Online Dating and Social Networking Industry Forums

FernandoArdenghi · Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:02 am Post subject: SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

There are lots of Scientific Papers about THEORIES OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS DEVELOPMENT.
However results/findings/conclusions have been INCONSISTENT between them!!!
and
many Academics Researchers are too busy to read their colleagues publications! Nonetheless, here is MY TOP TEN ACADEMIC PAPERS:

1) "CHANGE ASSORTATIVE MATING AND MARITAL QUALITY IN NEWLYWEDS: A COUPLE CENTERED APPROACH", February 2005 at "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology"
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/psp882304.pdf

Page #19 of PDF whitepaper
Page #322 of magazine
"................................
Couple Similarity and Marital Quality
Our study presents one of the most comprehensive examinations of the similarity-satisfaction link. The observed SIMILARITY-SATISFACTION CORRELATIONS SUGGEST THAT SIMILARITY ON PERSONALITY RELATED DOMAINS WAS STRONGLY ASSOCIATED WITH SATISFACTION, whereas similarity on attitude-related domains was not.
.................
People may be attracted to those who have similar attitudes, values, and beliefs and even marry them (at least in part) on the basis of this similarity. However, once individuals are in a committed relationship, IT MAY BE PRIMARILY PERSONALITY SIMILARITY THAT INFLUENCES MARITAL HAPPINESS. This suggests that attitude and value similarity may play a different role in relationship development than personality similarity does. For example, whereas similarity in attitudes and values appears to be important early on in the relationship and may play an important role in relationship progression, personality similarity becomes more important as the relationship reaches greater commitment. Our empirical findings and this proposition are certainly consistent with "filter" or "process" theories of relationship development (e.g., Kerckhoff & Davis, 1962; Murstein, 1980) that hold that patterns of similarity and complementarity on different individual-difference domains play differential roles at different points in the relationship development process.
……………. FUTURE RESEARCH designed to better understand these underlying processes is needed.
.................................."

2) "PERSONALITY, FAMILY HISTORY, AND COMPETENCE IN EARLY ADULT ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS"
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp883562.pdf

that says at page #574
"..........
For example, recognizing that behavior in relationships is partially rooted in relatively stable personality traits can help explain why relationship interventions are sometimes unsuccessful. It may be more difficult for some people to change how they act in relationships because these behavior patterns are manifestations of more general and pervasive behavioral tendencies.
..............
....the common sense notion that the personality characteristics of a romantic partner are an important factor to contemplate when considering the viability of a long-term romantic union .
......................"

3) "IDEAL MATE PERSONALITY CONCEPTS AND COMPATIBILITY IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS" Marcel R. Zentner University of Geneva
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2005, Vol. 89, No. 2, 242–256
http://www.unige.ch/fapse/emotion/members/zentner/pdf/IdealMatePersonality.pdf

"How 2 personalities may be best combined in a couple has often been answered in terms of similarity in partner’s personality characteristics. However, results have been inconsistent. The present study proposed that relationship outcomes should depend more on the similarity between individuals’ ideal mate personality concepts (IMPCs) and their partner’s personality as both perceived by the self and selfreported by the partner. Study 1 introduces a new Q-sort to assess IMPCs and provides evidence for the interindividual variability and the short-term consistency of IMPC. By following nonmarried couples over a 9-month period, Study 2 replicated findings from Study 1 and demonstrated that, overall, the current concept of congruence predicts relationship outcomes better than both personality similarity and the partner’s individual personality traits.
Keywords: personality, complementarity, ideal, couples, Q-sort, Big Five"
PAGE 254
"Taken together, these findings suggest three important conclusions:
first, that similarity models of personality compatibility do not perform well when formulated as universal algorithms of compatibility but acquire predictive power when defined as specific algorithms applied to selected personality traits and to types of individuals.
Second, and more specifically, similarity on Agreeableness and Openness appears to be more important in determining compatibility than similarity on other traits.
Third, the traits in which people subjectively desire to be similar appear to be the same traits in which similarity matters in actual relationships."

4) The GERMAN paper "PERSONALITY and SOCIAL NETWORK EFFECTS on ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS: A DYADIC APPROACH"
Neyer F.J.; Voigt D.
EUROPEAN Journal of Personality, Volume 18, Number 4, June 2004, pp. 279-299(21)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/109075973/ABSTRACT

"The quality of romantic relationships and their associations with both partners' personality traits and social networks were studied in 100 younger couples. The similarity of partners was modest with respect to personality traits, and moderate to large with respect to the perceived quality of the partner relationship and their social networks. While similarity in personality was unrelated to relationship quality, dyadic analyses showed that one's perceived quality of relationship was better predicted by one's own personality (i.e. actor effects) than by the personality of one's partner (i.e. partner effects). Moreover, relationship quality could to some extent be predicted by the quality of the social network once the personality traits of each partner were controlled. Results are discussed from a transactional view of personality and relationships "

Weak points of research and conclusions:
--Does not take into account temporal patterns of relationship variables.
--Dyadic similarity between couple members was calculated using pairwise intraclass correlations (Gonzalez & Griffin, 1997) page 286
--The study was cross-sectional and therefore strong inferences about the causal ordering of effects cannot be made. page 291

5) "PERSONALITY, ATTACHMENT, AND SEXUALITY RELATED TO DATING RELATIONSHIP OUTCOMES: Contrasting three perspectives on personal attribute interaction. " British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 589-610.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjsp/2002/00000041/00000004/art00006
says on page #01 of PDF /page #589 of magazine "Although people can bring personal attributes to their relationships that affect how satisfying and enduring those relationships are, it is more often personal attribute interaction that directly determines romantic relationship outcomes. In this study, three general perspectives on personal attribute interaction—similarity, complementarity and exchange perspectives—were contrasted empirically in their ability to predict dating relationship outcomes. Based on questionnaires completed by a sample of 44 heterosexual dating couples, feelings of relationship satisfaction were most closely associated with the interaction of socially valuable attributes, generally supporting the exchange perspective.
Similarity of personal attributes was also connected with relationship satisfaction; however, this association was in the negative direction.
That is, couples with dissimilar personality traits, attachment styles and sexual strategies were significantly more satisfied with their dating relationships. Complementarity of personal attributes had no link to satisfaction, but complementary couples experienced significantly higher ratings of relationship commitment, especially couples with complementary personalities. Discussion focused on the differences between personal attribute connections with romantic satisfaction and commitment and on the limitations of the present study. "

says on page #14&15 of PDF /page #602&603 of magazine
"Personal attribute interactions and romantic relationship outcomes
………………………..the evaluation of personal attribute interaction and romantic relationship outcomes was appropriately based on couple-level analyses (Kenny, 1988; Kenny & La Voie, 1984). ……..…
………...
Table 5 displays the results from a standard regression analysis of personal attribute interaction perspective indexes on couple-based relationship satisfaction ….
…………….
Table 6 displays the results from a standard regression analysis of personal attribute interaction perspective indexes on general relationship commitment ….
…………………. "

says on page #17 of PDF /page #605 of magazine
"….the current sample of dating couples had been dating for a considerable length of time, implying that the stage of initial attraction had already occurred. Nevertheless, FUTURE RESEARCH should examine the current set of attribute interaction perspectives concerning relationship outcomes among married couples. It is possible that the complementary INTERACTION of role-oriented attributes such as PERSONALITY TRAITS AND SEXUAL STRATEGIES, MAY BE EVEN MORE IMPORTANT TO ONGOING MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS.
……………. "

6) "SELF AND PARTNER PERSONALITY IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS"
Barelds, D. P. H. Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, THE NETHERLANDS / EUROPEAN Journal of Personality, Volume 19, Number 6, September 2005, pp. 501-518(18_)
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jws/per/2005/00000019/00000006/art00003

"Two studies were conducted to examine the relations between both partners' personality and marital quality in married or cohabiting heterosexual couples. In Study 1 (N = 1380, or 690 couples), personality was assessed by means of the Dutch Personality Questionnaire, whereas in Study 2 (N = 564, or 282 couples) personality was assessed by means of the Five-Factor Personality Inventory. We expected neuroticism to relate negatively, and extraversion positively, to marital quality. Furthermore, we expected that spouses would only marginally resemble each other with regard to personality, and that differences in personality would not affect marital quality, when controlling for the individual's levels of personality. All expectations were confirmed."

7) "PERSONALITY AND MARITAL SATISFACTION: A BEHAVIOURAL GENETIC ANALYSIS" Erica L. Spotts et al, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet Stockholm, SWEDEN
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110451923/ABSTRACT

"Previous research has found that genetic and nonshared environmental factors influence marital quality (Spotts et al., 2004). The current study explored personality as a source for these genetic and environmental individual differences. A sample of 752 Swedish TWIN WOMEN AND THEIR SPOUSES were used. Genetic and environmental influences were found for self-report measures of marital quality, but only environmental factors contributed to the variance of observational measures of marital quality. Wives' personality characteristics accounted for genetic and nonshared environmental variance in the wives' own marital satisfaction, their husbands' marital satisfaction, and the agreement between the spouses on the quality of their marriage. Genetic influences on the correlation between wives' genetically influenced personality characteristics and their husbands' marital satisfaction indicate a gene-environment correlation. Contrary to expectations, husbands' personality did not explain large portions of wives' marital satisfaction beyond that explained by wives' personality. This study emphasizes the importance of spousal personality to the well-being of marriages, and results are discussed within the context of three different theories regarding ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND MARITAL QUALITY."

8_) "HURRYDATE: MATE PREFERENCES IN ACTION" could be read from
http://www.psych.upenn.edu/PLEEP/pdfs/2005%20Kurzban%20&%20Weeden%20EHB.pdf
Interesting to see: Its conclusion only shows EARLY STAGE INTENSE ROMANTIC LOVE or also could be "people's INFATUATION and FANTASY"! i.e. The conclusion of this paper can not be applied to any serious dating method.

and
"STATED VERSUS REVEALED MATE PREFERENCES" Working Paper
http://www.psych.upenn.edu/PLEEP/pdfs/Unpublished%20Manuscript%20Kurzban%20&%20Weeden%202005.pdf

At page 15 " WHEN PARTICIPANTS APPROACH THE SPEED DATING WORLD, THEY DO SO IN THE CONTEXT OF A LONG_TERM MATING PSYCHOLOGY that is consistent with that found in prior studies on stated mate preferences. This long_term mating psychology influences not just decisions to advertise preferences, but also decisions to attend particular events. Up to the point at which the participants walk through the door, we have every reason to believe that they are driven by a typically reported long_term mate selection psychology. ONCE THEY ARE IN THE MIDST OF THE EVENT, however, we have every reason to believe that PARTICIPANTS NO LONGER BEHAVE CONSISTENTLY WITH THEIR LONG_TERM MATE PSYCHOLOGY BUT INSTEAD SHIFT TO A SHORT_TERM MATE PSYCHOLOGY, WHERE PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS DOMINATES, where sex differences are minimal (other than sex differences in the criteria that determine physical attractiveness), and where niche_based or assortative concerns no longer matter much."

9) "THE NEURAL MECHANISMS OF MATE CHOICE: A Hypothesis", written by Helen Fisher et al (which it seems to be one of the papers that substantiates the matching method at Chemistry.com) can be seen at
http://homepage.mac.com/helenfisher/matechoice.html

and
the poster "EARLY STAGE INTENSE ROMANTIC LOVE ACTIVATES CORTICAL-BASAL-GANGLIA REWARD/MOTIVATION, EMOTION AND ATTENTION SYSTEMS: AN fMRI STUDY OF A DYNAMIC NETWORK THAT VARIES WITH RELATIONSHIP LENGTH, PASSION INTENSITY AND GENDER. (2003)"
http://homepage.mac.com/helenfisher/images/Poster.jpg

10) Also the THESIS http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~atf/thesis_mit/
"ROMANTIC REGRESSIONS An Analysis of Behavior in Online Dating Systems"
"Findings: Users opted for sameness more often than chance would predict in all the characteristics examined in this section. This concurs with the overwhelming evidence gathered by relationship researchers (see surveys in Brehm et al. 2002, Fisher 1992) that actual similarity and perceived similarity in demographics, attitudes, values, and
attractiveness correlate with attraction (and, later, relationship satisfaction). However, users demonstrate this homophily to differing degrees for different characteristics." can be read at page 47.

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

http://www.bidnetwork.org/artefact-50155-en.html

FernandoArdenghi · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:30 am Post subject: QUANTITATIVE METHODS

Here are some papers about: METHODOLOGICAL AND DATA ANALYTIC ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS == QUANTITATIVE METHODS USED TO EVALUATE ATTRIBUTES AND TO COMPARE BETWEEN PERSONS.
(If you plan to innovate in the OnLine Dating & Social Networking Industry, these papers are all a "must read")

"A discussion by Gable and Reis concerning the importance of studying relationship phenomena using within_person methodologies in addition to the between_person methods that are commonly employed in relationships research today. Within_person methods involve sampling observations from an individual across multiple contexts, across multiple relationship partners, and/or across time. In addition to enumerating the benefits of such research, the authors also present a thoughtful discussion of the challenges that it involves. Finally, they examine data analytic approaches appropriate to analyzing data derived from this research paradigm."
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00201.x

"NOW AND THEN, THEM AND US, THIS AND THAT: STUDYING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS TIME, PARTNER, CONTEXT, AND PERSON.
Abstract: Personal relationships are frequently studied using methods and analyses that reflect an interest in relationships as between_persons phenomena. Although informative, there is much to be learned from examining relational phenomena from a within_persons perspective. The present article reviews the application of within_persons approaches to both the conceptualization and investigation of relational phenomena. The benefits of studying variation in psychologically meaningful constructs across multiple relationships, across different contexts within a relationship, and across time are outlined. Moreover, combinations of between_persons and within_persons strategies that can examine how relational, contextual, and temporal variation differs across people are discussed. Methodological and statistical considerations important to such designs are also outlined, and their limitations are discussed."

------

"Haslam addresses issues involved in creating taxonomies of relationships, adapting methods that have been more commonly used in the fields of psychopathology, personality psychology, and behavior genetics. These taxometric methods are techniques that test between discrete and continuous models of latent variables. Arguing that these methods have great potential for the relationships field, Haslam describes three statistical techniques used to test the usefulness of taxonomies and to create new ones. A detailed example is employed to walk readers through the process of developing and testing taxonomies."
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00207.x

" TAXOMETRIC AND RELATED METHODS IN RELATIONSHIPS RESEARCH.
Abstract: Research on personal relationships inescapably uses taxonomies for classifying people, relationships, and interpersonal processes and events, and often develops new ones. However, constructing a good taxonomy is no simple matter. Many existing classification methods have serious weaknesses, and they carry the risk of drawing taxonomic distinctions that are spurious. In addition, researchers frequently make unwarranted assumptions about the nature of the taxonomic categories that they employ in their work. This article introduces a family of quantitative methods for testing and generating taxonomies. Although they have seen little use to date outside of psychopathology, personality psychology, and behavioral genetics, these methods are versatile and readily adapted to the domain of personal relationships, where they offer many research possibilities. Three of the methods are illustrated in a study of elementary forms of relationships."

At page 522 " … The two taxometric procedures to be discussed are called the MAXCOV (maximum covariance) and MAMBAC (means above minus below a cut) procedures. These are the two procedures that have been most widely used in taxometric research to date. Both procedures require the use of several “indicators” of the conjectured latent variable. These indicators can be any measures that are associated with this variable, such as personality scales, item ratings, physiological measurements, and so on. …."

At page 523 "…. Admixture or commingling analysis (the terms are essentially interchangeable) is an alternative way to detect categories, and to test between discrete and continuous models of latent variables. …."

At page 525 "The three quantitative methods described above will be illustrated in a study of a theory of elementary forms of relationship developed by Alan Fiske (1991). The theory proposes four cognitive models in terms of which relationships are represented, comprehended, evaluated, and constructed. The Communal Sharing model organizes relationships in terms of collective belonging or solidarity. Members of an in_group are treated as equivalent elements of a bounded set, and consequently individual distinctiveness is ignored. By contrast, the Authority Ranking model organizes relationships in asymmetrical terms. Parties to relationships governed by this model are hierarchically ordered, with higher_ranked individuals authorized to command, protect, dominate, and precede, and lower ranked individuals expected to defer, obey, and show loyalty and respect. The Equality Matching model organizes relationships with reference to their degree of balance or imbalance; it is manifested most distinctly in turn_taking, reci p r ocity, distributions of equal shares, democratic voting, and tit_for_tat retaliation. The Market Pricing model, finally, organizes relationships with reference to a common scale of ratio values such as money. Emphasis is on proportions; earning a wage based on hours worked, getting a good return on an investment of effort, or efficient use of time; and social transactions are reckoned as rational calculations of cost and benefit"

At page 533 " In conclusion, taxometric and admixture procedures offer the interested researcher some accessible quantitative methods for investigating fundamental questions in the study of personal relationships. Their versatility and promise have yet to be exploited in this domain, although they are increasingly appreciated in others, and they offer relationship researchers a chance to make innovative contributions."

------

"Griffin, Murray, and Gonzalez discuss the common practice in relationships research of computing difference or discrepancy scores to represent SIMILARITY OR DISSIMILARITY BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS. Although difference scores and their variants have great intuitive appeal, such scores involve numerous pitfalls when they are used in correlational research. In this article, the authors review the problems associated with difference score correlations using a descriptive and graphical approach rather than relying on formulas. They also describe three data analytic techniques that can be used as alternatives to difference score correlations."
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00206.x

" DIFFERENCE SCORE CORRELATIONS IN RELATIONSHIP RESEARCH: A CONCEPTUAL PRIMER.
Abstract: The practice of computing correlations between difference or discrepancy scores and an outcome variable is common in many areas of social science. Relationship researchers most commonly use difference scores to index the (dis)similarity of members of two_person relationships. Using an intuitive, graphical approach and avoiding formulas and pointing fingers, we illustrate problems with using difference score correlations in relationship research, suggest ways to ensure that difference score correlations are maximally informative, and briefly review alternatives to difference score correlations in studying similarity, accuracy, and related constructs."

------

"Gonzalez and Griffin also focus their attention on INTERDEPENDENT DYADIC DATA. Their article spotlights two ways of modeling correlations between couple members when the DYAD MEMBERS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. First they discuss estimation of the overall WITHIN_PARTNER correlation (which is analogous to Kenny and Cook’s actor effect) and the overall CROSS_PARTNER correlation (analogous to the partner effect) using both a PAIRWISE APPROACH and a STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING APPROACH. They then describe how these overall correlations can be decomposed into dyad_level effects and individual_level effects. The dyad_level effects address whether dyad members are similar to one another on two variables, and whether the degree of similarity between dyad members on one variable relates to the degree of similarity between them on the second variable. The individual_level correlation addresses whether, after taking into account the dyad’s standing on the two variables, an individual’s score on one variable relates to that person’s score on the second variable."
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00203.x

" THE CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS OF DYAD_LEVEL DATA IN THE DISTINGUISHABLE CASE.
Abstract: Many theories of interpersonal relationships distinguish between individual_level processes and dyadic or group_level processes. This suggests that two_person relationships should be studied at the level of the dyad as well as at the level of the individual. We discuss correlational methods for dyads when each dyad contains two different types of individuals (e.g., a husband and wife, a mother and child, or an expert and a novice). In such dyadic interaction designs, the dyad members are said to be distinguishable. We present a method for computing the OVERALL CORRELATION FOR DISTINGUISHABLE DYADS, and we discuss a model for separating the dyad_level and individual_level components of such a correlation. The computational techniques and their interpretation are described using data from 98 heterosexual couples."

------

"Kenny and Cook present a detailed discussion of partner effects in dyadic research. Partner effects are one way of conceptualizing the interdependence that exists within dyads in that they occur when the characteristics of an individual affect the outcomes of his or her relationship partner. For example, not only may a person’s attachment style affect his or her own relationship satisfaction (an actor effect) but that person’s attachment style may also affect his or her partner’s satisfaction (a partner effect). These investigators describe FOUR MODELS IN WHICH ACTOR AND PARTNER EFFECTS MAY PLAY DIFFERING ROLES IN DYADIC RELATIONSHIPS, and they also discuss how these two effects may interact with one another. After discussing partner effects at a conceptual level, the authors present an overview of several methods that can be used to estimate partner effects in dyadic research, giving considerable attention to the use of MULTILEVEL MODELING AS AN ESTIMATION METHOD."

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00202.x

" PARTNER EFFECTS IN RELATIONSHIP RESEARCH: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES, ANALYTIC DIFFICULTIES, AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
Abstract: This article discusses the conceptual meaning of partner effects, which occur when one person is affected by the behavior or characteristics of his or her partner. We show that partner effects can be used to validate the presence of a relationship and can elaborate the particular nature of that relationship. We discuss possible moderation of partner effects and show that many theoretical variables in relationship research (e.g. SIMILARITY) can be viewed as the interactions of partner effects with other variables. We present three extended examples that illustrate the importance of partner effects."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Another quantitative method used to evaluate attributes and to compare between persons is the Rasch Model.

More info could be seen at Institute for Objective Measurement, Inc.
http://www.rasch.org/
http://www.rasch.org/memos.htm
http://www.rasch.org/rmt/index.htm
http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt193.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

FernandoArdenghi

I strongly agree with the paper "Do Online Matchmaking Tests Work? An Assessment of Preliminary Evidence for a Publicized Predictive Model of Marital Success" North American Journal of Psychology, 2004, Vol. 6, pp. 507-526, that says at page#15 "....development and validation of online compatibility testing; and disclosing those findings for public and academic scrutiny without divulging proprietary information.... " although I think Rasch scaling methodologies could be the correct way to MEASURE but not the correct way to COMPARE results between prospective romantic mates.

Dr. Marcel Zentner had previously said "the history of testing similarity as a predictor of relationship outcomes is not a happy one. Clearly, even though similarity can sometimes do reasonable job, something is missing in the similarity model." I replied: Because many Research Psychologists are using Kenny's equations & Griffin, Murray & Gonzalez's equations and not others, like the ones I had invented.

AND

As the paper "METHODOLOGICAL AND DATA ANALYTIC ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE"
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00200.x

At page 413 says: "It is vital for the study of personal relationships, as for any scientific discipline, to develop methodologies that are specifically designed to address the questions posed by the discipline. The articles in this special issue represent an effort in that direction. Perhaps equally important is the need for individuals who are involved in relationships study to learn these new techniques and to apply them in their research. It is also important for investigators to challenge statisticians to create new analytic techniques when existing ones are inadequate. These tasks are left to you, the reader."

DYADIC COMPARISON // new method to evaluate // new type of equations
The concept of COMPATIBILITY does not make sense by itself, but the concept: PROBABILITY OF BEING COMPATIBLE could be measured with high precision using well-known personality tests, and applied in a predictive model of Dyadic Success: Stability and Satisfaction.
(I applied the method I had invented to 16PF5 test in first instance, but the method does not depend only on 16PF5 tests' results, could be used also with the IPIP-NEO test.)

Dyadic comparison between person #X and person #Y is given from the following formula, derived / adapted from an advanced math equation
<#X| means client #X's 16PF5 Report
|#Y> means client #Y's 16PF5 Report
|CQ| means Comparison Operator

<#X|CQ|#Y> means the Comparison between client #X and client #Y

<#X|CQ|#Y> == K01<AX|CQ|AY> + K02<BX|CQ|BY> + K03<CX|CQ|CY> + K04<EX|CQ|EY> + K05<FX|CQ|FY> + K06<GX|CQ|GY> + K07<HX|CQ|HY> + K08<IX|CQ|IY> + K09<LX|CQ|LY> + K10<MX|CQ|MY> + K11<NX|CQ|NY> + K12<OX|CQ|OY> + K13<Q1X|CQ|Q1Y> + K14<Q2X|CQ|Q2Y> + K15<Q3X|CQ|Q3Y> + K16<Q4X|CQ|Q4Y> == PROBABILITY OF BEING COMPATIBLE
(A) Warmth; (B) Reasoning; (C) Emotional Stability; (E) Liveliness; (G) RuleConsciousness; (H) Social Boldness; (I) Sensitivity; (L) Vigilance; (M) Abstractedness; (N) Privateness (O) Apprehension; (Q1) Openness to Change; (Q2) SelfReliance; (Q3) Perfectionism; (Q4) Tension. 16 independent variables that take integer values from 1 to 10

With K01 + K02 + K03 + K04 + K05 + K06 + K07 + K08 + K09 + K10 + K11 + K12 + K13 + K14 + K15 + K16 == 1 or 100%
K01 <> K02 <> K03 <> K04 <> K05 <> K06 <> K07 <> K08 <> K09 <> K10 <> K11 <> K12 <> K13 <> K14 <> K15 <> K16 means not necessarily all the same
<A|CQ|B> == <A|CQ|C> == <A|CQ|E> == ..... == <A|CQ|Q4> == 0
<B|CQ|A> == <B|CQ|C> == <B|CQ|E> == ..... == <B|CQ|Q4> == 0
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
<Q4|CQ|A> == <Q4|CQ|B> == <Q4|CQ|C> == ..... == <Q4|CQ|Q3> == 0

and

<1|CQ|1>
<1|CQ|2> == <2|CQ|1>
<1|CQ|3> == <3|CQ|1>
<1|CQ|4> == <4|CQ|1>
<1|CQ|5> == <5|CQ|1>
<1|CQ|6> == <6|CQ|1>
<1|CQ|7> == <7|CQ|1>
<1|CQ|8> == <8|CQ|1>
<1|CQ|9> == <9|CQ|1>
<1|CQ|10> == <10|CQ|1>

<2|CQ|1> == <1|CQ|2>
<2|CQ|2>
<2|CQ|3> == <3|CQ|2>
<2|CQ|4> == <4|CQ|2>
<2|CQ|5> == <5|CQ|2>
<2|CQ|6> == <6|CQ|2>
<2|CQ|7> == <7|CQ|2>
<2|CQ|8> == <8|CQ|2>
<2|CQ|9> == <9|CQ|2>
<2|CQ|10> == <10|CQ|2>
………………………………………………
………………………………………………

<10|CQ|1> == <1|CQ|10>
<10|CQ|2> == <2|CQ|10>
<10|CQ|3> == <3|CQ|10>
<10|CQ|4> == <4|CQ|10>
<10|CQ|5> == <5|CQ|10>
<10|CQ|6> == <6|CQ|10>
<10|CQ|7> == <7|CQ|10>
<10|CQ|8> == <8|CQ|10>
<10|CQ|9> == <9|CQ|10>
<10|CQ|10>

(all real values of the complete base were derived by Fernando Ardenghi)

Serious OnLine Dating Sites and their Big Databases are NEW sources for scientific research. New Knowledge is waiting to be discovered inside these Big Databases!!! Sooner I will research in a collaborative environment and try to prove these possible FUTURE TRENDS / NEW DISCOVERIES on Theories of Romantic Relationships Development.

• Homophily dominates human attraction but "It seems that what is important in attracting people to one another may not be important in making couples happy." Also conclusions from scientific papers obtained using small samples (small scale of researching) seems to not be valid with real world (large scale of researching), e.g. Big Databases of (actual and future/to_be_launched_soon) Serious OnLine Dating Sites == big samples == more than 100,000 persons involved.

• Temporal patterns of relationship variables: combination of physique, personality, intelligence, social background, attitudes, habits and leisure preferences may indeed play a significant role between mates / prospective mates:
Early stage of temporal patterns: a combination of high level of infatuation, fantasy, passion, physical attraction between prospective mates.
Middle stage of temporal patterns: a considerable degree of similarity on social background, attitudes, habits and leisure preferences between mates.
Last stage of temporal patterns: If only high level on personality similarity between mates / couples could be the core of relationship stability and satisfaction == Dyadic Success.

• Complex mental processes (successful relationships based on a mental set arrangement) could be only exceptions for "couples by convenience" and not for "romantic couples" i.e. old rich man with young pretty lady.

• Longitudinal approach will be "a must" in any research, and cross-sectional research must be discarded because does not take into account temporal patterns of relationship variables.

• Big-5 (like N, E, O, A, C; Costa & McCrae) will not be enough any more to evaluate Couple Similarity between prospective mates; and the complete inventory, 16PF5 test or similar like IPIP-NEO, must be used.

Here an example

PERSONALITY PATTERN
Client #01 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:6.B:7.C:6.E:8.F:9.G:6.H:7.I:7.L:8.M:7.N:2.O:5.Q1:8.Q2:7.Q3:3.Q4:4
Client #02 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:5.B:7.C:4.E:8.F:7.G:4.H:5.I:6.L:4.M:6.N:8.O:9.Q1:6.Q2:8.Q3:4.Q4:4
Client #03 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:2.B:5.C:4.E:6.F:3.G:8.H:7.I:6.L:3.M:9.N:9.O:8.Q1:2.Q2:5.Q3:5.Q4:6
Client #04 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:7.B:7.C:6.E:8.F:8.G:7.H:6.I:5.L:8.M:7.N:4.O:5.Q1:7.Q2:7.Q3:3.Q4:4
Client #05 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:4.B:9.C:5.E:4.F:1.G:3.H:4.I:9.L:7.M:8.N:7.O:5.Q1:6.Q2:7.Q3:9.Q4:10
Client #06 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:8.B:6.C:3.E:5.F:2.G:9.H:6.I:9.L:3.M:6.N:7.O:5.Q1:5.Q2:7.Q3:7.Q4:4
Client #07 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:5.B:7.C:6.E:4.F:6.G:7.H:3.I:5.L:8.M:5.N:4.O:6.Q1:7.Q2:1.Q3:6.Q4:6
Client #08 ---- 16PF5 Profile A:9.B:8.C:5.E:7.F:5.G:6.H:8.I:2.L:6.M:4.N:8.O:7.Q1:6.Q2:5.Q3:5.Q4:9

Comparison data base for 8 clients, needs [8 * (8-1)] / 2 = 28 comparisons

<#01|CQ|#02> == K01 <6|CQ|5> + K02 <7|CQ|7> + K03 <6|CQ|4> + K04 <8|CQ|8> + K05 <9|CQ|7> + K06 <6|CQ|4> + K07 <7|CQ|5> + K08 <7|CQ|6> + K09 <8|CQ|4> + K10 <7|CQ|6> + K11 <2|CQ|8> + K12 <5|CQ|9> + K13 <8|CQ|6> + K14 <7|CQ|8> + K15 <3|CQ|4> + K16 <4|CQ|4> == 74.79865772% PROBABILITY OF BEING COMPATIBLE

<#02|CQ|#01> == <#01|CQ|#02> == 74.79865772%

and so on for the rest (27 comparisons)

<#01|CQ|#02> == #01 to #02 == 74.79865772%
// #02 to #01 == 74.79865772%
#01 to #03 == 54.09395973% // #02 to #03 == 63.59060403%
#01 to #04 == 92.55033557% // #02 to #04 == 75.26845638%
#01 to #05 == 57.71812081% // #02 to #05 == 61.00671141%
#01 to #06 == 59.73154362% // #02 to #06 == 65.90604027%
#01 to #07 == 68.99328859% // #02 to #07 == 64.49664430%
#01 to #08 == 62.75167785% // #02 to #08 == 66.34228188%

#03 to #01 == 54.09395973% // #04 to #01 == 92.55033557%
#03 to #02 == 63.59060403% // #04 to #02 == 75.26845638%
#03 to #04 == 54.89932886% // #04 to #03 == 54.89932886%
#03 to #05 == 49.49664430% // #04 to #05 == 56.54362416%
#03 to #06 == 67.34899329% // #04 to #06 == 64.42953020%
#03 to #07 == 53.99328859% // #04 to #07 == 73.32214765%
#03 to #08 == 61.20805369% // #04 to #08 == 66.54362416%

#05 to #01 == 57.71812081% // #06 to #01 == 59.73154362%
#05 to #02 == 61.00671141% // #06 to #02 == 65.90604027%
#05 to #03 == 49.49664430% // #06 to #03 == 67.34899329%
#05 to #04 == 56.54362416% // #06 to #04 == 64.42953020%
#05 to #06 == 62.18120805% // #06 to #05 == 62.18120805%
#05 to #07 == 62.98657718% // #06 to #07 == 57.85234899%
#05 to #08 == 59.02684564% // #06 to #08 == 60.43624161%

#07 to #01 == 68.99328859% // #08 to #01 == 62.75167785%
#07 to #02 == 64.49664430% // #08 to #02 == 66.34228188%
#07 to #03 == 53.99328859% // #08 to #03 == 61.20805369%
#07 to #04 == 73.32214765% // #08 to #04 == 66.54362416%
#07 to #05 == 62.98657718% // #08 to #05 == 59.02684564%
#07 to #06 == 57.85234899% // #08 to #06 == 60.43624161%
#07 to #08 == 61.87919463% // #08 to #07 == 61.87919463%

What is Dyadic Success? Stability and Satisfaction; i.e. perhaps PROBABILITY OF BEING COMPATIBLE over 90.00000000% (means a combination of similar / dissimilar Personality Traits)

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

FernandoArdenghi

Here are more papers to read and analyze with care

"Helping Singles Enter Better Marriages Using Predictive Models of Marital Success"
Presented at the 16th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, May 2004

Abstract: 50 years since the seminal research of Burgess and Wallin (1953) concluded that "the prediction of success or failure in marriage now rests on a solid scientific basis," the divorce rate in America hovers between 50 and 75% (Kreider and Fields, 2002). The current research suggests that insufficient efforts have been made to create models that predict relationship quality within marrieds that can be applied to singles. A model of compatibility which can be generalized to singles is presented, along with data from a recent study of 1374 married couples.
This study compares marital satisfaction and adjustment of 273 recently married couples who were introduced as singles by an online service using predictive models based on an earlier pilot study, and 1101 recently married couples recruited online. We conclude that key elements of compatibility exist which can be successfully used to create more successful marriages by influencing the decision_making processes of singles.

http://static.eharmony.com/images/eHarmony-APS-handout.pdf

"Do Online Matchmaking Tests Work? An Assessment of Preliminary Evidence for a Publicized Predictive Model of Marital Success"
North American Journal of Psychology, 2004, Vol. 6, pp. 507-526

Abstract:
Acceptance of online matchmaking as a culturally legitimate approach to mate selection; and consumer spending on these services; continues to rise. However, online matchmakers' escalating claims that their services derive from scientific methods remain questionable because solid empirical evidence for such claims is rarely offered. Unfortunately, even when available, the quality of such evidence leaves much to be desired due to conceptual as well as technical problems. Such issues are illustrated here by a detailed analysis of an instructive case study of an attempt to validate aspects of the commercial eHarmony.com dating service. Apart from identifying serious logical flaws that invalidate the case study's conclusions, additional shortcomings are identified related to the involved variables, research design, and sampling biases. Because such issues almost certainly play a role in online dating and related research, the paper concludes with a discussion of modern test construction approaches derived from Item Response Theory, and Rasch scaling in particular, that can be used to identify and sometimes correct many of the problems described here. Online dating services must solve many of the problems outlined here to remain a viable and acceptable area of practice and research."

----------------------------------------------

"Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Loneliness in Adults: The Netherlands Twin Register Study"
http://psychology.uchicago.edu/people/faculty/cacioppo/jtcreprints/bwdhc05.pdf
20 May 2005

Abstract:
Heritability estimates based on two small studies in children indicate that the genetic contribution to individual differences in loneliness is approximately 50%. Heritability estimates of complex traits such as loneliness may change across the lifespan, however, as the frequency, duration, and range of exposure to environmental influences accrues, or as the expression of genetic factors changes. We examined data on loneliness from 8387 young adult and adult Dutch twins who had participated in longitudinal survey studies. A measure of loneliness was developed based on factor analyses of items of the YASR (Achenbach, (1990) The Young Adult Self Report, University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry, Burlington, VT). Variation in loneliness was analyzed with genetic structural equation models. The estimate of genetic contributions to variation in loneliness in adults was 48%, which is similar to the heritability estimates found previously in children. There was no evidence for sex or age differences in genetic architecture. Sex differences in prevalence were significant, but we did not see an association with age or birth cohort. All resemblance between twin relatives was explained by shared genes, without any suggestion of a contribution of shared environmental factors.

----------------------------------------------

"Partner similarity and relationship satisfaction: development of a compatibility quotient".
Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18, 161-170.
On pages 162&163 can be read: "Each of the 25 questions in the Compatibility Indicator was scored on a 0,1,2,3,4 scale, according to the degree of difference between the couple's responses (ignoring the direction of the difference). These scores were summed across items to produce total discrepancy scores (out of 100). These raw scores were then converted to "compatibility quotients" (CQs), aiming towards a mean of 100, and an standard deviation (s.d.) of 15. The idea was that such a transformation would benefit from widespread familiarity with the Intelligence Quotient IQ distribution. As with the IQ, scores above 100 represent higher than average compatibility and those below 100 are lower than average, with a working range of around 70 to 145.
The CQ scoring procedure was developed as follows: A random sample of 2,159 adults (18 years plus; 1,234 men and 925 women), representing all UK individuals who had completed the Compatibility Indicator online as entry to membership of a dating site, was scored for all male/female pairings. This provided a sample of 1.14 million discrepancy scores, averaging 23.58 (s.d. 5.79). Raw "discrepancy" (D) scores were then transformed using the empirically derived formula of CQ = 172 – (3 x D) to yield a mean of 101.32 (s.d. 17.05). Given the limits on the representativeness of our sample, this was considered sufficiently close to our target distribution not to choose any more complex formula, although we later decided to set a "floor" to the CQ at a score of 28 (equivalent to the natural ceiling of 172, the level at which responses of the two members of a pair are identical to all 25 questions)."

The compatibility result between prospective mates is only a 3 figure integer number. The matching equation is as simple as C.Q. == 172 – (3 x D)!!!

----------------------------------------------

"PATTERNS AND UNIVERSALS OF ADULT ROMANTIC ATTACHMENT ACROSS 62 CULTURAL REGIONS Are Models of Self and of Other Pancultural Constructs?"
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 35 No. 4, July 2004 367-402
http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/4/367

Abstract:
As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, a total of 17804 participants from 62 cultural regions completed the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ), a selfreportmeasure of adult romantic attachment. Correlational analyses within each culture suggested that the Model of Self and the Model of Other scales of the RQ were psychometrically valid within most cultures.
Contrary to expectations, the Model of Self and the Model of Other dimensions of the RQ did not underlie the four_category model of attachment in the same way across all cultures. Analyses of specific attachment styles revealed that secure romantic attachment was normative in 79% of cultures and that preoccupied romantic attachment was particularly prevalent in East Asian cultures. Finally, the romantic attachment profiles of individual nations were correlated with sociocultural indicators in ways that supported evolutionary theories of romantic attachment and basic human mating strategies.

"PERSONALITY IMPLICATIONS OF ROMANTIC ATTACHMENT PATTERNS IN YOUNG ADULTS: A MULTI-METHOD, MULTI-INFORMANT STUDY"
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 9, 1097-1110 (2001)
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/9/1097

Abstract:
A prototype_matching approach was employed to assess romantic attachment in young adults. The 48_item Hazan and Shaver's Experiences in Close Relationships inventory was configured, via prototype definitions, to capture core themes of four romantic attachment patterns: secure, preoccupied, dismissing, and fearful. The personality attributes associated with each attachment pattern were evaluated by referencing both observer evaluations and selfreport correlates. The observer evaluations of the individuals matching the secure, preoccupied, and fearful prototypes were mostly congruent with their selfperceptions, whereas somewhat greater discrepancy emerged for individuals matching the dismissing prototype. The discussion focused on differences in the personality functioning associated with different romantic attachment patterns, the prototype_matching method, the importance of including both observer and selfreport data in the validation of selfreport measures, and the relative advantages of selfreport versus interview methodologies in studying attachment.

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

FernandoArdenghi · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:06 am Post subject: Other papers of great interest!!!

Other papers of great interest!!!

"Psychopathology and Marital Satisfaction: The Importance of Evaluating Both Partners"
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/ccp725830.pdf

Abstract
"Using path analysis and hierarchical linear modeling, the authors evaluated the associations between both partners' level of depression and anxiety, as measured by Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 (MMPI_2) content scales, and both partners' level of marital satisfaction among married couples (N=774) that participated in the MMPI restandardization study.
Results indicated that marital satisfaction was predicted by the person's own level of anxiety and depression (i.e., actor effects) and by his or her spouse's level of depression only (i.e., partner effects). Findings also indicated that (a) there were no significant gender differences in the magnitude of effects, (b) depression effects were significantly stronger than anxiety effects, (c) actor effects were significantly stronger than partner effects, and (d) there were interactions between actor and partner effects for depression only."

At page 836 "..........Specifically, studies that have attempted to identify reasons for this association have failed to provide supporting evidence for hypothesized explanations for partner homogamy, including similarity in personality traits (Dubuis-Stadelmann et al.,2001) or sociodemographic similarity (Dubuis-Stadelmann et al.,2001; Galbaud du Fort et al., 1994; Maes et al., 1998). Therefore, future research is needed to enhance understanding of the reasons for partner similarity in symptomatology.
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
Furthermore, longitudinal research is needed not only to establish the prospective associations between measures of psychopathology and marital satisfaction but also to identify the specific causal processes or pathways by which the two constructs are related. For example, it may be that the depression has a negative impact on communication, which in turn negatively impacts marital satisfaction. The current findings, however, suggest that measurement of both members of a couple is needed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the associations between psychopathology and couple satisfaction. If researchers collect these data and use statistical techniques designed to handle couple_level data, future research will be greatly enhanced.
"

- - - - - - - - - - -

"Seventy years of research on personality and close relationships: Substantive and methodological trends over time"
Journal of Personality, 70, 783-812.

Abstract

"The present review is based on a quantitative analysis of the abstracts for 477 studies published since 1932 on the topic of personality and close (romantic) relationships. This approach enables a bird's_eye view of the content and methods that have characterized research in this area and an examination of publication trends over time. Results showed that 60% of all published studies in this area relied exclusively on cross_sectional and self_report methods; that nearly all used convenience samples, though more than half used nonstudent samples; and that more than one_third relied exclusively on data from individuals rather than couples. Few studies appeared to include elaborated networks of constructs in either the personality or relationship domain or to attempt to integrate an elaborated model of personality with an elaborated relationship model. Examination of trends over time revealed a mixed picture, with increasing use of the least informative designs balanced by evidence of increasingly complex conceptual models."

At page 806 "The content of research on personality and close relationships is considerable more flexible than its methodology ..... On the relationship side, nearly half of all studies examined global relationship satisfaction, 1/4 relationship status and stability, and 1/4 homogamy or assortative mating on personality. .... "
- - - - - - - - - - -

"Two Personalities, One Relationship: Both Partners' Personality Traits Shape the Quality of Their Relationship"
http://psyweb2.ucdavis.edu/experimetrix/robins.pdf

Abstract

"This research tested 6 models of the independent and interactive effects of stable personality traits on each partner's reports of relationship satisfaction and quality. Both members of 360 couples (N = 720) completed the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire and were interviewed about their relationship. Findings show that a woman's relationship happiness is predicted by her partner's low Negative Emotionality, high Positive Emotionality, and high Constraint, whereas a man's relationship happiness is predicted only by his partner's low Negative Emotionality. Findings also show evidence of additive but not interactive effects: Each partner's personality contributed independently to relationship outcomes but not in a synergistic way. These results are discussed in relation to models that seek to integrate research on individual differences in personality traits with research on interpersonal processes in intimate relationships."

At page 252 " The sixth model (similarity) predicts that greater similarity between partners will be associated with higher levels of relationship satisfaction and quality (e.g., Eysenck & Wakefield, 1981). In this case, it is not the particular traits characterizing each partner that influence relationship outcomes, but rather it is how much the couple members resemble each other on those traits that matters most."

At page 256 "Are Similar Couples Happy Couples?
Is the degree of personality similarity between partners associated with relationship satisfaction and quality? We calculated a d^2 index of personality similarity (which is the sum of the squared deviations between the two profiles) across all 10 primary scales, across the 3 superfactors, and across the primary scales defining each superfactor, and then correlated these 5 profile similarity indexes with male and female ratings of relationship satisfaction and quality.
The findings show that men tend to be happier in relationships when they are similar to their partners (see Table 2). This effect is due primarily to similarity on the Negative Emotionality scales, although the correlations for the other two superfactors are in the same direction. For women, the correlations were weaker and less consistent, but the one significant effect also pointed toward a positive relation between similarity and relationship satisfaction."

Toby · Joined: 07 Feb 2006 Posts: 9

this is way too much information!

FernandoArdenghi · Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject: Synthetic Validity

The paper: "From the Work One Knows the Worker: A Systematic Review of the Challenges, Solutions, and Steps to Creating Synthetic Validity"
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT VOLUME 14 NUMBER 1 MARCH 2006
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/ijsa/2006/00000014/00000001/art00002

"Abstract: Synthetic validity has been promised as the future for selection, providing an inexpensive, fast, high_quality, legally defensible, and easily administered process. Despite 50 years of development, this promise has yet to be realized. However, recent advances in areas such as validity generalization indicate that synthetic validity is technically feasible and practically achievable. Consolidating new and previous work carried out on two synthetic validity strategies, the job_requirement matrix and job component validity, we review the methodological steps
required to build them and provide working examples. Although the resources required for full realization of synthetic validity are large, similar, although larger, projects have been undertaken in the past and in the present, and there is increasing infrastructure to facilitate them in the future."

Comments at

http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2006/03/synthetic_validity_a_match_for_online_dating/

Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

FernandoArdenghi · Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 7:46 pm Post subject: Another interesting paper

Another interesting paper

"Self_Presentation in Online Personals

The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self_Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating

http://www.msu.edu/~nellison/Gibbs_Ellison_Heino_2006.pdf

Abstract:
This study investigates self_disclosure in the novel context of online dating relationships. Using a national random sample of Match.com members (N = 349), the authors tested a model of relational goals, self_disclosure, and perceived success in online dating. The authors' findings provide support for social penetration theory and the social information processing and hyperpersonal perspectives as well as highlight the positive effect of anticipated future face_to_face interaction on online self_disclosure. The authors find that perceived online dating success is predicted by four dimensions of self_disclosure (honesty, amount, intent, and valence), although honesty has a negative effect. Furthermore, online dating experience is a strong predictor of perceived success in online dating. Additionally, the authors identify predictors of strategic success versus self_presentation success. This research extends existing theory on computer_mediated communication, self_disclosure, and relational success to the increasingly important arena of mixed_mode relationships, in which participants move from mediated to face_to_face communication.
"

at page 18, "....individuals with long_term goals of establishing FacetoFace relationships engage in higher levels of self_disclosure in that they are more honest, disclose more personal information, and make more conscious and intentional disclosures to others online."
.......
".........most surprising finding is the negative effect of honesty on success (particularly in self_presentation). Whereas greater amounts of self_disclosure as well as more intentional and positive self_disclosure lead to greater success for one or both of the dimensions, greater honesty appears to have a detrimental effect. Although the negative effect of honesty on strategic success is nonsignificant, its negative effect on self_presentation success is significant. One explanation is that those who are less honest may feel they have made a more favorable impression on others through online dating because they are probably not revealing flaws or negative characteristics that could turn off potential dating partners and may be outright lying about characteristics such as age, weight and physical appearance, or income. This explanation fits with the view of the Internet as a medium for identity manipulation ........."

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

Toby · Joined: 07 Feb 2006 Posts: 9

I am not sure what all this information means...........sounds like you've lost us all on this one.

FernandoArdenghi

There is also a collection of papers trying to explain marriage as an economic function (as a complex mental process).
They propose: a marriage can be predicted using mainly Gale_Shapley algorithm, General Equilibrium Theory and Non_cooperative Game Theory.

Main weak point: They do not take into account temporal patterns of romantic relationship development nor personality traits.

Here are the links!

http://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf
"What Makes You Click? — Mate Preferences and Matching Outcomes in Online Dating"

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ghitsch/Hitsch-Research/Guenter_Hitsch_files/Online-Matching-Sorting.pdf
"Matching and Sorting in Online Dating"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem
The Gale-Shapley algorithm is not good enough to solve the stable marriage problem because is based on initial preferences (attraction, fantasies, infatuation) and does not take into account temporal patterns of relationship variables.

http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/siow/papers/who_marries_whom.pdf

"Who Marries Whom and Why"

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~eugechoo/Papers/Draft5.pdf
"Lifecycle marriage matching: Theory and evidence"

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/SSPapers/wp1252.pdf
"WHAT MATCHINGS CAN BE STABLE? THE REFUTABILITY OF MATCHING THEORY"

http://www.albany.edu/economics/Research/fall06/1009.pdf
"Equilibrium matching with ageing and uncertain careers: who marries whom and when?"

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

Toby · Joined: 07 Feb 2006 Posts: 9

I think there is a major floor in those calculations, of:

Main weak point: - women and men are very different and cannot be slotted into %'s, coding, formulas. They can be the topic of many scientific papers but these are usuall better summed up and discussed over many late night beers.

Love, chemistry and attraction are not formula's.

Topic closed.

FernandoArdenghi

Social Structure and Personality Assortment Among Married Couples
June 6, 2006
http://www.fss.uu.nl/soc/homes/bekkers/similarity.pdf

"Abstract
We study the influence of social structure on assortative mating for personality in a large national sample (n=3616) of married and cohabitating couples in the Netherlands. We find that couples with hig