Two skeptics, actually. But let me take things back a few steps first.
In the spring of 2006, I left a long term relationship.
In general, a lot of things were changing for me at the time; I started a new job, was nearing the end of my undergraduate education and was gearing up to begin my first graduate program. In addition, the break-up meant I also had to move. By the end of 2006, my life was virtually unrecognizable compared to where I was in just 12 months prior.
The relationship began when I was 20, and here I was 27 and trying to figure out how to go about meeting people. The rise of internet dating took place while I was tucked away in monogamy for all those years, so when I came out to meet both the end of my twenties and the excitement of a new, single life it seemed the logical step was to create online dating profiles.
I used a bunch of sites: Yahoo Personals, Lavalife, Match.com and even a few dating sites that cater to plus size individuals (B&B women, like myself) such as PlusSizeDating.net and PlusSizePersonals.com. Collectively my profiles attracted more than a few suggestive e-mails (that I don’t care to quote in a respectable place like the Gotham Skeptic), several online chats that didn’t set off any fireworks, and a few phone calls and dates that while initially seemed promising, came up rather flat. After approximately 9 months a sweet little e-mail from a charming, red-headed gamer found it’s way into my Match.com inbox. He told me that I was the only female in the geographic radius he set that used the word “skeptic” as an identifying characteristic. We had our first date at the Museum of Natural History and just over three years later, (this past weekend as a matter of fact), he moved in with me [pictured above].
My thoughts on the matter of online dating (nothing empirical, just my opinion) is if you put up enough profiles, check them regularly enough (to keep your account active so you turn up in search results), respond to (except perhaps the vulgar or ridiculous ones) and send enough messages, the likelihood that you’ll find someone you’re interested in dating increases as a function of your search related activities. This would especially be the case if you were honest on your profile about yourself and about what you’re looking for, and that the men or women in your search results are equally forthcoming.
Given a large enough online community of people seeking a similar goal of companionship, that allows for the individual user to set filtering parameters to meet their individual needs, it would seem reasonably probabilistic that a typical user will find someone they’re interested in. Find enough people you’re interested in and it would also seem reasonable to estimate that some of them will also be interested in you. It really doesn’t require anything all that scientific.
Now, I also know enough about general logic and reasoning to know that I cannot conclude that Match.com is the superior online dating site, as it is where I located the current love of my life. There is a certain amount of coincidence in that we both had Match.com accounts, but if we were both aiming to meet people to date and potentially develop a serious relationship with, we’d have been fools not to put our profiles up in places that have a high volume of people there for the same reason (and Match.com is the largest dating site, with an estimated 15 million users).
Online dating appears to be increasingly popular for young singles as well as people returning to the dating scene after a long term relationship has ended. According to a study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project (2006) about 11% of Americans who use the internet have visited an online dating website, which is estimated to be 37% of the population of single internet users seeking a relationship. Forty three percent of the people who used online dating services said that it resulted in at least one date, and 17% reported long term relationships. A more recent study conducted by People Media Inc (2009) estimates that 49% of Americans know someone who dated someone they met online; the Pew study (estimated this to be 26% of Americans just 4 years prior).
The perception seems to have been that online dating is both risky and a ‘last resort’ of the desperately lonely. According to the Pew study (2006) 66% of internet users believed internet dating was dangerous, 57% believed many people lie about their marital status on online dating sites, but only 20% indicated they felt online dating was an act of desperation. Epstein (2007) demonstrated that people do often lie in their online profiles, most often about their age but also in the use of fictitious profile photographs. And the potential for deception doesn’t end there. Mitchell (2009) of PC World estimates that when it came to free dating accounts, about 10% of the profiles were spam accounts.
Dan and I discovered one night at a friend’s birthday party that 4 of the 5 couples in attendance (including us) had met online (I believe all through Match.com). Three of the 4 (all except Dan and me) had been married. I also threw the question out to my Facebook friends if anyone had experience with online dating. Of the 5 of my friends who responded (roughly 2.5% of my people I actually know on my friends list), only one reported never having gone on any dates from the experience (and indicated leaving the site after only a month because of the frequent lewd messages). All of the rest reported that dates (albeit at times less than successful ones) had taken place, and one of them reported having met his wife through Match.com after being a member for 6 months.
One difficulty in any assessment of the fruitfulness of online dating is that it attracts a certain demographic. For starters, the online dating community is compromised solely of persons who are internet users. More so, most sites will allow you to post a profile for free, but to actually communicate with someone will more than likely cost you. Yahoo Personals and Match.com were about $30 a month, but less expensive per month the longer your contract. eHarmony, I’m told, costs $60 a month.
Dan often tells the tale of how he had grown tired of using an online dating site, and paying each month without many promising rewards for several months. He’d canceled his account seemingly moments before I replied to his e-mail. He then had to renew his membership (and pay $30) to read my message and continue communicating with me. So, successful matching with online dating is rather predicated on paying for the service, as you cannot communicate for your matches otherwise. And for the estimated 15 millions users on Match.com, according to Epstein (2007) only about one million are paying for the service and thus able to communicate.
Not only does the cost of online dating reduce the potential pool of mates to those who are willing to pay for such a service (presumably someone serious about seeking a relationship) but also to only those who can afford it. There is a large proportion of the online dating community of non-paying members who are unable to respond to the interest of a paying members. So a non-response might not be a rejection; it could be the person you’ve expressed interest in just couldn’t afford to reply, or maybe found you interesting but not quite enough to shell out about $30.
In short, online dating seems to be a relatively successful industry despite some apparent flaws. But, what of the claims that online dating is somehow better? That it is somehow scientific? Can a website measure you, as a person, along a certain number of dimensions (say, for example, 29) and then locate the most perfect match for you, practically guaranteed into a happily ever after?
Now, it had been my intent to come here today and report the findings of a simple analysis I sought to conduct. My hypothesis was based on the claim purported by eHarmony that their dating service offers a scientific (and therefore better) approach to dating and relationships. The claim made me wonder, as it would any skeptic worth their weight in salt, how their ‘scientific’ method was designed and what data do they offer that support their claim.
I have heard mumblings that eHarmony excludes nonbelievers, homosexuals and generally persons who do not fit the specific parameters they seek. One of my Facebook friends who responded to my query reported that he had been rejected by eHarmony (as the commercials for Chemistry.com mockingly describe). Given the claims, potential mythology of exclusivity and my inability to ignore what smelled an awful lot like bad science, I sought to investigate matters for myself.
Tune in this Friday to find out my results.
References
Epstein, R. (2007) The Truth about Online Dating Scientific American Mind, feb/march, 2007
Mitchell, R. (2009) Online Dating: Analyzing the Algorithms of Attraction, PC World, Feb, 2009