The matchmaking algorithm used by online dating sites is likely little more effective than randomly approaching strangers at a bar, according to a new review of some 400 academic studies.
Reporting in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, researchers call out the Internet’s lonely hearts industry for using matchmaking formulas that “definitively� fail to meet the criteria for scientific validity.
The report also notes that even sites where users peruse potential partners on their own can be time-wasters, as the real secrets to a love connection — think rapport, compatible sense of humour and sexual chemistry — can’t be found in any web profile.
“Online dating is a boon for singles and I’m glad it exists. That said, it suffers from some pretty serious limitations,� says study co-author Eli J. Finkel, an associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University.
“Any scientist that looks at the evidence that matchmaking sites have mustered to establish that their algorithm works will say, ‘Please.’�
According to Finkel, the online dating industry is guilty of two fundamental “sins� against its users. The first is, reportedly, an over-dependence on browsing two-dimensional profiles in order to find a suitable mate.
“Let’s say somebody writes that they’re outspoken. That could mean they’re a trusted adviser, or it could mean they’re an arrogant jerk,� says Finkel.
He additionally notes that the sheer number of profiles tend to overwhelm people, leading them to “shop� for a mate as they would a car — and that this approach has been widely linked with less satisfaction.
For example, the paper cites a well-known experiment in which people who selected a chocolate from six options thought it tasted significantly better than people who selected a chocolate from 30 options.
The more perceived possibilities, the more people are left with the feeling there’s something better out there.
“You start to think there are thousands of people hanging out in cyberspace, just waiting for you to click on (their profiles),� says Finkel. “It actually makes you less happy once you’ve decided to go on a date with someone.�
Sites that curate potential mates for you, using a special algorithm to assess compatibility, appear to solve that problem. But Finkel and his co-authors — all experts on relationship science — found that in 100 per cent of the cases where sites disclosed details of their formulas, the criteria for scientific acceptability weren’t met.
“Yes, they limit the dating pool and make it so you don’t have to browse through thousands of profiles. But if their algorithm isn’t valid — and it’s not — then it’s more or less random,� says Finkel. “Is that really any better than you strolling into a bar?�
Finkel isn’t cautioning singles against online dating, but rather encouraging them not to put all their eggs in the virtual basket.
He suggests a good compromise is in next-gen “mobile dating� applications that allow people to use their smartphones to ping nearby singles — say, those at the same coffee shop at the same time — to request a face to face conversation. That way, people combine the accessibility of online dating with the value of real-life interaction.
“(Dating sites) claim to have solved the age-old problem of identifying who’s romantically compatible with you. And if they’ve done that, they deserve all the money they’re raking in,� says Finkel. “But if they haven’t, they need to be called out — and that is what we’re seeking to do.�
Postmedia news