OPW — Aug 11 – A study published by Australia’s Melbourne Institute of Economic and Social Research analysed the marital instability of 2,482 couples over six years, and the results have determined that despite the famous saying “opposites attract”, they found that couples with similar qualities stand a better chance of having a stable marriage.
The study broke down their research parameters into five main categories (Background, Marriage and Children, Attitudinal, Socio-economic and Lifestyle), each with its own subcategories, with all of the data coming from the HILDA (Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia) survey, which is conducted each year. The 2,482 couples observed were legally married, living together, under age 60 and both spouses were interviewed in the first wave of the survey.
The research aimed to prove that spouses with similar traits, behaviors and opinions were more likely to have a stable marriage as opposed to those with dissimilar traits. e.g. Couples who are similar in “age, preference for future children and smoking practices are associated with marital stability.”
Citing over 30 years of research, the paper concluded that age difference had a significant link to marital instability. The optimal age difference for men is between 1 year younger and 3 years older than their wife. A marriage where the husband is 2 or more years younger than his wife is 53% more likely to end in separation or divorce. The risk of separation is doubled when the husband is 9 or more years older than his wife.
Differences in smoking practices also show significant risk for instability. Also, couples are 90% more likely to separate if they've both been married 2 or more times. Other factors of marriage instability are:
- If the husbands parents had been divorced.
- If the wife has a stronger preference to have a child
- If the couple have children from a prior marriage living with them
Interestingly, factors that had no significant impact on the marriage stability include education, religiosity, and cohabitation before marriage.
Mark Brooks: eHarmony matches on similarities. TRUE matches more on complementary factors. Do opposites attract, really? TRUE argues that opposites make life more interesting. Please comment if you like these kinds of academic study reviews, and we'll do more of them (hi Fernando).
Hi all,
Yes, those papers cited above by Fernando suggest that for SOME people personality similarity might be good. But these studies are not using IRT methods, so the outcomes are questionable from a tests and measurements standpoint. Specifically, relationship quality is difficult to measure reliably and validly given gender-specific response biases that can taint outcomes. Interested readers should see my published and presented works. These studies do not get around these biases, so there is no way to tell to what extent their outcomes are real effects or artifacts.
More to the point, Fernando misses the bigger picture. These studies talk about likelihoods. These studies talk about “This higher percentage of this and that, and this group is more likely to do this than other groups.” This implies that there’s NO fixed rule when it comes to couple similarity. Some couples need it; but apparently others in the study some simply did not. To suggest a STRICT or RIGID similarity rule for relationship quality is ridiculous and not evidence based.
Furthermore, the secret to sustained relationship quality seems to be a dynamic cognitive phenomenon. Interested readers should see my article in the link given in my above post. Personality variables can be used to create a cognitive story about why a person should stay in a relationship, but those same traits are not necessary either. It all comes down to accommodation and whether two people can agree on an issue. Agree does not mean that have the same/similar view, it means that a couple agrees on what matters and what does not matter in the relationship and then they find accommodation on what matters.
My best friend has a wildly different personality structure than his wife, but they are very happy and stable (been together for more than 15 years). If personality similarity is so critical, then how have they stayed happily married all these years?!!! Any comprehensive theory of love and attachment would need to explain the discrepancy here and elsewhere. To be sure, for every study shown that seems to support similarity, there’s another that does not replicate the similarity hypothesis.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi all,
Yes, those papers cited above by Fernando suggest that for SOME people personality similarity might be good. But these studies are not using IRT methods, so the outcomes are questionable from a tests and measurements standpoint. Specifically, relationship quality is difficult to measure reliably and validly given gender-specific response biases that can taint outcomes. Interested readers should see my published and presented works. These studies do not get around these biases, so there is no way to tell to what extent their outcomes are real effects or artifacts.
More to the point, Fernando misses the bigger picture. These studies talk about likelihoods. These studies talk about “This higher percentage of this and that, and this group is more likely to do this than other groups.” This implies that there’s NO fixed rule when it comes to couple similarity. Some couples need it; but apparently others in the study some simply did not. To suggest a STRICT or RIGID similarity rule for relationship quality is ridiculous and not evidence based.
Furthermore, the secret to sustained relationship quality seems to be a dynamic cognitive phenomenon. Interested readers should see my article in the link given in my above post. Personality variables can be used to create a cognitive story about why a person should stay in a relationship, but those same traits are not necessary either. It all comes down to accommodation and whether two people can agree on an issue. Agree does not mean that have the same/similar view, it means that a couple agrees on what matters and what does not matter in the relationship and then they find accommodation on what matters.
My best friend has a wildly different personality structure than his wife, but they are very happy and stable (been together for more than 15 years). If personality similarity is so critical, then how have they stayed happily married all these years?!!! Any comprehensive theory of love and attachment would need to explain the discrepancy here and elsewhere. To be sure, for every study shown that seems to support similarity, there’s another that does not replicate the similarity hypothesis.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
How would you both like to do an interview on OPW? A video interview, no less.
How would you both like to do an interview on OPW? A video interview, no less.
Can you hear the drums Fernando? I remember long ago another starry night like this
In the firelight fernando. You were humming to yourself and softly strumming your guitar.
Aaaah –
Can you hear the drums Fernando? I remember long ago another starry night like this
In the firelight fernando. You were humming to yourself and softly strumming your guitar.
Aaaah –
Mr. Brooks,
I suggest to postpone the interview until I can launch the method I had invented.
Dr. Houran had been involved in many compatibility matching methods.
He co-authored the original True Compatibility Test, which it was destroyed by its owners. The True Compatibility Test was cut in pieces, it was divided into a combination of tests.
Dr. Houran helped to improve the test invented by Drs. Wilson & Cousins, now used in Matchology (formerly know as Cybersuitors) with no success until now.
He also co-authored the Plenty of Fish Compatibility Predictor, which it was rebranded to Plenty of Fish Relationship Chemistry Predictor (POFCP) to allow its members tune/change/synthesize the 5 factors the test measures.
Dr. Houran helped Dr. Fisher to conduct researh over Chemistry.
Dr. Houran is now reviewing MatchMatrix, a matching method based on modified biorhythms.
and perhaps he is selling a compatibility matching method to Mr. Ross Williams for over USD100,000; most probably is a “white label version” of the POFCP!!!
The Online Dating Industry needs a Big Earthquake, not stupidities with more bells and whistles, not more of the same stuff already available.
The Online Dating Industry needs innovation. But innovations will definitively come from new discoveries on Theories of Romantic Relationships Development.
Although Researchers did not use the 16PF normative personality test (they use different versions of the normative Big5 personality test instead), they suggest / outline a connection between personality similarity and marital happiness (stability and satisfaction) for long term mating with commitment.
* compatibility is a word that has different meanings for different persons or companies.
* similarity is a word that has different meanings for different persons or companies, it exactly depends on how mathematically is defined.
* Personality could be assessed by different methods. No actual online dating site offering compatibility matching methods uses the 16PF5 normative test available in different languages, the 5th version actualized after Census 2000 or similar normative personality test (the 16 personality factors as established by Dr. Raymond Cattell in 1949) to measure personality of normal persons over 26 years old interested in serious dating.
I hope I can successfully launch LIFEPROJECT METHOD (LPM), partnering with a major online dating site or by my own, and hire Dr. Houran and his team’s services in order to check if LPM matches persons who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance or other typical type of compatibility test (like the Wilson Relationship Compatibility Indicator WRCI test).
If not, anyway, I think lots of persons could be interested in meeting/contacting other persons sharing nearly the same personality because they will be *predictable* for them.
But first I have to launch LPM as other players did
True launch the site and after that Dr. Houran conducted research.
eHarmony launch the site and after that Drs. Carter, Gonzaga & Lee conducted research.
Chemistry launch the site and after that Dr. Fisher conducted research.
Cybersuitors launch the site and after that Drs. Wilson & Cousins conducted research
Every time I see a very important newspaper article based on a milestone Scientific Paper about Online Dating or Marriage, I search for the paper, read it twice, take some notes, and after that, I send an email with the notes I had taken and the attached paper to a list of notable Academics.
My list of Academics includes
Dr. James Houran
Dr. Helen Fisher
Dr. Pepper Schwartz
Dr. Glenn D. Wilson and Jon Cousins
Dr. Marcel Zentner
Dr. Monica Whitty
Dr. Steven Carter, Gian Gonzaga and Erina Lee
Dr. Robert Kurzban and Jason Weeden
Dr. David P. Schmitt
Dr. D.P.H. (Dick) Barelds
Dr. Eva Klohnen and Shanhong Luo
Dr. Dale Griffin
Dr. Richard Gonzalez
Dr. David Kenny
Dr. William Ickes
Dr. John A. Johnson
and many more.
Most of them reply with interesting comments, and they do not agree with Dr. Houran.
Interested readers should also see:
BOOK: STRANGERS IN A STRANGE LAB: HOW PERSONALITY SHAPES OUR INITIAL ENCOUNTERS WITH OTHERS (Oxford University Press, 2009) written by Dr. William Ickes
” … In summary, birds of a feather (couples with similar personalities) are not only more likely to flock together (that is, to select each other as marriage partners), but are also more satisfied with their relationships to the extent that they are globally similar. … Although odd couples (those with globally mismatched personalities) may occasionally find each other and form committed relationships as well, the statistical odds of these odd couples being satisfied with each other tend to work against them. In contrast, the statistical odds for the success of committed relationships involving not-so-odd couples (those with globally similar personalities) are substantially better” page 25 chapter 11
” …. highly similar couples will probably always have an advantage over the odder, highly dissimilar ones. That doesn’t mean that you can’t win against long odds, but it does mean that it’s a real gamble trying to make things work with a person you’re just too different from.
page 25 chapter 11
PAPERS:
Charania, M.R., and Ickes, W. (2009). “Personality influences on marital satisfaction: Integrating the empirical evidence using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) model”
“… substantial level of inter-partner personality similarity for seven of the thirteen personality traits studied, with four of the similarity correlations exceeding 0.38 …”
“Fatal (Fiscal) Attraction: Spendthrifts and Tightwads in Marriage” and “Tightwads and Spendthrifts”
“Do People Know What They Want: A Similar or Complementary Partner?”
“Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among partner personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and love”
“Social Structure and Personality Assortment Among Married Couples”
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Mr. Brooks,
I suggest to postpone the interview until I can launch the method I had invented.
Dr. Houran had been involved in many compatibility matching methods.
He co-authored the original True Compatibility Test, which it was destroyed by its owners. The True Compatibility Test was cut in pieces, it was divided into a combination of tests.
Dr. Houran helped to improve the test invented by Drs. Wilson & Cousins, now used in Matchology (formerly know as Cybersuitors) with no success until now.
He also co-authored the Plenty of Fish Compatibility Predictor, which it was rebranded to Plenty of Fish Relationship Chemistry Predictor (POFCP) to allow its members tune/change/synthesize the 5 factors the test measures.
Dr. Houran helped Dr. Fisher to conduct researh over Chemistry.
Dr. Houran is now reviewing MatchMatrix, a matching method based on modified biorhythms.
and perhaps he is selling a compatibility matching method to Mr. Ross Williams for over USD100,000; most probably is a “white label version” of the POFCP!!!
The Online Dating Industry needs a Big Earthquake, not stupidities with more bells and whistles, not more of the same stuff already available.
The Online Dating Industry needs innovation. But innovations will definitively come from new discoveries on Theories of Romantic Relationships Development.
Although Researchers did not use the 16PF normative personality test (they use different versions of the normative Big5 personality test instead), they suggest / outline a connection between personality similarity and marital happiness (stability and satisfaction) for long term mating with commitment.
* compatibility is a word that has different meanings for different persons or companies.
* similarity is a word that has different meanings for different persons or companies, it exactly depends on how mathematically is defined.
* Personality could be assessed by different methods. No actual online dating site offering compatibility matching methods uses the 16PF5 normative test available in different languages, the 5th version actualized after Census 2000 or similar normative personality test (the 16 personality factors as established by Dr. Raymond Cattell in 1949) to measure personality of normal persons over 26 years old interested in serious dating.
I hope I can successfully launch LIFEPROJECT METHOD (LPM), partnering with a major online dating site or by my own, and hire Dr. Houran and his team’s services in order to check if LPM matches persons who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance or other typical type of compatibility test (like the Wilson Relationship Compatibility Indicator WRCI test).
If not, anyway, I think lots of persons could be interested in meeting/contacting other persons sharing nearly the same personality because they will be *predictable* for them.
But first I have to launch LPM as other players did
True launch the site and after that Dr. Houran conducted research.
eHarmony launch the site and after that Drs. Carter, Gonzaga & Lee conducted research.
Chemistry launch the site and after that Dr. Fisher conducted research.
Cybersuitors launch the site and after that Drs. Wilson & Cousins conducted research
Every time I see a very important newspaper article based on a milestone Scientific Paper about Online Dating or Marriage, I search for the paper, read it twice, take some notes, and after that, I send an email with the notes I had taken and the attached paper to a list of notable Academics.
My list of Academics includes
Dr. James Houran
Dr. Helen Fisher
Dr. Pepper Schwartz
Dr. Glenn D. Wilson and Jon Cousins
Dr. Marcel Zentner
Dr. Monica Whitty
Dr. Steven Carter, Gian Gonzaga and Erina Lee
Dr. Robert Kurzban and Jason Weeden
Dr. David P. Schmitt
Dr. D.P.H. (Dick) Barelds
Dr. Eva Klohnen and Shanhong Luo
Dr. Dale Griffin
Dr. Richard Gonzalez
Dr. David Kenny
Dr. William Ickes
Dr. John A. Johnson
and many more.
Most of them reply with interesting comments, and they do not agree with Dr. Houran.
Interested readers should also see:
BOOK: STRANGERS IN A STRANGE LAB: HOW PERSONALITY SHAPES OUR INITIAL ENCOUNTERS WITH OTHERS (Oxford University Press, 2009) written by Dr. William Ickes
” … In summary, birds of a feather (couples with similar personalities) are not only more likely to flock together (that is, to select each other as marriage partners), but are also more satisfied with their relationships to the extent that they are globally similar. … Although odd couples (those with globally mismatched personalities) may occasionally find each other and form committed relationships as well, the statistical odds of these odd couples being satisfied with each other tend to work against them. In contrast, the statistical odds for the success of committed relationships involving not-so-odd couples (those with globally similar personalities) are substantially better” page 25 chapter 11
” …. highly similar couples will probably always have an advantage over the odder, highly dissimilar ones. That doesn’t mean that you can’t win against long odds, but it does mean that it’s a real gamble trying to make things work with a person you’re just too different from.
page 25 chapter 11
PAPERS:
Charania, M.R., and Ickes, W. (2009). “Personality influences on marital satisfaction: Integrating the empirical evidence using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) model”
“… substantial level of inter-partner personality similarity for seven of the thirteen personality traits studied, with four of the similarity correlations exceeding 0.38 …”
“Fatal (Fiscal) Attraction: Spendthrifts and Tightwads in Marriage” and “Tightwads and Spendthrifts”
“Do People Know What They Want: A Similar or Complementary Partner?”
“Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among partner personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and love”
“Social Structure and Personality Assortment Among Married Couples”
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Fernando,
You are a good guy with good intentions, but I have always said that you should launch your own method and conduct actual research with it so that your comments about it are backed up in data, not rhetoric. You seem to treat your beliefs like a religion.
You also make wild comments that come out of nowhere, such as:
“He also co-authored the Plenty of Fish Compatibility Predictor, which it was rebranded to Plenty of Fish Relationship Chemistry Predictor (POFCP) to allow its members tune/change/synthesize the 5 factors the test measures” THAT APPLICATION WAS NOT REBRANDED FOR THE REASONS YOU CLAIM.
“Dr. Houran helped Dr. Fisher to conduct research over Chemistry.” NO, I DIDN’T.
Dr. Houran is perhaps selling a compatibility matching method to Mr. Ross Williams for over USD100,000; most probably is a “white label version” of the POFCP!!! AGAIN, WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF?
As far as all academics not agreeing with me; that’s news to me. Academics disagree on many things, but to my knowledge no one advocates for the notion of strict similarity or strict complementarity. All of my previous points and are not affected in any way by any new citation Fernando throws in. Simiarlity on some variables seems okay, and complementarity on some variables seems okay, but complete sameness or difference is a detriment. Even the studies Fernando cites say as much.
Sadly, measuring relationship satisfaction (globally or specific issues) is difficult to do well, and most studies do not use proper outcomes. When you measure relationship quality with really good methods, suddenly you see that the apparent dilemma between “opposites attract” and “birds of a feather flock together” is an illusion.
One final comment, then it’s time to let this thread go. One doesn’t launch a service and then do research. Ideally, one conducts research on a method and then launches a service around a substantiated process. Fernando, you must first show that your process works well before most businesses will care to learn more.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Fernando,
You are a good guy with good intentions, but I have always said that you should launch your own method and conduct actual research with it so that your comments about it are backed up in data, not rhetoric. You seem to treat your beliefs like a religion.
You also make wild comments that come out of nowhere, such as:
“He also co-authored the Plenty of Fish Compatibility Predictor, which it was rebranded to Plenty of Fish Relationship Chemistry Predictor (POFCP) to allow its members tune/change/synthesize the 5 factors the test measures” THAT APPLICATION WAS NOT REBRANDED FOR THE REASONS YOU CLAIM.
“Dr. Houran helped Dr. Fisher to conduct research over Chemistry.” NO, I DIDN’T.
Dr. Houran is perhaps selling a compatibility matching method to Mr. Ross Williams for over USD100,000; most probably is a “white label version” of the POFCP!!! AGAIN, WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF?
As far as all academics not agreeing with me; that’s news to me. Academics disagree on many things, but to my knowledge no one advocates for the notion of strict similarity or strict complementarity. All of my previous points and are not affected in any way by any new citation Fernando throws in. Simiarlity on some variables seems okay, and complementarity on some variables seems okay, but complete sameness or difference is a detriment. Even the studies Fernando cites say as much.
Sadly, measuring relationship satisfaction (globally or specific issues) is difficult to do well, and most studies do not use proper outcomes. When you measure relationship quality with really good methods, suddenly you see that the apparent dilemma between “opposites attract” and “birds of a feather flock together” is an illusion.
One final comment, then it’s time to let this thread go. One doesn’t launch a service and then do research. Ideally, one conducts research on a method and then launches a service around a substantiated process. Fernando, you must first show that your process works well before most businesses will care to learn more.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
James,
Very definitely agree with you. Glenn Wilson and I were adamant that the CQ had to be researched before we ever offered it online at Cybersuitors. Anything else would be putting the cart before the horse.
Regards,
Jon
James,
Very definitely agree with you. Glenn Wilson and I were adamant that the CQ had to be researched before we ever offered it online at Cybersuitors. Anything else would be putting the cart before the horse.
Regards,
Jon
As an outsider who has read Fernanado and Jame’s discussion – it would appear that both of you are knowledgeable but somewhat unwilling to accept any part of the other’s opinion.
It seems to me that there are agreements between both of you in 3 areas:
• Online Dating had evolved from “Browsing/Searching Options” to “Matching based on Self-Reported Data” and now Online Dating is evolving from “Matching based on Self-Reported Data” to “Compatibility Matching Algorithms”.
• Relationships are based on the combination of similarity and complementary – no one advocates for the notion of strict similarity or strict complementary.
• The degree of similarity observed depends on the particular individual-difference domain studied, with romantic partners showing strong similarity in age, political, and religious attitudes; moderate similarity in education, general intelligence, and values; and little or no similarity in personality characteristics
In my opinion there is a real need for scientific research in the dating domain as in other aspects of psychology because people rely on our results but on the other hand we are not an academia – we are field. To do a control Field studies it is very difficult it is more challenging but it is more valid. Lately, we in Zoozamen, found that our questionnaire significantly influences members (39,000 members) behavior on the dating site. Interaction, between a key measure of onsite behavior, increased and we found that paying members who complete our questionnaire tend to stay longer, are more focused on their site activity and send more mails and triggers. However, we saw that visiting members act the opposite.
We at Zoozamen agree with all 3 aspects above, therefore we have decided to take a different approach based on new knowledge in selection testing – personality tests by themselves failed to create high validity. The combination of personality testing with behavioral developmental testing improves validity significantly – and that’s what we try to do. Our Compatibility Test is based on analyzing the relationship development processes with mapping and defining (in operational terms) the personality characteristics that support or destroy that process.
Raanan Haas
Chief scientist
http://www.zoozamen.co.il
As an outsider who has read Fernanado and Jame’s discussion – it would appear that both of you are knowledgeable but somewhat unwilling to accept any part of the other’s opinion.
It seems to me that there are agreements between both of you in 3 areas:
• Online Dating had evolved from “Browsing/Searching Options” to “Matching based on Self-Reported Data” and now Online Dating is evolving from “Matching based on Self-Reported Data” to “Compatibility Matching Algorithms”.
• Relationships are based on the combination of similarity and complementary – no one advocates for the notion of strict similarity or strict complementary.
• The degree of similarity observed depends on the particular individual-difference domain studied, with romantic partners showing strong similarity in age, political, and religious attitudes; moderate similarity in education, general intelligence, and values; and little or no similarity in personality characteristics
In my opinion there is a real need for scientific research in the dating domain as in other aspects of psychology because people rely on our results but on the other hand we are not an academia – we are field. To do a control Field studies it is very difficult it is more challenging but it is more valid. Lately, we in Zoozamen, found that our questionnaire significantly influences members (39,000 members) behavior on the dating site. Interaction, between a key measure of onsite behavior, increased and we found that paying members who complete our questionnaire tend to stay longer, are more focused on their site activity and send more mails and triggers. However, we saw that visiting members act the opposite.
We at Zoozamen agree with all 3 aspects above, therefore we have decided to take a different approach based on new knowledge in selection testing – personality tests by themselves failed to create high validity. The combination of personality testing with behavioral developmental testing improves validity significantly – and that’s what we try to do. Our Compatibility Test is based on analyzing the relationship development processes with mapping and defining (in operational terms) the personality characteristics that support or destroy that process.
Raanan Haas
Chief scientist
http://www.zoozamen.co.il
Raanan,
No matter what Dr. James Houran -a genius who cannot be beat- could say, I really plan to offer strict personality* similarity* for normal persons & over 26 years old interested in serious dating.
I think those persons could be interested in meeting/contacting other persons sharing nearly the same personality because they will be *very predictable* for them.
*personality: measured with the 16PF5 normative test available in different languages [Afrikaans, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English for Australia, English for Canada, English for India, English for South Africa, English for the United Kingdom, English for the United States, Filipino, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese (European and New World), Portuguese of Brazil, Spanish (Castilian), Spanish-American, Swedish, Slovak, Turkish.]
*similarity: calculated using quantum math equations with the high precision quantitative method I had invented, named LIFEPROJECT METHOD. (a part of pattern recognition by correlation)
Raanan, I respecfully recommend you to contact other Researchers like Drs. Charania, Ickes, Barelds, Dijkstra, Graaf, Amato, Previti, Bekkers, van Aken, Denissen, Robins, Caspi, Moffitt, Luo, etc, to hear their opinion, although they could be intoxicated with the Big5 to assess personality and Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Couple Centered Approach; or other linear or logistic multivariate regression equations to calculate similarity.
Kindest Regards.
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Raanan,
No matter what Dr. James Houran -a genius who cannot be beat- could say, I really plan to offer strict personality* similarity* for normal persons & over 26 years old interested in serious dating.
I think those persons could be interested in meeting/contacting other persons sharing nearly the same personality because they will be *very predictable* for them.
*personality: measured with the 16PF5 normative test available in different languages [Afrikaans, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English for Australia, English for Canada, English for India, English for South Africa, English for the United Kingdom, English for the United States, Filipino, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese (European and New World), Portuguese of Brazil, Spanish (Castilian), Spanish-American, Swedish, Slovak, Turkish.]
*similarity: calculated using quantum math equations with the high precision quantitative method I had invented, named LIFEPROJECT METHOD. (a part of pattern recognition by correlation)
Raanan, I respecfully recommend you to contact other Researchers like Drs. Charania, Ickes, Barelds, Dijkstra, Graaf, Amato, Previti, Bekkers, van Aken, Denissen, Robins, Caspi, Moffitt, Luo, etc, to hear their opinion, although they could be intoxicated with the Big5 to assess personality and Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Couple Centered Approach; or other linear or logistic multivariate regression equations to calculate similarity.
Kindest Regards.
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com