotional stability, and self-esteem can be read in a person’s physical appearance. For example, writes Khazan, “Hockey players with wider faces, considered a sign of aggression, spend more time in the penalty box.” On a basic level, then, strangers viewing your dating profile may be making judgements about your personality on a subconscious level, solely from your photos.

But pictures are not the end of the process. Nuances of personality are only revealed through interaction, and looks can be deceiving. Personality may supersede looks as we get to know someone – or, explains Khazan, “at the very least, we tend to find people more attractive when we think they have good personalities.”

Frequently, we end up pairing off with partners who match us in level of attractiveness. Which brings up another question: should you date someone who looks like you? Psychologists say the answer is no. Khazan describes another experiment, in which “subjects who thought they were similar to one another were more likely to be attracted to each other, but that wasn’t the case for those who were actually similar to one another.” Where speech is concerned, however, couples with similar speech styles are more likely to remain in a relationship than couples with differing speech styles.

Then there’s the question on everyone’s mind: will online dating actually lead to a relationship? A 2008 study by Eli Finkel and Paul Eastwick at Northwestern University attempted to uncover the answer, and found it to be much more complicated than a simple yes or no. Online dating does give us more options than ever before but, as Finkel and Eastwick discovered, that isn’t necessarily a good thing.

Stay tuned for their discoveries in Part II.

The Internet has been afire recently with the news that both Facebook and OkCupid have experimented on their users. Both companies have apologized or pseudo-apologized for their actions, while being careful to note that such online experimentation isn’t uncommon.

OkCupid took it one step further in their non-apology, candidly declaring that “if you use the Internet, you’re the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site” and revealing two more experiments they’ve conducted on users.

The first was born out of OkCupid’s short-lived blind date app. To celebrate the app’s release, OkCupid removed all the photos from the site on launch day. During those seven photo-less hours, OkCupid noticed some interesting things:

• Users responded to first messages 44% more often
• Conversations were deeper
• Contact info was exchanged more quickly

In short, OkCupid functioned better without pictures. When the photos were restored, the conversations that had started blind melted away. “The goodness was gone,” notes the blog post, “in fact worse than gone. It was like we’d turned on the bright lights at the bar at midnight.” The blind date app revealed a similar phenomenon. When users got to the date, they had a good time more or less regardless of how physically attractive their partner was. “Basically,” the post reads, “people are exactly as shallow as their technology allows them to be.”

In a related experiment, OkCupid decided to test its original rating system that allowed users to judge each other on two separate scales: Personality and Looks. “Our thinking was that a person might not be classically gorgeous or handsome but could still be cool,” the blog explains, “and we wanted to recognize that, which just goes to show that when OkCupid started out, the only thing with more bugs than our HTML was our understanding of human nature.”

After gathering the data, OkCupid found that “looks” and “personality” were essentially the same thing to users. They ran a second, direct experiment to confirm their hunch that people just look and pictures and ignore profiles. A small sample of users were shown profiles that did not contain text, resulting in two sets of scores for each profile: one score for the picture and text together, and one for the picture alone.

The results were predictably disheartening: text is less than 10% of what people think of you. The blog says it best: “your picture is worth that fabled thousand words, but your actual words are worth…almost nothing.” Ouch.

Facebook caused a huge outcry back in June when it revealed it had manipulated the news feeds of over half a million users as part of a psychological study to examine how emotions spread on social media.

The response was intense (to say the least), but Facebook is far from the only Internet company to treat its users like lab rats. OkCupid fessed up to conducting studies on its members via a blog entry posted on July 28. And they weren't exactly apologetic about it.

“We noticed recently that people didn’t like it when Facebook 'experimented' with their news feed,” the entry reads. “Even the FTC is getting involved. But guess what, everybody: if you use the Internet, you’re the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That’s how websites work.”

Admittedly, they have a point. No matter how popular or successful OkCupid is, there are always improvements to be made and the only way to discover those improvements is to conduct experiments. Or, in the site’s own words, “OkCupid doesn’t really know what it’s doing. Neither does any other website. It’s not like people have been building these things for very long, or you can go look up a blueprint or something. Most ideas are bad. Even good ideas could be better. Experiments are how you sort all this out.”

In this case, the experiment told users they were more compatible than they really were to test the power of suggestion. Typically, among users who were given a 30% compatibility rating by OkCupid, a single message from one to another turned into a conversation just 10% of the time. But, if OkCupid told users with low compatibility that their compatibility score was 90%, the odds of having a conversation jumped to 17%.

The experiment found the same results in the opposite direction. When users with 90% compatibility were told their score was only 30%, the likelihood of a conversation dropped from 20% to 16%. OkCupid isn’t at all surprised that users take the compatibility rating so seriously – “after all,” notes the blog post, “that’s what the site teaches you to do.”

Then OkCupid took a step further. The question became “Does the displayed match percentage cause more than just that first message – does the mere suggestion cause people to actually like each other?”

As far as this data goes, the answer is yes. When OkCupid tells people they’re a good match, they act as if they are, even if they should be wrong for each other - which means that at the end of the day, the myth of compatibility may be just as powerful as the truth.