IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcsosc/v5y2022i1d10.1007_s42001-021-00132-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel Dinh

    (University of Oxford)

  • Patrick Gildersleve

    (University of Oxford)

  • Chris Blex

    (University of Oxford
    Alan Turing Institute for Data Science and Artificial Intelligence)

  • Taha Yasseri

    (University College Dublin
    University College Dublin)

Abstract

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

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel Dinh & Patrick Gildersleve & Chris Blex & Taha Yasseri, 2022. "Computational courtship understanding the evolution of online dating through large-scale data analysis," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 401-426, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:5:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s42001-021-00132-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s42001-021-00132-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s42001-021-00132-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s42001-021-00132-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alfred Galichon & Scott Duke Kominers & Simon Weber, 2019. "Costly Concessions: An Empirical Framework for Matching with Imperfectly Transferable Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(6), pages 2875-2925.
    2. Soohyung Lee & Muriel Niederle, 2015. "Propose with a rose? Signaling in internet dating markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 731-755, December.
    3. Arnaud Dupuy & Alfred Galichon, 2014. "Personality Traits and the Marriage Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1271-1319.
    4. Marko Tervio, 2008. "The Difference That CEOs Make: An Assignment Model Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 642-668, June.
    5. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/7o52iohb7k6srk09mj4j5amb8 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Pierre-André Chiappori & Murat Iyigun & Yoram Weiss, 2009. "Investment in Schooling and the Marriage Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1689-1713, December.
    7. Nick Feltovich & Richmond Harbaugh & Ted To, 2002. "Too Cool for School? Signalling and Countersignalling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 630-649, Winter.
    8. Weiss, Yoram & Willis, Robert J, 1997. "Match Quality, New Information, and Marital Dissolution," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 293-329, January.
    9. Becker, Gary S, 1973. "A Theory of Marriage: Part I," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(4), pages 813-846, July-Aug..
    10. Raymond Fisman & Sheena S. Iyengar & Emir Kamenica & Itamar Simonson, 2006. "Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence From a Speed Dating Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 673-697.
    11. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7o52iohb7k6srk09mj4j5amb8 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Eduardo M. Azevedo & Jacob D. Leshno, 2016. "A Supply and Demand Framework for Two-Sided Matching Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(5), pages 1235-1268.
    13. Alan T. Sorensen, 2000. "Equilibrium Price Dispersion in Retail Markets for Prescription Drugs," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(4), pages 833-862, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adda, Jérôme & Pinotti, Paolo & Tura, Giulia, 2020. "There's More to Marriage than Love: The Effect of Legal Status and Cultural Distance on Intermarriages and Separations," CEPR Discussion Papers 14432, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Bisin, Alberto & Tura, Giulia, 2019. "Marriage, Fertility, and Cultural Integration in Italy," CEPR Discussion Papers 14179, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Alberto Bisin & Giulia Tura, 2019. "Marriage, Fertility, and Cultural Integration of Immigrants in Italy," Working Papers 2019-063, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    4. Weiss, Yoram & Yi, Junjian & Zhang, Junsen, 2013. "Hypergamy, Cross-Boundary Marriages, and Family Behavior," IZA Discussion Papers 7293, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Marion Goussé & Nicolas Jacquemet & Jean-Marc Robin, 2016. "Marriage, Labor Supply, and Home Production: A Longitudinal Microeconomic Analysis of Marriage, Intra-Household Bargaining and Time Use Using the BHPS, 1991-2008," Cahiers de recherche 1601, CIRPEE.
    6. Arnaud Dupuy & Simon Weber, 2022. "Marriage Market Counterfactuals Using Matching Models," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(353), pages 29-43, January.
    7. Marion Goussé & Nicolas Jacquemet & Jean‐Marc Robin, 2017. "Marriage, Labor Supply, and Home Production," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85(6), pages 1873-1919, November.
    8. Daiji Kawaguchi & Soohyung Lee, 2017. "Brides For Sale: Cross-Border Marriages And Female Immigration," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 633-654, April.
    9. Martin Browning & Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock & Frederic Vermeulen, 2021. "Stable marriage, household consumption and unobserved match quality," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 679647, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    10. Alfred Galichon & Bernard Salani'e, 2021. "Cupid's Invisible Hand: Social Surplus and Identification in Matching Models," Papers 2106.02371, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    11. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/4u07fqmc7q90d9u66sk1a7qgko is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock & Frederic Vermeulen, 2017. "Household Consumption When the Marriage Is Stable," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(6), pages 1507-1534, June.
    13. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5qto0mb54p8u69nt9krvc2btjm is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Pierre‐Andre Chiappori & Murat Iyigun & Jeanne Lafortune & Yoram Weiss, 2017. "Changing the Rules Midway: The Impact of Granting Alimony Rights on Existing and Newly Formed Partnerships," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(604), pages 1874-1905, September.
    15. Nielsen, Helena Skyt & Svarer, Michael, 2006. "Educational Homogamy: Preferences or Opportunities?," IZA Discussion Papers 2271, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Edoardo Ciscato, 2019. "Matching models with and without frictions: applications to the economics of the family," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/4u07fqmc7q9, Sciences Po.
    17. Barban, Nicola & De Cao, Elisabetta & Oreffice, Sonia & Quintana-Domeque, Climent, 2021. "The effect of education on spousal education: A genetic approach," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    18. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Reny, Philip J., 2016. "Matching to share risk," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(1), January.
    19. Eva Raiber & Weiwei Ren & Jeanne Bovet & Paul Seabright & Charlotte Wang, 2023. "What Do Parents Want? Parental Spousal Preferences in China," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 71(3), pages 903-939.
    20. Mikhail Freer & Khushboo Surana, 2021. "Marital Stability With Committed Couples: A Revealed Preference Analysis," Papers 2110.10781, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    21. Fang, Li & Tian, Chuanhao, 2018. "Housing and marital matching: A signaling perspective," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 27-46.
    22. Ong, David & Wang, Jue, 2015. "Income attraction: An online dating field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 13-22.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:5:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s42001-021-00132-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.