Marriage

When Dr. Gian Gonzaga and the research team at eHarmony decided to conduct a study on the relationship between divorce and the way couples meet, they found themselves confronted with a couple of hurdles to clear:

• Online dating is a relatively new phenomenon - it's been around for a little over a decade, and only been popular for the last 7 or 8 years. That's not a significant amount of time for a large number of couples to meet, marry, and then separate, and the sample size would likely have been too small to create an accurate study.
• One method of running the study would be to simply sample the American population at random, hoping that a significant number of people who had gotten divorced met their former spouses on an online dating site. The research team would have to hope that, through sheer luck, they would find a large enough number of people who had A) Married in the last decade, B) Met their partner on a particular online dating site, and C) Gotten divorced from that person. But surveying the entire population of the United States is far from practical, and leaves too much to chance.

Instead, the eHarmony team, aided by Opinion Research Corp., "identified an online panel of 4,000 people who had been married to AND divorced from that person in the last 15 years," with a focus on marriages that began between 2005 and 2009. Though their final sample size was small - only 506 people - their findings are still interesting. In most cases, "the expected number of divorces was very close to the actual number of divorces...observed in the sample," which means that "it didn't really matter how you met your spouse, you were just as likely to get divorced." The most notable results from the study showed that:

• People who met on eHarmony were 66.6% less likely to get divorced.
• People who met through school were 41.1% less likely to get divorced.
• People who met at a bar were 24% more likely to get divorced.
• People who met through unspecified other means were 16% more likely to get divorced.

Their findings are food for thought, but the eHarmony team acknowledges that they are far from definitive: "We realize the numbers of eHarmony divorces is pretty small and this is only one sample of divorces. We don't know if these results will replicate in another sample or generalize to all marriages. Those are important limitations to this study that need to be acknowledged. We're already working on replicating these findings to address these limitations."

It is also important to remember, as Dr. Gonzaga notes, that studies like these show only WHAT happened, not WHY it happened. "How you met your spouse is only one of many reasons for why a couple eventually ends up unhappy or divorced," he writes. "Many relationships that start off shaky end up lasting a lifetime. Others that have a great foundation still end up in trouble. How you meet is only the starting point. You, and your spouse, control where you end up."

Read the original post here and for more details on the matchmaking service which conducted this survey please read our review of eHarmony.

Does where you meet your spouse make a difference in how happy the marriage is and if the relationship lasts?

According to a marriage study conducted for eHarmony in December of 2010, online dating is currently the 3rd most popular way for newlyweds to meet (following work/school and friends/family), and eHarmony is now responsible for nearly 100,000 marriages per year in the United States. Bringing couples together is an admirable occupation - but it doesn't mean much if the relationship isn't built on a strong foundation that can stand the test of time. In the words of eHarmony's Dr. Gian Gonzaga: "my colleagues and I aren't doing our jobs correctly if all we do is bring people together.... It's not about creating a lot of relationships; it's about creating a lot of good relationships."

With that idea in mind, Gonazaga and his team asked themselves the question posed at the start of this post. Does where you meet your partner have an effect on how happy you are in your relationship, and whether or not the relationship lasts? After failing to find any studies that investigated the matter, Gonzaga and his researchers decided to take matters into their own hands, in conjunction with Opinion Research Corp.

RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

The first study, an online survey of 7,386 adults who married within the last 5 years, examined relationship satisfaction. Participants were asked how they met their spouse, and were then directed to use the Couples Satisfaction Index, a well-known test developed at the University of Rochester, to measure their relationship satisfaction. eHarmony users scored well: couples who had met on the site were more satisfied with their marriages than couples who had met on Match.com, via friends or family, or at a bar or other social gathering. Couples who had met on eHarmony also reported higher relationship satisfaction than those who had met through their jobs or at school, but the difference was much less significant.

KEEPING THE SPARK ALIVE

Participants in the study were also asked if their relationship had "lost the spark," as a loss of chemistry between partners is often a precursor to relationship dissatisfaction. Once again, people who met on eHarmony fared well: couples from the site were least likely to feel that the magic was gone from their relationship.

But what about the major issue of divorce? Does how a person meets their spouse have any relation to the likelihood that they will get divorced? eHarmony researchers asked people whether they or their spouse had ever seriously suggested separating or divorcing, and it turns out that the "proportion of couples who discuss divorce doesn't differ widely across the various ways couples met." eHarmony couples were the least likely to discuss divorce, but the numbers were not statistically different from couples who met at church/place of worship, work/school, and through family/friends. There were, however, "statistically significant differences between the eHarmony couples and those who met at bars/social events and those who met on Match.com."

Talking about divorce is, of course, only an indicator of divorce - it is not a divorce itself. To get a clearer picture of the link between divorce and the location where couples met, eHarmony conducted a second study. Read on to hear more about what they found.

For more information on the dating site which conducted this survey please read our eHarmony.com review.

We've already discussed 4 reasons some scientists believe that monogamy is the right choice for human relationships - now it's time to take a look at a few of the arguments for nonmonogamy.

Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, authors of a new book called "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality," looked at the soaring divorce rate, the rising numbers of single parents, and the success of industries like couples therapy, and decided that something was terribly wrong with relationships in America. Their theory about the origin of this disaster is simple: "From a biological perspective, men and women simply aren't meant to be in lifelong monogamous unions." Ryan and Jetha offer evidence from the worlds of archaeology, biology, physiology, and anthropology in favor of embracing our nonmonogamous history:

1) Nonmonogamy is our natural state - monogamy only became important as property became a part of human lives. The advent of agriculture, about 10,000 years ago, changed human society forever. "Property wasn't a very important consideration when people were living in small, foraging groups where most things were shared, including food, childcare, shelter and defense," Ryan told Salon.com. Sexuality was also shared, and paternity was not an issue. As agriculture began to play a larger and larger role in human lives, however, men began to worry about whether or not children were biologically theirs, so that they could leave their accumulated property to their biological children after their deaths. Monogamy was just an easy way to guarantee that a man was the biological father of the children he was raising.

2) Having multiple partners is biologically advantageous. In pre-agricultural times, multiple men would mate with one woman. Afterwards, her reproductive system would distinguish which sperm cells were most compatible with her genetics, resulting in the healthiest possible child.

3) Humans are built to seek out novelty. Humans evolved to be sexually responsive to novelty, making a lifetime of blissful monogamy a difficult prospect. Genetically, humans are programed to seek out new partners (known as the Coolidge effect) and are less responsive to familiar partners (the Westermarck effect). Ancient humans were motivated by this drive to leave their small hunter-gatherer societies in favor of joining other groups, thereby avoiding incest and providing genetic variety and strength to future generations.

4) It's just plain unrealistic to expect that someone will only be attracted to one partner for the rest of their lives. Monogamy is a valid relationship choice, but deciding to follow a monogamous path doesn't mean that you will never feel the desire to have sex with other people again. It is unfair that modern society makes people feel like failures for looking at or fantasizing about someone other than their partners. Curiosity is just human nature.

Despite Ryan and Jetha's compelling research in favor of nonmonogamy, they do not believe that monogamy is unsustainable: "Lifelong sexual monogamy is something we can certainly choose, but it should an informed decision," says the FAQ on their Web site. "We're not recommending anything other than knowledge, introspection, and honesty... What individuals or couples do with this information (if anything) is up to them."

Let's continue the debate about monogamy with a little quiz:

Which relationship structure has been proven to be the most effective?

A) Monogamy: Agreeing to be exclusive with a single partner decreases health risks and honors the special relationship you share.

B) Nonmonogamy: It is unrealistic to expect fidelity to a single person for an entire lifetime, and monogamy places artificial and limiting restrictions on relationships that inhibit the expression of love and sexuality.

C) All of the above.

D) None of the above.

If you're looking for an answer, prepare to be disappointed: the answer is that there is no right answer. Compelling arguments have been made from both sides, and that doesn't even take into consideration the myriad other possible forms a relationship could take. I could probably spend the rest of my life posting about nothing but the pros and cons of the various relationship arrangements I have encountered, but for simplicity's sake let's focus on the two most common approaches: monogamy and nonmonogamy, in the most general senses of both terms.

Up first: the scientific arguments for monogamy.

1. Having multiple partners might serve our genes, but it doesn't serve us as emotional individuals. When humans become sexual with a new partner, the brain's dopamine reward system is kicked into overdrive. But after that intense high, the brain shifts into a low-dopamine stage and humans find themselves in an unhappy hangover-like state. When partners are constantly changing, this cycle continuously repeats and dissatisfaction increases. Remaining faithful to one partner, on the other hand, allows the brain to maintain a comfortable level of happiness without the ensuing crash. (Source: The Monogamy Challenge)
2. Monogamy is beneficial for childrearing. In the wild, children with two parents are more likely to survive and learn to socialize properly. Their chances of growing to adulthood and reproducing are therefore increased.
3. Studies show that having a steady, intimate partner might be good for your health. Multiple studies associate this kind of relationship with increased longevity, faster healing times, and lower rates of illness, depression, and alcoholism. AIDS patients with partners, for example, have a tendency to live longer and develop the condition at a slower rate. (Source: Marital Status and Health)
4. Research has found that monogamy is consistently valued across cultures, biological imperative or not. Noted anthropologist Helen Fisher points out that, even in polygamous cultures, less than 10% of men choose to have more than one wife at a time, and calls monogamy "pretty standard" for the human species. Author Tara Parker-Pope adds that "Almost without exception, men and women say they value monogamy in relationships. So while it isn't absolutely necessary from a biological standpoint, from a social, cultural and emotional standpoint, it's important to many people and that's why we try for it." (Source: The science of marital unhappiness)

Proponents of monogamy, then, seem to have science on their side. Can the nonmonogamy camp say the same thing? We'll find out next time!

The debate about monogamy has been long and fierce. Some believe that it is unnatural for humans to promise themselves to one person for their entire lives, and that we should instead embrace open relationships. Others believe that choosing monogamy honors, protects, and enhances a relationship with a partner who is extremely important, and that the jealousy that can arise from a nonmonogamous relationship isn't worth the potential benefits of sexual freedom.

Some people even disagree - with their own partners - about whether or not their relationship is monogamous. A recent study conducted at Oregon State University found that young, heterosexual couples frequently do not agree with their partners about whether or not their relationship is open. 434 couples between the ages of 18 and 25 were interviewed about the status of their relationship, and in a whopping 40% of couples only 1 partner reported that they had agreed to be sexually exclusive with their significant other. The other partner claimed that no such agreement had been made.

"Miscommunication and misunderstandings about sexual exclusivity appear to be common," says public health researcher Jocelyn Warren. Many young couples, it appears, are not communicating the terms of their relationships effectively - if, that is, they're discussing them at all - and event amongst couples who had explicitly agreed to be monogamous, nearly 30% had broken the agreement and sought out sex outside of the relationship.

"Couples have a hard time talking about these sorts of issues, and I would imagine for young people it's even more difficult," Marie Harvey, an expert in the field of sexual and reproductive health, posits. "Monogamy comes up quite a bit as a way to protect against sexually transmitted diseases. But you can see that agreement on whether one is monogamous or not is fraught with issues."

Difficult though the subject may be, it's clear that every couple must come to an unequivocal, precisely-expressed understanding regarding the status of their relationship. Lack of communication can lead to serious unintended risks, both physical and emotional, for partners who unknowingly disagree about the exclusivity of their relationship. What is less clear is which choice - if either - is the "right" one. Is monogamy or nonmonogamy a more effective relationship style? Can one scientifically be proven to be better, or more "natural," than the other? Or is it simply a matter of personal preference?

We'll take a look at the scientific support for each approach in more detail in the next posts.

The custom of arranged marriage is very popular in India but in countries like the United States and Canada it is not popular. In North America when a match could not be found locally, families from India and other Asian countries sometimes resorted to using newspaper classified sections to find a potential suitor for one of their children. This practice has now changed thanks to online dating. Dating sites like Shaadi.com have matched more than a million South Asian couples and now parents are logging on to find potential matches for their children. Many parents find "religion, mother tongue, residency status, education, caste or class, astrological sign and diet" important attributes in a mate for their child. Shaadi.com does keep track of this information within member profiles which makes it easy for parents to find matches. Roughly 20 percent of profiles on Shaadi were created by parents looking for a partner for one or more of their children. The average age of a profile is in the range of 26 to 35.

In Canada Shaadi.com has become so popular that they have opened up their first North American center in Mississauga Ontario in March of this year (close to Toronto). The greater Toronto area is home to more than 700,000 South Asian Canadians making it ideal for a matchmaking center. Shaadi also has started to promote their new center not only online, but off as well through billboards and other physical media to better reach their target audience.

To find out more details about this dating site, check out our review of Shaadi.com.