Computational courtship understanding the evolution of online dating through large-scale data analysis

Have we become more tolerant of dating people of different social backgrounds compared to ten years ago? Has the rise of online dating exacerbated or alleviated gender inequalities in modern courtship? Are the most attractive people on these platforms necessarily the most successful? In this work, we examine the mate preferences and communication patterns of male and female users of the online dating site eHarmony over the past decade to identify how attitudes and behaviors have changed over this time period. While other studies have investigated disparities in user behavior between male and female users, this study is unique in its longitudinal approach. Specifically, we analyze how men and women differ in their preferences for certain traits in potential partners and how those preferences have changed over time. The second line of inquiry investigates to what extent physical attractiveness determines the rate of messages a user receives, and how this relationship varies between men and women. Thirdly, we explore whether online dating practices between males and females have become more equal over time or if biases and inequalities have remained constant (or increased). Fourthly, we study the behavioural traits in sending and replying to messages based on one's own experience of receiving messages and being replied to. Finally, we found that similarity between profiles is not a predictor for success except for the number of children and smoking habits. This work could have broader implications for shifting gender norms and social attitudes, reflected in online courtship rituals. Apart from the data-based research, we connect the results to existing theories that concern the role of ICTs in societal change. As searching for love online becomes increasingly common across generations and geographies, these findings may shed light on how people can build relationships through the Internet.

[1]  G. Becker Chapter Title: a Theory of Marriage a Theory of Marriage , 2022 .

[2]  A. Dupuy,et al.  Personality Traits and the Marriage Market , 2014, Journal of Political Economy.

[3]  E. Berscheid,et al.  What is beautiful is good. , 1972, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  Eric Gossett,et al.  Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think , 2015 .

[5]  Jeff Paul,et al.  Love letters , 1996, SIGGRAPH '05.

[6]  J. Walther,et al.  Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction , 1990 .

[7]  Kevin Lewis Preferences in the Early Stages of Mate Choice , 2016 .

[8]  Paul Oyer Everything I Ever Needed to Know about Economics I Learned from Online Dating , 2013 .

[9]  Alan T. Sorensen Equilibrium Price Dispersion in Retail Markets for Prescription Drugs , 2000, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  J. Walther,et al.  Just say ‘‘no thanks’’: Romantic rejection in computer-mediated communication , 2011 .

[11]  D. Buss,et al.  Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures , 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[12]  Judith S. Donath,et al.  Online personals: an overview , 2004, CHI EA '04.

[13]  Judith S. Donath,et al.  Homophily in online dating: when do you like someone like yourself? , 2005, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[14]  R. Kurzban,et al.  HurryDate: Mate preferences in action , 2005 .

[15]  P. Lewis,et al.  Beautiful is good: Evidence that the physically attractive are more socially skillful , 1977 .

[16]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets , 2018, Science Advances.

[17]  X. Gabaix,et al.  Why Has CEO Pay Increased so Much? , 2006 .

[18]  Hanna Halaburda,et al.  Competing by Restricting Choice: The Case of Search Platforms , 2016 .

[19]  Tasuku Igarashi,et al.  Gender differences in social network development via mobile phone text messages: A longitudinal study , 2005 .

[20]  Barbara Gregg,et al.  Human Assortative Mating and Genetic Equilibrium: An Evolutionary Perspective , 1980 .

[21]  Petter Holme,et al.  Structure and time evolution of an Internet dating community , 2002, Soc. Networks.

[22]  Eduardo M. Azevedo,et al.  A Supply and Demand Framework for Two-Sided Matching Markets , 2014, Journal of Political Economy.

[23]  P. Chiappori,et al.  Investment in Schooling and the Marriage Market , 2006, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[24]  Emir Kamenica,et al.  Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence From a Speed Dating Experiment , 2006 .

[25]  E. Walster,et al.  Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  T. Spector,et al.  Heritability of Adult Body Height: A Comparative Study of Twin Cohorts in Eight Countries , 2003, Twin Research.

[27]  Y. Weiss,et al.  Match Quality, New Information, and Marital Dissolution , 1997, Journal of Labor Economics.

[28]  Amy Sarch Making the Connection: Single Women's Use of the Telephone in Dating Relationships With Men , 1993 .

[29]  Viktor Mayer-Schnberger,et al.  Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think , 2013 .

[30]  Paul W. Eastwick,et al.  Online Dating , 2012, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[31]  K. Jones,et al.  Age, Period and Cohort Processes in Longitudinal and Life Course Analysis: A Multilevel Perspective , 2015 .

[32]  A. Galichon,et al.  Costly Concessions: An Empirical Framework for Matching with Imperfectly Transferable Utility , 2019, Journal of Political Economy.

[33]  Matching in closed-form: equilibrium, identification, and comparative statics , 2016, 2102.04295.

[34]  Alan Feingold,et al.  Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. , 1990 .

[35]  Dan Ariely,et al.  What makes you click?—Mate preferences in online dating , 2010 .

[36]  J. Walther Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1992 .

[37]  P. Chiappori,et al.  Bidimensional Matching with Heterogeneous Preferences: Smoking in the Marriage Market , 2014 .

[38]  M. Niederle,et al.  Propose with a rose? Signaling in internet dating markets , 2011 .

[39]  Coye Cheshire,et al.  Who's Right and Who Writes: People, Profiles, Contacts, and Replies in Online Dating , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[40]  Jennie Zhang,et al.  What Happens After You Both Swipe Right: A Statistical Description of Mobile Dating Communications , 2016, ArXiv.

[41]  E K Sadalla,et al.  Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: qualifying the parental investment model. , 1990, Journal of personality.

[42]  Nicole B. Ellison,et al.  Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[43]  Lana F. Rakow Rethinking Gender Research in Communication , 1986 .

[44]  M. Cunningham Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty , 1986 .

[45]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? , 2005 .

[46]  M. Whitty,et al.  Cyberspace Romance: The Psychology of Online Relationships , 2006 .

[47]  Nick Feltovich,et al.  Too Cool for School? Signaling and Countersignaling , 2001 .

[48]  Robin I. M. Dunbar Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates , 1992 .

[49]  M. Niederle,et al.  Propose with a rose? Signaling in internet dating markets , 2011 .

[50]  Josue Ortega,et al.  The Strength of Absent Ties: Social Integration via Online Dating , 2017, ArXiv.

[51]  Marti A. Hearst,et al.  Assessing attractiveness in online dating profiles , 2008, CHI.

[52]  Monica T. Whitty,et al.  Online recreation: The relationship between loneliness, Internet self-efficacy and the use of the Internet for entertainment purposes , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..