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

Abstract

In this work, we examine the mate preferences and communication patterns of male and female users of the online dating site eharmony over a decade to identify how attitudes and behaviour have changed over this time period. While other studies have investigated disparities in user behaviour between male and female users, this study is unique in its longitudinal approach. We analyze how men and women differ in their preferences for certain traits in potential partners and how those preferences have changed over time. We report on the stronger yet declining emphasis that women put on income and education of their potential partners. We investigate to what extent physical attractiveness determines the rate of messages a user receives, and how this relationship varies between men and women; counterintuitively, the most self-reportedly physically attractive users are not the most popular ones. Third, we explore whether online dating practices between males and females have become more equal over time to find out biases and inequalities have indeed increased. Fourth, we study the behavioural traits in sending and replying to messages based on one’s own experience of receiving messages and being replied to and discover a robust positive relationship between attractiveness and selectivity. Finally, we found that similarity between profiles is not a predictor for success except for the number of children and smoking habits. This work has broader implications for shifting gender norms and social attitudes, reflected in online courtship rituals.

Wanting or having children predicts age preferences in online dating.

“…Profile information was obtained through a collaboration with eharmony UK, who stipulated that the user data analyzed here and in Study 2 cannot be made freely available. The dataset comprised information taken from 149,440 website profiles which had previously been used to explore dating preferences and messaging behaviors (Dinh et al, 2018). In all cases, users were living in the United Kingdom, heterosexual, and not currently in a relationship.…”

Finding Love on a First Data: Matching Algorithms in Online Dating

“…This is further complicated by the fact that online dating often encourages users to prioritize qualities (e.g., height, income) that are poor indicators of what it will be like to interact with someone in the flesh (Frost et al, 2008). Many online dating sites have since started using more sophisticated machine learning algorithms to predict users' preferences from implicit forms of feedback (Dinh et al, 2021).…”

“…However, this approach assumes that compatibility comes from matching people who are similar in desirability, when online daters are also known to engage in aspirational mate pursuit by seeking out the most desirable partners (Bruch & Newman, 2018;Dinh et al, 2021).…”

The Benefits and Dangers of Online Dating Apps

“…Alluding to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, entrepreneurs saw the profit potential in exploiting human's innate need to form social connections. Thereby transforming online dating into a highly lucrative market; as Michael Norton noted (as cited in Dinh et al, 2022), "finding a romantic partner is one of the biggest problems that humans face" (p. 402). Companies are investing billions of dollars in creating an immersive world for consumers, drowning individuals in an array of advertisements through billboards, displays on public transits, or targeted ads, proclaiming that dating apps are the modern cupid.…”

“…2). As a result of the extensive advertisement and the conditions of the modern world, dating apps are becoming increasingly popular, making them some of the most used apps on the market; as Dinh et al (2022) reported, there is a 70% annual growth rate in the usage of online dating apps by Americans. In addition, some predict that "by 2040 seventy percent of individuals will have met their significant other online" (Anderson, 2016, as cited in Manta et al, 2019, p. 209).…”