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).
– Online daters always always always always always opt for sameness (when they search) more often than chance would predict.
– Homophily dominates human attraction but what is important in attracting people to one another may not be important in making couples happy.
– 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”.
———————————————————————-
This is a copy of the email I sent Dr. Kippen some days ago with no answer until now.
From: FERNANDO ARDENGHI
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Subject: two weak points in your last paper
To: Rebecca Kippen
Hello Dr. Kippen:
I read the paper
“What’s love got to do with it? Homogamy and dyadic approaches to understanding marital instability”
It is a pitty you did not use any personality test -like the 16PF5- to check if there are similarities between spouses.
and
marital stability is not the same as marital satisfaction!
Latest Research in Theories of Romantic Relationships Development outlines: compatibility is all about a high level on personality similarity between prospective mates for long term mating with commitment.
———————————————————————-
Mr. Brooks, Online Personals Watch has over 1,000 daily readers, but they are not allowed to post comments because they are mostly executives from YahooPersonals!, Match, Chemistry, True, eHarmony, PerfectMatch, Be2, Meetic, Parship, and others.
I continually ( at frequent intervals ) receive emails in my inbox saying
“Being a silent observer on OPW I have followed many of the interesting discussions you have led there.”
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
– Online daters always always always always always opt for sameness (when they search) more often than chance would predict.
– Homophily dominates human attraction but what is important in attracting people to one another may not be important in making couples happy.
– 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”.
———————————————————————-
This is a copy of the email I sent Dr. Kippen some days ago with no answer until now.
From: FERNANDO ARDENGHI
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Subject: two weak points in your last paper
To: Rebecca Kippen
Hello Dr. Kippen:
I read the paper
“What’s love got to do with it? Homogamy and dyadic approaches to understanding marital instability”
It is a pitty you did not use any personality test -like the 16PF5- to check if there are similarities between spouses.
and
marital stability is not the same as marital satisfaction!
Latest Research in Theories of Romantic Relationships Development outlines: compatibility is all about a high level on personality similarity between prospective mates for long term mating with commitment.
———————————————————————-
Mr. Brooks, Online Personals Watch has over 1,000 daily readers, but they are not allowed to post comments because they are mostly executives from YahooPersonals!, Match, Chemistry, True, eHarmony, PerfectMatch, Be2, Meetic, Parship, and others.
I continually ( at frequent intervals ) receive emails in my inbox saying
“Being a silent observer on OPW I have followed many of the interesting discussions you have led there.”
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
this study has been out for ages.. I changed part of the site to take these kind of things into account.
this study has been out for ages.. I changed part of the site to take these kind of things into account.
(Disclosure: Plentyoffish.com is a client of Courtland Brooks)
Markus devotes a good portion of his time to research. One of the reasons POF is so popular is because it works. One of underlying reasons that it works is because Markus pays attention to these kinds of studies and does his darndest to find them early, and quickly incorporate them into the fabric that is POF. Despite POF looking rather simple and straightforward on the outside. There’s actually a lot going on behind the scenes.
This particular paper was presented at the Biennial HILDA Survey Research Conference, 16–17 July 2009, Melbourne.
If you like this kind of summary, let us know and we’ll pay more attention towards identifying them earlier. We’ve not really paid much attention to them in the past, but we can do. Your comments please.
(Disclosure: Plentyoffish.com is a client of Courtland Brooks)
Markus devotes a good portion of his time to research. One of the reasons POF is so popular is because it works. One of underlying reasons that it works is because Markus pays attention to these kinds of studies and does his darndest to find them early, and quickly incorporate them into the fabric that is POF. Despite POF looking rather simple and straightforward on the outside. There’s actually a lot going on behind the scenes.
This particular paper was presented at the Biennial HILDA Survey Research Conference, 16–17 July 2009, Melbourne.
If you like this kind of summary, let us know and we’ll pay more attention towards identifying them earlier. We’ve not really paid much attention to them in the past, but we can do. Your comments please.
Que? Tell me more. OPW is open to all to comment.
Que? Tell me more. OPW is open to all to comment.
Executives from YahooPersonals!, Match, Chemistry, True, eHarmony, PerfectMatch, Be2, Meetic, Parship, and others are “silent observers” because they are not allowed (by their companies) to post comments in any blog.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Executives from YahooPersonals!, Match, Chemistry, True, eHarmony, PerfectMatch, Be2, Meetic, Parship, and others are “silent observers” because they are not allowed (by their companies) to post comments in any blog.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Dating executives can still comment anonymously. I’ll be happy to place comments anonymously on behalf of executives. Also very happy to allow anonymous comments on OPW.
I should note, the only circumstance in which we would delete an anonymous comment is if it were attacking and derogatory. Critical is fine, derogatory on the offensive is not. The distinction is that derogatory is defaming and usually unnecessary and probably doesn’t add anything useful to a thread. Derogatory comments may be ok if the person placing the comment has a reputation they are willing to back up the comment. Critical feedback is always welcome. Constructive and critical feedback is tough to find, and most welcome here on OPW.
Dating executives can still comment anonymously. I’ll be happy to place comments anonymously on behalf of executives. Also very happy to allow anonymous comments on OPW.
I should note, the only circumstance in which we would delete an anonymous comment is if it were attacking and derogatory. Critical is fine, derogatory on the offensive is not. The distinction is that derogatory is defaming and usually unnecessary and probably doesn’t add anything useful to a thread. Derogatory comments may be ok if the person placing the comment has a reputation they are willing to back up the comment. Critical feedback is always welcome. Constructive and critical feedback is tough to find, and most welcome here on OPW.
This study presents nothing new or enlightening. In fact, it doesn’t even draw upon the most leading-edge research in compatibility (few people actually do). This study replicates SOME earlier research (and contradicts others), but like its predecessors, it suffers from the fact that it used outdated statistical methods that tend to introduce many errors in conclusions.
The field has LONG known that the similarity hypothesis is oversimplistic. 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 (for reviews, see Klohnen & Mendelson, 1998; Watson et al., 2004).
Studies using leading-edge statistics that can account for confounding variables in how people perceive relationship issues in the first place reveal that it takes both similarity and dissimilarity to achieve optimum “success” (stability and satisfaction). The “paradox” that relationships need be either similarity or dissimilarity is a false one.
Interested readers should see:
Houran, J., Lange, R., Rentfrow, P. J., & Bruckner, K. H. (2004). Do online matchmaking tests work? An assessment of preliminary evidence for a publicized ‘predictive model of marital success.’ North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 507-526.
Houran, J. Lange, R., Wilson, G., & Cousins, J. (2005). Redefining compatibility: Gender differences in the building blocks of relationship satisfaction. Poster presented at the 17th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, Los Angeles, CA, May 28.
Lange, R., Jerabek, I., & Houran, J. (2004). Building blocks for satisfaction in long-term romantic relationships: Evidence for the complementarity hypothesis of romantic compatibility. Annual meeting of the AERA (Adult Development Symposium Society for Research in Adult Development). San Diego, California, April 11 – 12, 2004.
Lange, R., Jerabek, I., & Houran, J. (2005). Psychometric description of the True Compatibility Test™: A proprietary online matchmaking system. Dynamical Psychology [online journal]. http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2005/True.htm.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
This study presents nothing new or enlightening. In fact, it doesn’t even draw upon the most leading-edge research in compatibility (few people actually do). This study replicates SOME earlier research (and contradicts others), but like its predecessors, it suffers from the fact that it used outdated statistical methods that tend to introduce many errors in conclusions.
The field has LONG known that the similarity hypothesis is oversimplistic. 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 (for reviews, see Klohnen & Mendelson, 1998; Watson et al., 2004).
Studies using leading-edge statistics that can account for confounding variables in how people perceive relationship issues in the first place reveal that it takes both similarity and dissimilarity to achieve optimum “success” (stability and satisfaction). The “paradox” that relationships need be either similarity or dissimilarity is a false one.
Interested readers should see:
Houran, J., Lange, R., Rentfrow, P. J., & Bruckner, K. H. (2004). Do online matchmaking tests work? An assessment of preliminary evidence for a publicized ‘predictive model of marital success.’ North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 507-526.
Houran, J. Lange, R., Wilson, G., & Cousins, J. (2005). Redefining compatibility: Gender differences in the building blocks of relationship satisfaction. Poster presented at the 17th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, Los Angeles, CA, May 28.
Lange, R., Jerabek, I., & Houran, J. (2004). Building blocks for satisfaction in long-term romantic relationships: Evidence for the complementarity hypothesis of romantic compatibility. Annual meeting of the AERA (Adult Development Symposium Society for Research in Adult Development). San Diego, California, April 11 – 12, 2004.
Lange, R., Jerabek, I., & Houran, J. (2005). Psychometric description of the True Compatibility Test™: A proprietary online matchmaking system. Dynamical Psychology [online journal]. http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2005/True.htm.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Studies like these are indeed interesting to note. I encourage and support more academic study reviews because they provide valuable insight. I commend Markus of POF for his diligence in acknowleding such studies and applying such knowledge to his website as a result.
Studies like these are indeed interesting to note. I encourage and support more academic study reviews because they provide valuable insight. I commend Markus of POF for his diligence in acknowleding such studies and applying such knowledge to his website as a result.
“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 ”
that was Klohnen & Mendelson in 1998.
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
Klohnen & Luo said in 2005?
“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.
………..
future research designed to better understand these underlying processes is needed.”
In August 2005, Dr. John A. Johnson told me, “There are probably undiscovered factors beyond similarity of any type that determine relationship quality.”
The paper “METHODOLOGICAL AND DATA ANALYTIC ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE” at page 413 says: “…. 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.”
—————–
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
The True Compatibility Test™ was cannibalized to allow their members tune/change/synthesize the ‘mix of their compatibility factors’?
The TCT was divided into a combination of tests
TRUE Interests Test certified by Dr. Eun Um (light blue slider)
TRUE Personality Test certified by Dr. Eun Um (green slider)
TRUE Communication Test certified by Dr. Eun Um (orange slider)
TRUE Sex Test certified by Dr. W. Alan Nicewander (red slider)
TRUE Romance Test certified by Dr. Eun Um (violet slider)
TRUE Commitment Test certified by Dr. Eun Um (dark blue slider)
+ Basics (yellow slider)
“You’re in control. Want your TRUE Interests matches? Or maybe personality is more important to you. Or try a blend: You’re in charge. Use the TRUE Compatibility Control to get a custom mix of singles just for you.”
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
PlentyOfFish tried to be the next ‘free eHarmony’ but the PlentyofFish Relationship Chemistry Predictor never performed as expected?
—————–
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
no actual online dating site offering compatibility matching methods use the 16PF5 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?
The 16PF5 annual license only costs USD150,000
Also Dr. Rense Lange and you can develop a proprietary test similar to the 16PF5 for USD100,000
It is not expensive for any big online dating site!!!
There is no actual fresh (after year 2005) Scientific Paper peer_reviewed using the 16PF5 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 to show clear personality-similarity correlation.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
“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 ”
that was Klohnen & Mendelson in 1998.
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
Klohnen & Luo said in 2005?
“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.
………..
future research designed to better understand these underlying processes is needed.”
In August 2005, Dr. John A. Johnson told me, “There are probably undiscovered factors beyond similarity of any type that determine relationship quality.”
The paper “METHODOLOGICAL AND DATA ANALYTIC ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE” at page 413 says: “…. 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.”
—————–
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
The True Compatibility Test™ was cannibalized to allow their members tune/change/synthesize the ‘mix of their compatibility factors’?
The TCT was divided into a combination of tests
TRUE Interests Test certified by Dr. Eun Um (light blue slider)
TRUE Personality Test certified by Dr. Eun Um (green slider)
TRUE Communication Test certified by Dr. Eun Um (orange slider)
TRUE Sex Test certified by Dr. W. Alan Nicewander (red slider)
TRUE Romance Test certified by Dr. Eun Um (violet slider)
TRUE Commitment Test certified by Dr. Eun Um (dark blue slider)
+ Basics (yellow slider)
“You’re in control. Want your TRUE Interests matches? Or maybe personality is more important to you. Or try a blend: You’re in charge. Use the TRUE Compatibility Control to get a custom mix of singles just for you.”
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
PlentyOfFish tried to be the next ‘free eHarmony’ but the PlentyofFish Relationship Chemistry Predictor never performed as expected?
—————–
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
no actual online dating site offering compatibility matching methods use the 16PF5 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?
The 16PF5 annual license only costs USD150,000
Also Dr. Rense Lange and you can develop a proprietary test similar to the 16PF5 for USD100,000
It is not expensive for any big online dating site!!!
There is no actual fresh (after year 2005) Scientific Paper peer_reviewed using the 16PF5 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 to show clear personality-similarity correlation.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Hi Fernando,
Let me address your comments in turn:
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
Klohnen & Luo said in 2005?
“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.
………..
future research designed to better understand these underlying processes is needed.”
THIS IS ONE STUDY THAT IS CONTRADICTED BY OTHERS. THE STATISTICAL META-ANALYSES SUGGEST PERSONALITY SIMILARITY IS NOT REQUIRED.
In August 2005, Dr. John A. Johnson told me, “There are probably undiscovered factors beyond similarity of any type that determine relationship quality.”
The paper “METHODOLOGICAL AND DATA ANALYTIC ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE” at page 413 says: “…. 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.”
I AGREE, AND MY TEAM HAS PIONEERED THE APPLICATION OF NEW ANALYTICS. PLEASE SEE MY REFERENCED WORKS, WHICH ARE AS RELEVANT TODAY AS WHEN THEY WERE RELEASED.
—————–
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
The True Compatibility Test™ was cannibalized to allow their members tune/change/synthesize the ‘mix of their compatibility factors’?
NOT MY ISSUE — THE JOURNAL ARTICLE CITED SHOWED THE APPLICATION OF LEADING EDGE STATS AND THAT SIMILARITY MODEL IS INCOMPLETE.
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
PlentyOfFish tried to be the next ‘free eHarmony’ but the PlentyofFish Relationship Chemistry Predictor never performed as expected?
NEVER PERFORMED AS EXPECTED?!!! HUH? YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
—————–
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
no actual online dating site offering compatibility matching methods use the 16PF5 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?
THE BULK OF THE LITERATURE SUGGEST THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO MEASURE SIMILARITY OF PERSONALITY TRAITS SO THE 16PF OR ANY OTHER PURE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT IS ARGUABLY IRRELEVANT.
The 16PF5 annual license only costs USD150,000
Also Dr. Rense Lange and you can develop a proprietary test similar to the 16PF5 for USD100,000
It is not expensive for any big online dating site!!!
MANY SITES WOULD CONSIDER THOSE COSTS PROHIBITIVE. ONLY FORWARD THINKING SITES INVEST IN ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS/TOOLS. THIS IS ONE REASON WHY POF SEEMS TO BE THRIVING — IT IS A PROGRESSIVE COMPANY THAT IS DATA-DRIVEN, NOT THEORY DRIVEN.
There is no actual fresh (after year 2005) Scientific Paper peer_reviewed using the 16PF5 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 to show clear personality-similarity correlation.
MAYBE NOT, BUT THE ISSUE IS MOSTLY IRRELEVANT IN MY OPINION BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, NORMATIVE TESTING IS NEEDED FOR EFFECTIVE PROFILING AND MATCHING. THIS IS WHY MY TEAM USES ITEM RESPONSE THEORY/RASCH SCALING TO PRODUCE ALL OF ITS ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS. OUR PSYCHOMETRICS ARE SUPERIOR TO PRODUCTS (AND RESEARCH FINDINGS) THAT RELY ON OUTDATED CLASSICAL TEST THEORY METHODS.
Thanks for the good debate, Fernando!
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Fernando,
Let me address your comments in turn:
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
Klohnen & Luo said in 2005?
“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.
………..
future research designed to better understand these underlying processes is needed.”
THIS IS ONE STUDY THAT IS CONTRADICTED BY OTHERS. THE STATISTICAL META-ANALYSES SUGGEST PERSONALITY SIMILARITY IS NOT REQUIRED.
In August 2005, Dr. John A. Johnson told me, “There are probably undiscovered factors beyond similarity of any type that determine relationship quality.”
The paper “METHODOLOGICAL AND DATA ANALYTIC ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE” at page 413 says: “…. 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.”
I AGREE, AND MY TEAM HAS PIONEERED THE APPLICATION OF NEW ANALYTICS. PLEASE SEE MY REFERENCED WORKS, WHICH ARE AS RELEVANT TODAY AS WHEN THEY WERE RELEASED.
—————–
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
The True Compatibility Test™ was cannibalized to allow their members tune/change/synthesize the ‘mix of their compatibility factors’?
NOT MY ISSUE — THE JOURNAL ARTICLE CITED SHOWED THE APPLICATION OF LEADING EDGE STATS AND THAT SIMILARITY MODEL IS INCOMPLETE.
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
PlentyOfFish tried to be the next ‘free eHarmony’ but the PlentyofFish Relationship Chemistry Predictor never performed as expected?
NEVER PERFORMED AS EXPECTED?!!! HUH? YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
—————–
Dr. Houran, have you seen that
no actual online dating site offering compatibility matching methods use the 16PF5 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?
THE BULK OF THE LITERATURE SUGGEST THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO MEASURE SIMILARITY OF PERSONALITY TRAITS SO THE 16PF OR ANY OTHER PURE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT IS ARGUABLY IRRELEVANT.
The 16PF5 annual license only costs USD150,000
Also Dr. Rense Lange and you can develop a proprietary test similar to the 16PF5 for USD100,000
It is not expensive for any big online dating site!!!
MANY SITES WOULD CONSIDER THOSE COSTS PROHIBITIVE. ONLY FORWARD THINKING SITES INVEST IN ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS/TOOLS. THIS IS ONE REASON WHY POF SEEMS TO BE THRIVING — IT IS A PROGRESSIVE COMPANY THAT IS DATA-DRIVEN, NOT THEORY DRIVEN.
There is no actual fresh (after year 2005) Scientific Paper peer_reviewed using the 16PF5 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 to show clear personality-similarity correlation.
MAYBE NOT, BUT THE ISSUE IS MOSTLY IRRELEVANT IN MY OPINION BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, NORMATIVE TESTING IS NEEDED FOR EFFECTIVE PROFILING AND MATCHING. THIS IS WHY MY TEAM USES ITEM RESPONSE THEORY/RASCH SCALING TO PRODUCE ALL OF ITS ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS. OUR PSYCHOMETRICS ARE SUPERIOR TO PRODUCTS (AND RESEARCH FINDINGS) THAT RELY ON OUTDATED CLASSICAL TEST THEORY METHODS.
Thanks for the good debate, Fernando!
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Dr. Houran!!!
I am also data driven.
Have you seen latest Research from Dr. Helen Fisher?
“The Mate Choice Study, using statistical data on a different sample: 28,128 anonymous heterosexuals who had already completed the personality type test.
When I examined whom these men and women chose to meet, I saw nature’s plan: Explorers are attracted to other Explorers — people with many similar traits of temperament. Builders also gravitate to people like themselves, other Builders. Directors, however, gravitate to Negotiators. And Negotiators are drawn to Directors. These two personality types are attracted to individuals with a complementary temperament. Moreover, these patterns occur whether one is a male or female. No wonder so many scientists and laymen think that ‘opposites attract’ while so many others believe ‘birds of a feather flock together.’ Both patterns occur—depending on your primary personality type. I felt as if I had sneaked into Mother Nature’s kitchen and stumbled on her recipes for who we love.”
Although Dr. Fisher could not prove
IF
the high serotonin type (Builder) who gravitates to people like themselves and the high dopamine type (Explorer) who also gravitates to people like themselves, COULD BE looking for a LONG term romantic relationship
AND
the high estrogen Negotiator who gravitates to the high testosterone Director and vice versa, COULD BE looking for a SHORT term romantic relationship
I respectfully recommended Dr. Fisher to include a normative personality test like the 16PF5 and try to check if it is only personality similarity between prospectives mates the key to long_term_mating with commitment.
Also from eHarmonyLabs / Dr. Gian Gonzaga had said:
“Q: What are the core qualities partners should share if they want their love to last?
A: The big ones are personality traits. Things like how agreeable you are, how open you are to experience.
”
Although eHarmonyLabs is intoxicated with the Big Five Model.
From the 16PF5 Manual
“Because the Big Five groups the more specific primary-level factors, feedback organized around the five Global Factor scales is more easily understood. For detailed feedback or predictive purposes, one should assess the more specific primary factors. Research has shown that more specific factors like the primary scales of the 16PF Questionnaire predict actual behavior better than the Big 5 Global Factors. For example, one extravert (a bold, fearless, high-energy type) may differ considerably from another (a sweet, warm, sensitive type), depending on the extraversion-related primary scale score patterns, so deeper analysis is typically warranted.”
I am data driven, Dr. Houran.
Actual online dating sites offering compatibility matching methods are only fueled by big marketing budgets and not by serious scientific evidence. No one (nor eHarmony, nor Chemistry, nor PerfectMatch, nor PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor, nor Yahoo!Personals) can prove its matching algorithm can match prospective partners who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other technique as the control group in a peer_reviewed Scientific Paper.
I am data driven, Dr. Houran.
I am the person who discovered some years ago those sites are all like placebo, because they have less or at least the same precision as searching on one’s own, in the range of 3 or 4 persons compatible per 1,000 persons screened, when calculating compatibility between prospective mates.
I am data driven, Dr. Houran.
High precision in matching algorithms is precisely the key to open the door and leave the infancy of compatibility testing.
It is all about achieving the eighth decimal!
With 8 decimals, you have more precision than any person could achieve by searching on one’s own, but the only way to achieve the eighth decimal is using analysis and correlation with quantized patterns.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Hi Dr. Houran!!!
I am also data driven.
Have you seen latest Research from Dr. Helen Fisher?
“The Mate Choice Study, using statistical data on a different sample: 28,128 anonymous heterosexuals who had already completed the personality type test.
When I examined whom these men and women chose to meet, I saw nature’s plan: Explorers are attracted to other Explorers — people with many similar traits of temperament. Builders also gravitate to people like themselves, other Builders. Directors, however, gravitate to Negotiators. And Negotiators are drawn to Directors. These two personality types are attracted to individuals with a complementary temperament. Moreover, these patterns occur whether one is a male or female. No wonder so many scientists and laymen think that ‘opposites attract’ while so many others believe ‘birds of a feather flock together.’ Both patterns occur—depending on your primary personality type. I felt as if I had sneaked into Mother Nature’s kitchen and stumbled on her recipes for who we love.”
Although Dr. Fisher could not prove
IF
the high serotonin type (Builder) who gravitates to people like themselves and the high dopamine type (Explorer) who also gravitates to people like themselves, COULD BE looking for a LONG term romantic relationship
AND
the high estrogen Negotiator who gravitates to the high testosterone Director and vice versa, COULD BE looking for a SHORT term romantic relationship
I respectfully recommended Dr. Fisher to include a normative personality test like the 16PF5 and try to check if it is only personality similarity between prospectives mates the key to long_term_mating with commitment.
Also from eHarmonyLabs / Dr. Gian Gonzaga had said:
“Q: What are the core qualities partners should share if they want their love to last?
A: The big ones are personality traits. Things like how agreeable you are, how open you are to experience.
”
Although eHarmonyLabs is intoxicated with the Big Five Model.
From the 16PF5 Manual
“Because the Big Five groups the more specific primary-level factors, feedback organized around the five Global Factor scales is more easily understood. For detailed feedback or predictive purposes, one should assess the more specific primary factors. Research has shown that more specific factors like the primary scales of the 16PF Questionnaire predict actual behavior better than the Big 5 Global Factors. For example, one extravert (a bold, fearless, high-energy type) may differ considerably from another (a sweet, warm, sensitive type), depending on the extraversion-related primary scale score patterns, so deeper analysis is typically warranted.”
I am data driven, Dr. Houran.
Actual online dating sites offering compatibility matching methods are only fueled by big marketing budgets and not by serious scientific evidence. No one (nor eHarmony, nor Chemistry, nor PerfectMatch, nor PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor, nor Yahoo!Personals) can prove its matching algorithm can match prospective partners who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other technique as the control group in a peer_reviewed Scientific Paper.
I am data driven, Dr. Houran.
I am the person who discovered some years ago those sites are all like placebo, because they have less or at least the same precision as searching on one’s own, in the range of 3 or 4 persons compatible per 1,000 persons screened, when calculating compatibility between prospective mates.
I am data driven, Dr. Houran.
High precision in matching algorithms is precisely the key to open the door and leave the infancy of compatibility testing.
It is all about achieving the eighth decimal!
With 8 decimals, you have more precision than any person could achieve by searching on one’s own, but the only way to achieve the eighth decimal is using analysis and correlation with quantized patterns.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Interesting study from fellow Aussies, but I think that it is not a question of either/or ie opposites/similars but both and in different quantities – depending on the type of person. Dr Helen Fisher of Match.com has a similar model to my matchmaking algorithm in which there is a blend of both. I have posted a number of blog posts on this issue at my blog http://www.astramatch.com/blog
Thanks for this post Mark,
Pemo
Interesting study from fellow Aussies, but I think that it is not a question of either/or ie opposites/similars but both and in different quantities – depending on the type of person. Dr Helen Fisher of Match.com has a similar model to my matchmaking algorithm in which there is a blend of both. I have posted a number of blog posts on this issue at my blog http://www.astramatch.com/blog
Thanks for this post Mark,
Pemo
Hi Fernando!
I’M GLAD YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE SIMILARITY MODEL IS INCOMPLETE AT BEST. LET’S CONTINUE THE FUN EXCHANGE!
Actual online dating sites offering compatibility matching methods are only fueled by big marketing budgets and not by serious scientific evidence. No one (nor eHarmony, nor Chemistry, nor PerfectMatch, nor PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor, nor Yahoo!Personals) can prove its matching algorithm can match prospective partners who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other technique as the control group in a peer_reviewed Scientific Paper.
THIS MAY BE TRUE FOR MOST DATING SITES, BUT CERTAINLY NOT ALL. FOR EXAMPLE, POF’S MATCHING APPROACH IS UNDER REVIEW FOR PUBLICATION AS WE SPEAK — IT’S BASED ON SCIENCE, NOT HYPE.
I KNOW YOU ARE A SERIOUS PROPONENT OF PERSONALITY-RELATED MATCHING AND THE 16PF IN PARTICULAR, WHICH IS CURIOUS SINCE NO ONE HAS SHOWN THAT IT OR THE BIG 5 MODEL MATCH PEOPLE BETTER THAN CHANCE, PERSONAL PREFERENCES, SEARCHING ON ONE’S OWN OR OTHER TECHNIQUE AS THE CONTROL GROUP IN A PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPER.
IN FACT, YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN YOUR OWN PROCESS MEETS THESE CRITERIA IN A DETAILED WHITE PAPER OR PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE. PLEASE DO SO AND SHARE THE RESULTS WITH US!
I am data driven, Dr. Houran.
I am the person who discovered some years ago those sites are all like placebo, because they have less or at least the same precision as searching on one’s own, in the range of 3 or 4 persons compatible per 1,000 persons screened, when calculating compatibility between prospective mates.
I HAVE SEEN NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE FROM YOU IN RELATION TO THESE CLAIMS. MY RESEARCH SHOWS THAT GOOD COMPATIBILITY SYSTEMS OFFER CLEAR BENEFITS IN VETTING, NOT PLACEBOS.
I am data driven, Dr. Houran.
High precision in matching algorithms is precisely the key to open the door and leave the infancy of compatibility testing.
It is all about achieving the eighth decimal!
With 8 decimals, you have more precision than any person could achieve by searching on one’s own, but the only way to achieve the eighth decimal is using analysis and correlation with quantized patterns.
I DISAGREE. RESEARCHERS HAVE EXCELLENT THEORIES AND ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES, BUT NO ONE REALLY USES BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. A THEORY IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE MEASUREMENT OF THE VARIABLES IN THE THEORY. AND MEASUREMENT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE ANALYTICAL/PSYCHOMETRIC APPROACHES USED.
HOWEVER, THE NOTION THAT COMPATIBILITY MATCHING CAN BE DONE RELIABLY AND VALIDLY TO THE 8TH DECIMAL PLACE IS STATISTICAL SCIENCE FICTION. LET ME REPEAT THAT… THAT LEVEL OF PRECISION IS NOT NEEDED AND FURTHERMORE IT CAN’T BE DONE WITH ANY QUESTIONNAIRE I’VE EVER SEEN.
FERNANDO, PRECISION IN MATCHING IS LIMITED BY THE STANDARD ERRORS (SEs) OF MEASUREMENT OF THE VARIABLES — THEIR RELIABILITIES. MOST ASSESSMENTS AND TESTS HAVE SEs OF AT LEST 1 (AND USUALLY MUCH HIGHER), WHICH MEANS SCORES WILL BE “OFF” FROM THE TRUE SCORE BY AT LEAST ONE POINT EVERYTIME DUE TO MEASUREMENT ERROR, ETC.
IT FOLLOWS STATISTICALLY THAT IF A SCORE IS OFF BY AT LEAST ONE POINT, YOU CAN’T MATCH SOMEONE WITH A PRECISION BETTER THAN THE ERROR RATE OR RELIABILITY. YOU MAY THINK YOU CAN MATCH TO THAT PRECISION, BUT THE OUTCOME WILL ALWAYS BE OFF TO AN EXTENT AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE SE. THE 16PF AND ALL OTHER TESTS HAVE SEs, SO YOU SHOULD REEXAMINE YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT PRECISION IN MATCHING AS THEY ARE WRONG.
Thanks again for the good debate!
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Fernando!
I’M GLAD YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE SIMILARITY MODEL IS INCOMPLETE AT BEST. LET’S CONTINUE THE FUN EXCHANGE!
Actual online dating sites offering compatibility matching methods are only fueled by big marketing budgets and not by serious scientific evidence. No one (nor eHarmony, nor Chemistry, nor PerfectMatch, nor PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor, nor Yahoo!Personals) can prove its matching algorithm can match prospective partners who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other technique as the control group in a peer_reviewed Scientific Paper.
THIS MAY BE TRUE FOR MOST DATING SITES, BUT CERTAINLY NOT ALL. FOR EXAMPLE, POF’S MATCHING APPROACH IS UNDER REVIEW FOR PUBLICATION AS WE SPEAK — IT’S BASED ON SCIENCE, NOT HYPE.
I KNOW YOU ARE A SERIOUS PROPONENT OF PERSONALITY-RELATED MATCHING AND THE 16PF IN PARTICULAR, WHICH IS CURIOUS SINCE NO ONE HAS SHOWN THAT IT OR THE BIG 5 MODEL MATCH PEOPLE BETTER THAN CHANCE, PERSONAL PREFERENCES, SEARCHING ON ONE’S OWN OR OTHER TECHNIQUE AS THE CONTROL GROUP IN A PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPER.
IN FACT, YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN YOUR OWN PROCESS MEETS THESE CRITERIA IN A DETAILED WHITE PAPER OR PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE. PLEASE DO SO AND SHARE THE RESULTS WITH US!
I am data driven, Dr. Houran.
I am the person who discovered some years ago those sites are all like placebo, because they have less or at least the same precision as searching on one’s own, in the range of 3 or 4 persons compatible per 1,000 persons screened, when calculating compatibility between prospective mates.
I HAVE SEEN NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE FROM YOU IN RELATION TO THESE CLAIMS. MY RESEARCH SHOWS THAT GOOD COMPATIBILITY SYSTEMS OFFER CLEAR BENEFITS IN VETTING, NOT PLACEBOS.
I am data driven, Dr. Houran.
High precision in matching algorithms is precisely the key to open the door and leave the infancy of compatibility testing.
It is all about achieving the eighth decimal!
With 8 decimals, you have more precision than any person could achieve by searching on one’s own, but the only way to achieve the eighth decimal is using analysis and correlation with quantized patterns.
I DISAGREE. RESEARCHERS HAVE EXCELLENT THEORIES AND ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES, BUT NO ONE REALLY USES BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. A THEORY IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE MEASUREMENT OF THE VARIABLES IN THE THEORY. AND MEASUREMENT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE ANALYTICAL/PSYCHOMETRIC APPROACHES USED.
HOWEVER, THE NOTION THAT COMPATIBILITY MATCHING CAN BE DONE RELIABLY AND VALIDLY TO THE 8TH DECIMAL PLACE IS STATISTICAL SCIENCE FICTION. LET ME REPEAT THAT… THAT LEVEL OF PRECISION IS NOT NEEDED AND FURTHERMORE IT CAN’T BE DONE WITH ANY QUESTIONNAIRE I’VE EVER SEEN.
FERNANDO, PRECISION IN MATCHING IS LIMITED BY THE STANDARD ERRORS (SEs) OF MEASUREMENT OF THE VARIABLES — THEIR RELIABILITIES. MOST ASSESSMENTS AND TESTS HAVE SEs OF AT LEST 1 (AND USUALLY MUCH HIGHER), WHICH MEANS SCORES WILL BE “OFF” FROM THE TRUE SCORE BY AT LEAST ONE POINT EVERYTIME DUE TO MEASUREMENT ERROR, ETC.
IT FOLLOWS STATISTICALLY THAT IF A SCORE IS OFF BY AT LEAST ONE POINT, YOU CAN’T MATCH SOMEONE WITH A PRECISION BETTER THAN THE ERROR RATE OR RELIABILITY. YOU MAY THINK YOU CAN MATCH TO THAT PRECISION, BUT THE OUTCOME WILL ALWAYS BE OFF TO AN EXTENT AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE SE. THE 16PF AND ALL OTHER TESTS HAVE SEs, SO YOU SHOULD REEXAMINE YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT PRECISION IN MATCHING AS THEY ARE WRONG.
Thanks again for the good debate!
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
is 74.79865772% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
5.7.4.8.7.4.5.6.4.6.8.9.6.8.4.4
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
is 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
is 88.38926174% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
5.6.4.7.7.5.6.6.7.6.3.4.7.6.2.3
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
is 87.58389262% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
7.8.6.9.9.7.8.8.9.8.5.6.9.8.4.5
The pattern 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4
is 60.23489933% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
8.9.7.10.10.8.9.9.10.9.6.7.10.9.5.6
The pattern 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4
is 68.15436242% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
4.3.7.8.5.4.7.8.7.7.6.8.8.5.7.6
The pattern 6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7
is 63.75838900% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5
The pattern 6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7
is 41.61073800% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4
The pattern 6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7
is 88.59060403% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Jim Houran
Date: Thu, May 31, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Subject: RE: Are you the brain behind POFCP ?
To: FERNANDO ARDENGHI
Hi Fernando!
Sorry for the delay; I’ve been traveling constantly and just returned from Asia on business. I hope you are well; it’s always nice hearing from you. I wish I could take the credit for the Plenty of Fish’s new test, but I sure can’t.
Keep in touch! Jim
James Houran, Ph.D.
President, 20|20 Skills™ Assessment
372 Willis Avenue
Mineola, NY, 11501
United States of America
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
is 74.79865772% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
5.7.4.8.7.4.5.6.4.6.8.9.6.8.4.4
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
is 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
is 88.38926174% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
5.6.4.7.7.5.6.6.7.6.3.4.7.6.2.3
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
is 87.58389262% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
7.8.6.9.9.7.8.8.9.8.5.6.9.8.4.5
The pattern 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4
is 60.23489933% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
8.9.7.10.10.8.9.9.10.9.6.7.10.9.5.6
The pattern 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4
is 68.15436242% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
4.3.7.8.5.4.7.8.7.7.6.8.8.5.7.6
The pattern 6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7
is 63.75838900% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4.5
The pattern 6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7
is 41.61073800% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4.3.4
The pattern 6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7.6.7
is 88.59060403% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8.7.8
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Jim Houran
Date: Thu, May 31, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Subject: RE: Are you the brain behind POFCP ?
To: FERNANDO ARDENGHI
Hi Fernando!
Sorry for the delay; I’ve been traveling constantly and just returned from Asia on business. I hope you are well; it’s always nice hearing from you. I wish I could take the credit for the Plenty of Fish’s new test, but I sure can’t.
Keep in touch! Jim
James Houran, Ph.D.
President, 20|20 Skills™ Assessment
372 Willis Avenue
Mineola, NY, 11501
United States of America
Wow, James. Thanks for your thoughts. Makes sense. People get so stuck in either/or’s don’t they. We psychologist types get that it’s always both/and – nature and nurture, etc.
Wow, James. Thanks for your thoughts. Makes sense. People get so stuck in either/or’s don’t they. We psychologist types get that it’s always both/and – nature and nurture, etc.
As a love coach and matchmaker, I would LOVE to have cutting edge, innovative support in helping me support the success of my clients. Any takers??? 😉 (btw, my primary clientele are lesbians)
As a love coach and matchmaker, I would LOVE to have cutting edge, innovative support in helping me support the success of my clients. Any takers??? 😉 (btw, my primary clientele are lesbians)
Hi Barb,
Email me; my team can assist you. You can contact me via Mark Brooks or OnlineDatingMagazine.com.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Barb,
Email me; my team can assist you. You can contact me via Mark Brooks or OnlineDatingMagazine.com.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi again, Fernando!
I’m not sure what points your last post is supposed to be making.
First, your “analyses” do not take into account the standard errors of estimate for each number (e.g., “6.7” or “8.9”). Each number is really an estimate that is bounded by a confidence interval. If you can’t provide a reliable number to the eighth decimal place, then you can run reliably matching analyses to the eight decimal place as you imply. In other words, if a score is off by at least one point then you can’t match reliably to the eighth decimal place — it’s basic stats. I’m afraid your matching method is statistically unsound.
But please let me know if you rework your system and actually test it with real data and publish it. I would appreciate the chance to cover that advancement for Online Dating Magazine.
Second, I’d recommend not making a habit of publicly posting private correspondence without prior permission. It’s simply bad form. More to the point, there’s nothing of substance in what you posted. You seem disappointed that I did not take sole, personal credit for the POF application. The fact is it was a TEAM effort. The lesson here is to be more precise in your wording in the future.
Oh, I did find it odd that you failed to post my private email response to you in which I already explained how your matching method was statistically unsound. What I’ve posted here has been explained to you numerous times. My criticism should be familiar to you, yet you fail to address it.
My sincere advice is to work hard at your system and conduct actual studies that show it works, and then that it works better than the compatibility systems already on the market. Such an initiative would be educational and constructively advance the debate. Everything else is noise.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi again, Fernando!
I’m not sure what points your last post is supposed to be making.
First, your “analyses” do not take into account the standard errors of estimate for each number (e.g., “6.7” or “8.9”). Each number is really an estimate that is bounded by a confidence interval. If you can’t provide a reliable number to the eighth decimal place, then you can run reliably matching analyses to the eight decimal place as you imply. In other words, if a score is off by at least one point then you can’t match reliably to the eighth decimal place — it’s basic stats. I’m afraid your matching method is statistically unsound.
But please let me know if you rework your system and actually test it with real data and publish it. I would appreciate the chance to cover that advancement for Online Dating Magazine.
Second, I’d recommend not making a habit of publicly posting private correspondence without prior permission. It’s simply bad form. More to the point, there’s nothing of substance in what you posted. You seem disappointed that I did not take sole, personal credit for the POF application. The fact is it was a TEAM effort. The lesson here is to be more precise in your wording in the future.
Oh, I did find it odd that you failed to post my private email response to you in which I already explained how your matching method was statistically unsound. What I’ve posted here has been explained to you numerous times. My criticism should be familiar to you, yet you fail to address it.
My sincere advice is to work hard at your system and conduct actual studies that show it works, and then that it works better than the compatibility systems already on the market. Such an initiative would be educational and constructively advance the debate. Everything else is noise.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hello Dr. Houran:
You are speaking about precision in measurement
and
I am speaking about precision in pattern comparison.
In compatibility matching methods there are 2 steps:
1) to measure personality traits or other variables.
2) to calculate compatibility between prospective mates.
similarity is a word that has different meanings for different persons or companies, it exactly depends on how mathematically is defined.
I calculate similarity in personality patterns with (a proprietary) pattern recognition by correlation method.
Sample 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
abbreviated
Client #01 — 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
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
abbreviated
Client #02 — 5.7.4.8.7.4.5.6.4.6.8.9.6.8.4.4
A: Warmth; B: Reasoning; C: Emotional_Stability; E: Dominance; F: Liveliness; G: Rule_Consciousness; H: Social_Boldness; I: Sensitivity; L: Vigilance; M: Abstractedness; N: Privateness; O: Apprehension; Q1: Openness_to_Change; Q2: Self_Reliance; Q3: Perfectionism; Q4: Tension.
(#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)
(#02|CQ|#01) == (#01|CQ|#02) == 74.79865772% +/- 0.00000001%
CQ == comparison operator
K01 to K16 == different constants
The personality pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
is 74.79865772% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
the personality pattern 5.7.4.8.7.4.5.6.4.6.8.9.6.8.4.4
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Hello Dr. Houran:
You are speaking about precision in measurement
and
I am speaking about precision in pattern comparison.
In compatibility matching methods there are 2 steps:
1) to measure personality traits or other variables.
2) to calculate compatibility between prospective mates.
similarity is a word that has different meanings for different persons or companies, it exactly depends on how mathematically is defined.
I calculate similarity in personality patterns with (a proprietary) pattern recognition by correlation method.
Sample 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
abbreviated
Client #01 — 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
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
abbreviated
Client #02 — 5.7.4.8.7.4.5.6.4.6.8.9.6.8.4.4
A: Warmth; B: Reasoning; C: Emotional_Stability; E: Dominance; F: Liveliness; G: Rule_Consciousness; H: Social_Boldness; I: Sensitivity; L: Vigilance; M: Abstractedness; N: Privateness; O: Apprehension; Q1: Openness_to_Change; Q2: Self_Reliance; Q3: Perfectionism; Q4: Tension.
(#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)
(#02|CQ|#01) == (#01|CQ|#02) == 74.79865772% +/- 0.00000001%
CQ == comparison operator
K01 to K16 == different constants
The personality pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4
is 74.79865772% +/- 0.00000001%
similar to
the personality pattern 5.7.4.8.7.4.5.6.4.6.8.9.6.8.4.4
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Hi Fernando!
Yes, there are two steps, but they are related. I’m rather surprised you do not understand this.
Precision in pattern comparison is only as reliable and hence accurate as the precision in the measurement of the variables you are comparing. There is no validity without reliability. Consequently, correlations between variables will only be as high/strong as the reliabilities of the measures. This is statistics 101. I doubt your proprietary correlational method is immune from this statistical limitation. In fact, how is someone supposed to replicate or validate your math if you do not explain clearly your process?
But back to the issue at hand. Each 16PF factor/subfactor score has a reliability, which means there is basically a confidence interval surrounding each score. A score of say 6.7 is really “6.7 plus or minus 3.8.” I can’t say for certain what the reliability is for your scores, as I’ve no reference materials handy. But, scores are more unreliable when are at the extreme parts of scale (low or high), so people with strong personality patterns also have the most unreliable patterns (their reliabilities go down).
You can’t reliably (accurately) match people to the 8th decimal place if you can’t reliably measure people on the personality variable to the 8th decimal place. The idea is silly.
What makes it even more silly is the idea that there is really any practical difference between a couple that is “86%” versus “88%” compatible. Comparisons to the 8th decimal place are simply not needed. The POF application works just fine using whole numbers and no decimals.
Good luck as you refine and validate your system, Fernando!
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Fernando!
Yes, there are two steps, but they are related. I’m rather surprised you do not understand this.
Precision in pattern comparison is only as reliable and hence accurate as the precision in the measurement of the variables you are comparing. There is no validity without reliability. Consequently, correlations between variables will only be as high/strong as the reliabilities of the measures. This is statistics 101. I doubt your proprietary correlational method is immune from this statistical limitation. In fact, how is someone supposed to replicate or validate your math if you do not explain clearly your process?
But back to the issue at hand. Each 16PF factor/subfactor score has a reliability, which means there is basically a confidence interval surrounding each score. A score of say 6.7 is really “6.7 plus or minus 3.8.” I can’t say for certain what the reliability is for your scores, as I’ve no reference materials handy. But, scores are more unreliable when are at the extreme parts of scale (low or high), so people with strong personality patterns also have the most unreliable patterns (their reliabilities go down).
You can’t reliably (accurately) match people to the 8th decimal place if you can’t reliably measure people on the personality variable to the 8th decimal place. The idea is silly.
What makes it even more silly is the idea that there is really any practical difference between a couple that is “86%” versus “88%” compatible. Comparisons to the 8th decimal place are simply not needed. The POF application works just fine using whole numbers and no decimals.
Good luck as you refine and validate your system, Fernando!
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
“You can’t reliably (accurately) match people to the 8th decimal place if you can’t reliably measure people on the personality variable to the 8th decimal place.”
means the same as
a plane can not fly because is heavier than air.
a plane can not break sound barrier.
a ship will sink, it is heavier than water.
Please see cross-correlation in signal processing (analysis and correlation with quantized patterns).
The output of the 16PF5 test are 16 independent variables STens (Standard Tens) taking integer values from 1 to 10. STens divide the score scale into ten units.
STens have the advantage that they enable results to be thought of in terms of bands of scores, rather than absolute raw scores. These bands are narrow enough to distinguish statistically significant differences between candidates, but wide enough not to over emphasize minor differences between candidates.
The ensembre of the 16PF5 is 1*E16
World Population (WP) is nearly 6,700,000 persons == 6.7*E9
WP/Ensemble == 0.67*E-6
All World Population is 0.67 micro part of the Ensemble!
No actual online dating site offering compatibility matching methods use the 16PF5 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.
Thanks,
Fernando Ardenghi.
“You can’t reliably (accurately) match people to the 8th decimal place if you can’t reliably measure people on the personality variable to the 8th decimal place.”
means the same as
a plane can not fly because is heavier than air.
a plane can not break sound barrier.
a ship will sink, it is heavier than water.
Please see cross-correlation in signal processing (analysis and correlation with quantized patterns).
The output of the 16PF5 test are 16 independent variables STens (Standard Tens) taking integer values from 1 to 10. STens divide the score scale into ten units.
STens have the advantage that they enable results to be thought of in terms of bands of scores, rather than absolute raw scores. These bands are narrow enough to distinguish statistically significant differences between candidates, but wide enough not to over emphasize minor differences between candidates.
The ensembre of the 16PF5 is 1*E16
World Population (WP) is nearly 6,700,000 persons == 6.7*E9
WP/Ensemble == 0.67*E-6
All World Population is 0.67 micro part of the Ensemble!
No actual online dating site offering compatibility matching methods use the 16PF5 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.
Thanks,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Fernando wrote:
“You can’t reliably (accurately) match people to the 8th decimal place if you can’t reliably measure people on the personality variable to the 8th decimal place.”
means the same as…
a plane can not fly because is heavier than air.
a plane can not break sound barrier.
a ship will sink, it is heavier than water.”
My response:
No, my statement on statistical reliability does not mean the same as your three strange examples.
Furthermore, as a clinical psychologist I have been trained to use the 16PF and other personality assessments. I am familiar with its rationale and my points stand. I know the 16PF does not give an absolute raw score. NO TEST or ASSESSMENT GIVES ABSOLUTE RAW SCORES. There is no such thing as an absolute raw score, which was my point from the start. There is always a standard error of estimate (i.e., reliability) for every type of score/measurement.
Therefore, let me reiterate once again this basic statistical point…. the magnitudes of correlations (regardless of their type) are always limited by the reliability of the measures being correlated.
Fernando, your heart is in the right place, but I’m afraid your approaches are misguided:
1. The cumulative research suggests that similarity in personality is not crucial for relationship satisfaction or stability. So, the lack of the use of the 16PF personality test is a moot issue. I don’t recommend that any service provide compatibility matching based solely on personality.
2. Your method of matching people to the 8th decimal place makes no statistical sense from the measurements that you are using. Plus, you do not specify your matching method, so there is no independent verification your process can match to the 8th decimal place.
3. Even if you could measure similarity/compatibility to the 8th decimal place, it is still a moot point since that level of precision is purely academic and of no practical value in an applied sense. There is no evidence that a couple with, say 84% compatibility is any observable happier/stabler than a couple with 86% compatibility, etc.
I know you are keen to sell your method to a dating site, but you have a great deal of work before you are ready to do so. Please provide a detailed white paper or journal article that proves your matching method with the 16PF offers better outcomes in relationhship quality than what is expected by chance, searching on one’s own or the effect sizes of other matching approaches that have been published in the literature.
Unless you have actual, real-world data (not theoretical simulations) and a good research design, your arguments carry little to no weight. You have been talking about your method for a long time now. It is exciting to see you so enthusiastic about it, but enthusiasm and faith are not enough.
You need scientific support to back up your claims. Please provide that support to everyone before you post any more replies to this thread. People tire of verbal exchanges; let’s see some hard data using real people that have been matched.
Looking forward to the results!
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Fernando wrote:
“You can’t reliably (accurately) match people to the 8th decimal place if you can’t reliably measure people on the personality variable to the 8th decimal place.”
means the same as…
a plane can not fly because is heavier than air.
a plane can not break sound barrier.
a ship will sink, it is heavier than water.”
My response:
No, my statement on statistical reliability does not mean the same as your three strange examples.
Furthermore, as a clinical psychologist I have been trained to use the 16PF and other personality assessments. I am familiar with its rationale and my points stand. I know the 16PF does not give an absolute raw score. NO TEST or ASSESSMENT GIVES ABSOLUTE RAW SCORES. There is no such thing as an absolute raw score, which was my point from the start. There is always a standard error of estimate (i.e., reliability) for every type of score/measurement.
Therefore, let me reiterate once again this basic statistical point…. the magnitudes of correlations (regardless of their type) are always limited by the reliability of the measures being correlated.
Fernando, your heart is in the right place, but I’m afraid your approaches are misguided:
1. The cumulative research suggests that similarity in personality is not crucial for relationship satisfaction or stability. So, the lack of the use of the 16PF personality test is a moot issue. I don’t recommend that any service provide compatibility matching based solely on personality.
2. Your method of matching people to the 8th decimal place makes no statistical sense from the measurements that you are using. Plus, you do not specify your matching method, so there is no independent verification your process can match to the 8th decimal place.
3. Even if you could measure similarity/compatibility to the 8th decimal place, it is still a moot point since that level of precision is purely academic and of no practical value in an applied sense. There is no evidence that a couple with, say 84% compatibility is any observable happier/stabler than a couple with 86% compatibility, etc.
I know you are keen to sell your method to a dating site, but you have a great deal of work before you are ready to do so. Please provide a detailed white paper or journal article that proves your matching method with the 16PF offers better outcomes in relationhship quality than what is expected by chance, searching on one’s own or the effect sizes of other matching approaches that have been published in the literature.
Unless you have actual, real-world data (not theoretical simulations) and a good research design, your arguments carry little to no weight. You have been talking about your method for a long time now. It is exciting to see you so enthusiastic about it, but enthusiasm and faith are not enough.
You need scientific support to back up your claims. Please provide that support to everyone before you post any more replies to this thread. People tire of verbal exchanges; let’s see some hard data using real people that have been matched.
Looking forward to the results!
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
I found that “similar qualities” stand a better chance of having a stable marriage.
I have followed the discussion with great interest.
We at Zoozamen have developed our Compatibility System baed on similarities as we found that similarities make a stable marriage.
We conducted a longitudinal field study on more than 400 couples working in foster homes in Israel – we found validity of 0.6 using our unique selection tool. We based our couple matching prediction on evaluation from fosters’s homes’ professional staff (psychologist and social workers). Therefore, our model measured the predictability of a couple’s suitability to be a foster couple – that is, the strength and stability of their relationship – and has then been applied to the dating arena where we have found the same System can predict individuals suitability to a partner and potential for a long-term successful and stable relationship.
As a result, we tend to think in a completely different way. We have found that personality is important but of greater importance is similarity between the shared perceptions of the couple in question; that is similarity on goals (“what we both want to achieve in life together”).
Generally, research on personality tests fail to reach high prediction validity in the area of vocational psychology, the reason being that it is logical to rely on personality traits but it is very difficult to define personality traits. There are always disagreements on the definition of personality traits between psychologists.
Shared goals as a predictor is a more rigorous and accurate predictor.
Raanan Haas
Chief Scietific Officer
http://www.zoozamen.com
I found that “similar qualities” stand a better chance of having a stable marriage.
I have followed the discussion with great interest.
We at Zoozamen have developed our Compatibility System baed on similarities as we found that similarities make a stable marriage.
We conducted a longitudinal field study on more than 400 couples working in foster homes in Israel – we found validity of 0.6 using our unique selection tool. We based our couple matching prediction on evaluation from fosters’s homes’ professional staff (psychologist and social workers). Therefore, our model measured the predictability of a couple’s suitability to be a foster couple – that is, the strength and stability of their relationship – and has then been applied to the dating arena where we have found the same System can predict individuals suitability to a partner and potential for a long-term successful and stable relationship.
As a result, we tend to think in a completely different way. We have found that personality is important but of greater importance is similarity between the shared perceptions of the couple in question; that is similarity on goals (“what we both want to achieve in life together”).
Generally, research on personality tests fail to reach high prediction validity in the area of vocational psychology, the reason being that it is logical to rely on personality traits but it is very difficult to define personality traits. There are always disagreements on the definition of personality traits between psychologists.
Shared goals as a predictor is a more rigorous and accurate predictor.
Raanan Haas
Chief Scietific Officer
http://www.zoozamen.com
Hi all,
Debate and uncertainty are being stirred where there aren’t any.
Compatibility clearly takes similarities and differences across different variables; it’s not based solely on personality traits. In fact, the pure similarity hypothesis can’t explain why happy, stable couples who have substantial differences on individual differences maintain such high relationship quality.
Research suggests that the phenomenon of compatibility is largely a cognitive phenomenon. Interested readers can learn more at:
http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/columns/drjim/2007/15-compatibilitytestsattraction.html
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi all,
Debate and uncertainty are being stirred where there aren’t any.
Compatibility clearly takes similarities and differences across different variables; it’s not based solely on personality traits. In fact, the pure similarity hypothesis can’t explain why happy, stable couples who have substantial differences on individual differences maintain such high relationship quality.
Research suggests that the phenomenon of compatibility is largely a cognitive phenomenon. Interested readers can learn more at:
http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/columns/drjim/2007/15-compatibilitytestsattraction.html
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
“Thanks for the good debate, Fernando!”
“Debate and uncertainty are being stirred where there aren’t any.”
Interested readers should see:
Barelds & Dijkstra, 2008
PAPER: “Do People Know What They Want: A Similar or Complementary Partner?”
“In The Netherlands, where this study was conducted, almost 40% of the divorcees report mismatches in personalities as the major cause of their break-up (De Graaf, 2006; Amato and Previti, 2003).”
Similarity in Personality
Although numerous studies have investigated partner similarity in domains such as attitudes, intelligence and physical attractiveness, personality has been far less often the focus of study. More specifically, although several studies have revealed similarities between partners in their personalities (e.g., Buss, 1984; McCrae, Martin, Hrebícková, Urbánek, Boomsma et al., 2008) only few studies have investigated the extent to which similarity in personality leads to romantic attraction (Barelds and Dijkstra, 2007). From their finding that couples across age groups show the same partner similarities (McCrae et al. 2008) conclude that mate selection, rather than convergence over time, accounts for personality similarity among partners.”
We base our expectation also on several studies conducted among married individuals. Most of those studies only found weak evidence for spousal similarity in personality (e.g., Barelds, 2005; Luo and Klohnen, 2005). We, however, suspect that these studies do not fully reflect individuals’ desire for a similar partner. A previous study of Barelds and Dijkstra (2007), for instance, shows that individuals who take the time to get to know each other’s personalities before they get romantically involved – in contrast to those who become romantically involved relatively quickly – end up with a partner with a more similar personality. Thus, although individuals may desire a similar partner, they may not always succeed in selecting one.
Finally, the present study explored a recent issue uncovered by Eastwick and Finkel 2008; also Kurzban and Weeden, 2007; Todd, Penke, Fasolo, and Lenton, 2007 who found that people often report partner preferences that are not compatible with their choices in real life.
Our study found that individuals often hold seemingly contradictory beliefs about their ideal romantic partner. That is, whereas they wish for a partner who resembles them in terms of personality, when asked about their preferences in general, most individuals indicate that they desire a complementary partner instead of a similar one.
In general, the notion that opposites attract is a relatively popular lay theory of romantic attraction: people often think that individuals who possess complementary characteristics are highly attractive to each other (Barelds and Dijkstra, 2007). In contrast, looking for someone who is similar to oneself may be perceived as boring. These popular lay theories may confuse people and lead them away from their true partner desires. When individuals become romantically involved, this type of confusion may create all kind of relationship problems and even lead to divorce.”
—————————————————————————–
Barelds & Dijkstra, 2007
PAPER: “Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among partner personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and love”
” it was found that, as predicted, partners who fell in love at first sight became romantically involved more quickly, and showed more dissimilar personalities with regard to levels of extraversion, emotional stability and autonomy. Partners who fell in love at first sight did not report lower relationship quality. Instead, partner personality trait similarity was related to relationship quality as a function of both relationship onset and specific personality traits. ”
—————————————————————————–
Bekkers, van Aken & Denissen,2006 (Dutch study)
PAPER: “Social Structure and Personality Assortment Among Married Couples”
“It seems like a good idea for spouses to select each other on the basis of personality
characteristics.
Personality is highly stable throughout the life course (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000).
Personality characteristics like agreeableness and neuroticism are good predictors of
marital conflicts and ultimately of union dissolution, even across different relationships
(Robins, Caspi & Moffitt, 2002).
But despite the fact that most people desire to have a spouse with similar personality characteristics, spousal similarity with regard to personality has been found to be rather low in most studies: correlations between personality characteristics of spouses are usually below 0.15. Spousal similarity is much higher for other characteristics like age (0.90 – 0.95), religious affiliation (0.80 – 0.90), and the level of education (0.45 – 0.55).
In theory, spousal similarity with regard to personality may be affected at three stages
in the marital career:
1) before the actual relationship, when selecting a spouse
2) during the relationship, when living together with the spouse
3) when the relationship ends
Higher educated people are less likely to marry than the lower educated, and if higher educated people marry they do so at a later age. One of the results of postponing marriage when in education is that the higher educated have more time to meet the one_and_only. In addition, marriage markets in cities where universities are located are usually larger and contain a higher number of potential spouses. As a result, the higher educated are likely to have higher standards for spouse selection. If they do not find a suitable candidate, they may decide not to marry at all. Those who do marry, are more likely to be similar with regard to personality.
In sum: spouses with higher levels of neuroticism and openness, spouses with lower levels of agreeableness, and couples with more dissimilar personalities at the time of marriage are more likely to divorce.”
—————————————————————————-
Amodio & Showers, 2005
PAPER: “Similarity breeds liking revisited: The moderating role of commitment”
While opposites attract for short term affairs, similarity is preferred for marriage.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
“Thanks for the good debate, Fernando!”
“Debate and uncertainty are being stirred where there aren’t any.”
Interested readers should see:
Barelds & Dijkstra, 2008
PAPER: “Do People Know What They Want: A Similar or Complementary Partner?”
“In The Netherlands, where this study was conducted, almost 40% of the divorcees report mismatches in personalities as the major cause of their break-up (De Graaf, 2006; Amato and Previti, 2003).”
Similarity in Personality
Although numerous studies have investigated partner similarity in domains such as attitudes, intelligence and physical attractiveness, personality has been far less often the focus of study. More specifically, although several studies have revealed similarities between partners in their personalities (e.g., Buss, 1984; McCrae, Martin, Hrebícková, Urbánek, Boomsma et al., 2008) only few studies have investigated the extent to which similarity in personality leads to romantic attraction (Barelds and Dijkstra, 2007). From their finding that couples across age groups show the same partner similarities (McCrae et al. 2008) conclude that mate selection, rather than convergence over time, accounts for personality similarity among partners.”
We base our expectation also on several studies conducted among married individuals. Most of those studies only found weak evidence for spousal similarity in personality (e.g., Barelds, 2005; Luo and Klohnen, 2005). We, however, suspect that these studies do not fully reflect individuals’ desire for a similar partner. A previous study of Barelds and Dijkstra (2007), for instance, shows that individuals who take the time to get to know each other’s personalities before they get romantically involved – in contrast to those who become romantically involved relatively quickly – end up with a partner with a more similar personality. Thus, although individuals may desire a similar partner, they may not always succeed in selecting one.
Finally, the present study explored a recent issue uncovered by Eastwick and Finkel 2008; also Kurzban and Weeden, 2007; Todd, Penke, Fasolo, and Lenton, 2007 who found that people often report partner preferences that are not compatible with their choices in real life.
Our study found that individuals often hold seemingly contradictory beliefs about their ideal romantic partner. That is, whereas they wish for a partner who resembles them in terms of personality, when asked about their preferences in general, most individuals indicate that they desire a complementary partner instead of a similar one.
In general, the notion that opposites attract is a relatively popular lay theory of romantic attraction: people often think that individuals who possess complementary characteristics are highly attractive to each other (Barelds and Dijkstra, 2007). In contrast, looking for someone who is similar to oneself may be perceived as boring. These popular lay theories may confuse people and lead them away from their true partner desires. When individuals become romantically involved, this type of confusion may create all kind of relationship problems and even lead to divorce.”
—————————————————————————–
Barelds & Dijkstra, 2007
PAPER: “Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among partner personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and love”
” it was found that, as predicted, partners who fell in love at first sight became romantically involved more quickly, and showed more dissimilar personalities with regard to levels of extraversion, emotional stability and autonomy. Partners who fell in love at first sight did not report lower relationship quality. Instead, partner personality trait similarity was related to relationship quality as a function of both relationship onset and specific personality traits. ”
—————————————————————————–
Bekkers, van Aken & Denissen,2006 (Dutch study)
PAPER: “Social Structure and Personality Assortment Among Married Couples”
“It seems like a good idea for spouses to select each other on the basis of personality
characteristics.
Personality is highly stable throughout the life course (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000).
Personality characteristics like agreeableness and neuroticism are good predictors of
marital conflicts and ultimately of union dissolution, even across different relationships
(Robins, Caspi & Moffitt, 2002).
But despite the fact that most people desire to have a spouse with similar personality characteristics, spousal similarity with regard to personality has been found to be rather low in most studies: correlations between personality characteristics of spouses are usually below 0.15. Spousal similarity is much higher for other characteristics like age (0.90 – 0.95), religious affiliation (0.80 – 0.90), and the level of education (0.45 – 0.55).
In theory, spousal similarity with regard to personality may be affected at three stages
in the marital career:
1) before the actual relationship, when selecting a spouse
2) during the relationship, when living together with the spouse
3) when the relationship ends
Higher educated people are less likely to marry than the lower educated, and if higher educated people marry they do so at a later age. One of the results of postponing marriage when in education is that the higher educated have more time to meet the one_and_only. In addition, marriage markets in cities where universities are located are usually larger and contain a higher number of potential spouses. As a result, the higher educated are likely to have higher standards for spouse selection. If they do not find a suitable candidate, they may decide not to marry at all. Those who do marry, are more likely to be similar with regard to personality.
In sum: spouses with higher levels of neuroticism and openness, spouses with lower levels of agreeableness, and couples with more dissimilar personalities at the time of marriage are more likely to divorce.”
—————————————————————————-
Amodio & Showers, 2005
PAPER: “Similarity breeds liking revisited: The moderating role of commitment”
While opposites attract for short term affairs, similarity is preferred for marriage.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com