Meeting someone online is fundamentally different than meeting someone IRL

In some ways online dating is a different ballgame from meeting someone in real life — and in some ways it’s not. (Reis points out that “online dating” is actually somewhat of a misnomer. We use the term to mean “online meeting,” whether it’s through a dating website or a dating app.)

“You typically have information about them before you actually meet,” Reis says about people you meet online. You may have read a short profile or you may have had fairly extensive conversations via text or email.

And similarly, when you meet someone offline, you may know a lot of information about that person ahead of time (such as when you get set up by a friend) or you may know very little (if, let’s say, you go out with someone you met briefly at a bar).

“The idea behind online dating is not a novel idea,” says Lara Hallam, a researcher in the Department of Communication Studies at University of Antwerp, where she’s working on her PhD in relationship studies. (Her research currently focuses on online dating, including a study that found that age was the only reliable local transgender dating free of what made online daters more The Science of Online Dating to actually meet up.)

“People have always used intermediaries such as mothers, friends, priests, or tribe members, to find a suitable partner,” Hallam says. Where online dating differs from methods that go farther back are the layers of anonymity involved.

If you meet someone via a friend or family member, just having that third-party connection is a way of helping validate certain characteristics about someone (physical appearance, values, personality traits, and so on).

A friend may not necessarily get it right, but they’re still setting you up with someone they think you’ll like, Hallam says, The Science of Online Dating. “Online daters remain online strangers up until the moment they decide to meet offline.”

Related

When it comes to relationships, some things do need to be done the old-fashioned way

And there are certain things about a person and a potential partner that you just can’t find out from a profile or chatting online, Reis adds: Do you communicate well? Do you make one another laugh? Do you enjoy one another’s company? Do you feel like you’re a better person when you’re with the other person?

“Those things that really matter when it comes to making a relationship work are simply not available in a profile,” Reis says. (Study after psychological study support that those types of principles are important in relationships, and are predictors of relationship success, he notes.)

Online dating is a way to open doors to meet and date people, Reis says. And one thing the apps and sites have going for them is that ability to simply help you meet more people.

So, what’s the best way to use dating sites and apps to actually meet more people?

While there are limited clinical studies that have specifically analyzed online dating outcomes, there’s decades of research on why relationships work out and what drives people together in the first place.

“Most of what we can say about online dating from research is really more extrapolating from other kinds of studies,” Reis says.

Sameer Chaudhry, MD, an internist at the University of North Texas in Dallas, coauthored a BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine paper for which he and his coauthor considered nearly 4, studies across psychology, sociology, neurocognitive science, and other disciplines to come up with a series of guidelines for how to set up a profile, how to select matches, The Science of Online Dating, and how to approach online interactions.

Setting up a dating profile a certain way is by no means a guarantee for meeting the love of your life. But Chaudhry’s findings do offer some pointers on how to share information about yourself and The Science of Online Dating decide who to take a chance on. “There are small subtleties that can help,” he says.

Here are a few tips:

1. Pick your apps wisely

Online dating isn’t one of those see-all-of-your-options-and-then-make-a-decision games. Be selective. Some apps have a reputation for being hookup apps; others are designed to connect users of the same religion or some other shared hobby or attribute. “Use apps according to your partner preferences,” Hallam says.

2. Be honest

Research shows that people tend to fall for people similar to themselves when it comes to things like relationship history, desire for children, pet preferences, and religion. Being honest about what you want and who you are makes it more likely that the people you end up talking to and meeting are people things might work out with, Hallam says.

“This is an opportunity to be clear about who you are and who you The Science of Online Dating to meet,” adds Keely Kolmes, PsyD, a San Francisco- and Oakland-based psychologist — and if you have a “deal breaker” issue, mentioning it upfront can safe a dating a south american girl of time and effort.

3. Choose a photo that puts your best foot forward (or at least the one you want to show off)

Photos should accurately depict your physical appearance — but they should be photos you generally like, Hallam says.

Having never met this person before, photos can have a big bearing on likeability and someone’s initial attitude toward you, Chaudhry says. Specific attributes that generally increase attractiveness and likeability, according to his research, were: a genuine smile (one that makes your eyes start to crinkle up) and a slight head tilt.

4. Get to the point — and DO include what makes you interesting in your profile

Nobody’s going to read a six-paragraph essay, Reis says. People swipe through profiles quickly. State things that are really important to you and be done with it.

DO include what’s distinctive about you. People tend to be interested in interesting people. And DO include what you’re looking for in a potential match, The Science of Online Dating says — an ideal balance is 70 percent about you, and 30 percent about the person you’re looking for, according to his research.

5. Be open minded

Just because someone isn’t a runner or has a hobby you’re not so sure about, don’t give up on them, Reis says. “Try to be as open The Science of Online Dating as possible to the idea that you could actually grow in new ways from someone you might meet online.”

(Remember that personal growth is one of those hallmarks that tends to make long-term relationships work.)

6. Keep conversations (somewhat) short and non-generic

There are certain aspects of a relationship you’re sd dating site going to be able to gather from online interactions alone, Reis says. He suggests not drawing out the pre-face-to-face meeting for too long.

Chaudhry says his research suggests keeping online, pre-meeting exchanges to two weeks or shorter. And actually make an effort to get to know someone. Ask about a specific part of someone’s profile or about likes and dislikes, Chaudhry says.

7. Have fun

“Using dating apps should be fun,” Kolmes says. It shouldn’t feel like work.

Kolmes suggests checking in with yourself regularly. “If it’s feeling like a chore, you’re not enjoying yourself, or you are feeling bad about yourself, then take a break and try something else.”

Don't miss: Got swiping fatigue? 'Slow dating' is for busy people who want real connections

Want more tips like these? NBC News BETTER is obsessed with finding easier, healthier and smarter ways to live. Sign up for our newsletter and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

“It’s extremely eye-opening that people are willing to make decisions about whether or not they would like to get to another human being, in less than a second and based almost solely on how to start an online dating profile other person’s looks,” said The Science of Online Dating. Chopik.

According to the Pew Research Center, The Science of Online Dating, 1 in 10 American adults have landed a long-term relationship from an online dating app, such as Tinder, OKCupid, and alovex.co But what compels people to “swipe right” on certain profiles and reject others? 

New research from Dr. William Chopik, an associate professor in the Michigan State University Department of Psychology, and Dr. David Johnson from the University of Maryland, finds that people’s reason for swiping right is based primarily on attractiveness and the race of a potential partner, and that decisions are often made in less than a second.

“Despite online dating becoming an increasingly popular way for people to meet one another, there is little research on how people connect with each other on these platforms,” explained Dr. Chopik. “We wanted to understand what makes someone want to swipe left or swipe right, and the process behind how they make those decisions.”

Dr. Chopik’s research used two studies to gauge how dating app users from different walks of life interact with available profiles. The first study focused on college students, while the second focused on working-class adults, averaging 35 years old. Participants were given a choice to either view profiles of men or women, depending on their dating preferences. 

Male participants, on average, swiped right more often than women, and it was also found that individuals who perceive themselves to be more attractive swipe left more often overall, proving to be choosier when picking out potential partners. 

“It’s extremely eye-opening that people are willing to make decisions about whether or not they would like to get to another human being, in less than a second and based almost solely on the other person’s looks,” said Dr. Chopik.

“Also surprising was just how little everything beyond attractiveness and race mattered for swiping behavior — your personality didn’t seem to matter, how open you were to hook-ups didn’t matter, or even your style for how you approach relationships or if you were looking short- or long-term didn’t matter.”

While attractiveness played a major role in participants’ decisions to swipe left or right, race was another leading factor. Users were significantly more likely to swipe on users within their same race, and profiles of users of color were rejected more often than those of white users. 

“The disparities were rather shocking,” commented Dr. Chopik. “Profiles of Black users were rejected more often than white users, highlighting another way people of color face bias in everyday life.”

Currently, Dr. Chopik is researching how people using online dating apps respond to profiles which swipe right on them first. Though his findings are still being finalized, The Science of Online Dating, so far, the data seems to show that people are significantly more likely to swipe right on a profile that liked them first, even if the user is less attractive or the profile in general is less appealing.

“We like people who like us,” explained Dr. Chopik. “It makes sense that we want to connect with others who have shown an interest in us, even if they weren’t initially a top choice.”

Reference: “Modeling dating decisions in a mock swiping paradigm: An examination of participant and target characteristics” by William J. Chopik and David J. Johnson, 20 FebruaryJournal of Research in Personality.
DOI: /alovex.co

Column Editor’s Note: Dating apps and online matchmaking are now a commonplace way for couples to meet and relationships to form. As human communications expert Liesel Sharabi explains, the algorithms underlying the matchmaking have evolved enormously in complexity over recent years, and our relationship with online free dating sites browse apps have become a long-term prospect.

Keywords: algorithms, machine learning, matchmaking, online dating, recommender systems

Online dating has become the most common way for couples to meet in the United States (Rosenfeld et al., ). Fifty-two percent of Americans who have never been married say they have tried their luck with online dating (Anderson et al., ). There is also evidence that online dating may be changing the composition of real-world relationships. According to a study by Cacioppo et al., one-third of marriages in the United States are The Science of Online Dating partners The Science of Online Dating were introduced to each other online. Outside of the United States, millions of people use online dating services (Maybin et al., ).

Online dating generally progresses through a series of stages that involve filling out a profile, matching, messaging, and, if all goes well, meeting in person. Although success can mean different things depending on the person, meeting face-to-face (be it for casual sex or for a committed relationship) is generally a good indicator that a platform has done why you shouldnt use dating apps reddit job (Ellison et al., ). The problem for data science is finding the best way to filter and sort at the matching stage in order to make recommendations that will lead to successful outcomes. Most online dating platforms do this by relying on algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) The Science of Online Dating introduce users to partners with whom they might be compatible. But can matching algorithms learn to predict what has long eluded their human creators: the secret to romantic compatibility? The following sections explore this question by tracing the history of online dating from desktop computers to smartphones and the emergence of modern methods for finding romance The Science of Online Dating data.

“The theoretical perspective underlying the online matchmaking paradigm is that who you are and who you choose to be with will have an enormous impact on the quality of your marriage.”
–Steven Carter and Galen Buckwalter, eHarmony

One of the first commercial forays into computerized dating took place at Harvard University in (Mathews, ), but it would be decades before online dating would go mainstream with the arrival of Match in the mids. Early online dating sites bore a strong resemblance to newspaper personal ads and were designed for users to click through profiles until they found someone who piqued their interest. The appeal of these sites was that they afforded greater access to potential partners, yet too many options can be overwhelming and leave people feeling dissatisfied with their decisions (Finkel et al., ; Schwartz, ). In a classic example of choice overload, Iyengar and Lepper () presented grocery store shoppers with a tasting booth containing either six or 24 flavors of gourmet jam. Despite being drawn to the booth with more options, shoppers were the most likely to make a purchase when given fewer choices. Likewise, The Science of Online Dating online daters are given more profiles to examine, they are known to spend more time searching, to be less selective by considering options that do not meet their preferences, and to make poorer choices that do not fit what they are looking for in a partner (Wu & Chiou, The Science of Online Dating, ).

Online dating sites began to experiment with compatibility matching in the early s as a way to address the issue of choice overload by narrowing the dating pool. Matching algorithms also allowed sites to accomplish other goals, such as being able to charge higher fees for their services and enhancing user engagement and satisfaction (Jung et al., ; Sprecher, ). Since these algorithms did not have to work perfectly to be profitable (Sharabi & Timmermans, ), there was flexibility in how they made their recommendations. The sites that rose to popularity around this time claimed to provide ‘scientific matching’ and relied on lengthy questionnaires to gather data about their users’ preferences (Sprecher, ). Some sites even went so far as to eliminate the ability to search entirely, which meant that users had fewer options but also less competition since there were not as many profiles to choose from (Halaburda et al., ). Although much of the industry takes The Science of Online Dating black-box approach to algorithms (Courtois & Timmermans, ), eHarmony and OkCupid have been a few of the more transparent sites in their approach to matchmaking.

IneHarmony was among the first online dating sites to develop and patent a matching algorithm for pairing users with compatible partners. The eHarmony algorithm was created by a team dating guy for a month he doesnt text much psychologists led by the company’s founder, Dr. Neil Clark Warren, and guided by research they conducted with 5, married couples (Tierney, ). Their intention was to lower the divorce rate by applying insights from marriage to intervene in the mating decisions of the site’s single users (Slater, ). The original eHarmony algorithm was relatively simple by today’s standards and used a regression-based approach to match users on variables believed to predict long-term relationship satisfaction (Buckwalter et al.,). As part of the sign-up process, users completed a compatibility test that included as many as questions about themselves and their preferences for an ideal partner (eHarmony, ). In one of the few published tests of eHarmony’s matchmaking paradigm, couples who matched on the site had higher quality marriages than those who were introduced via ‘unfettered choice’ (Carter & Buckwalter,p. ). Of course, this does not eliminate the possibility that, algorithm aside, the eHarmony couples may have been more motivated for their relationships to succeed in the first place (Houran et al., ).

Not long after, inOkCupid began offering algorithmic matching alongside the basic search functionality that users had come to expect from earlier sites. The combination of searching and sd dating site on OkCupid meant the algorithm functioned as more of a decision aid by empowering users to seek out potential partners for The Science of Online Dating while also offering suggestions to narrow the field (Tong et al., ). OkCupid’s algorithm used “match percentages” to assess compatibility based on how users answered questions and how they wanted potential partners to answer, and then it weighted each question by its reported level of importance (i.e., “irrelevant,” “a little,” “somewhat,” “very”; Rudder, ). The data came from an assortment of questions (e.g., “Are you afraid of death?” “Would you date someone who keeps a gun in the house?”), including those unlikely to be found on a scientific questionnaire (e.g., “Do you believe in dinosaurs?” “Is astrological sign at all important in a match?”; Cooper, ). By assuming the answers to some questions were more important than others, OkCupid gave users control over the matching process and the ability to provide input into how their data were used by the site’s algorithm.

The problem with these early matching systems is that they assumed users knew precisely what they desired in a partner. However, people’s stated preferences for an ideal mate do not always i like dating short girls with what they find attractive in person (Eastwick & Finkel, ). This is further complicated by the fact that online dating often encourages users to prioritize qualities blossom dating site, height, income) that are poor indicators of what it will be like to interact with someone in the flesh (Frost et al., ). Many online dating sites have since started using more sophisticated machine learning algorithms to predict users’ preferences from implicit forms of feedback (Dinh et al., ).

“It’s scary to know how much it’ll affect people. I try to ignore some of it, or I’ll go insane. We’re getting to the point where we have a social responsibility The Science of Online Dating the world because we have this power to influence it.”
–Jonathan Badeen, Tinder

The release of the iPhone in and subsequent launch of Grindr in marked a seismic shift in the industry from online dating sites to mobile dating apps. Unlike their predecessors, dating apps required a quick sign-up process, prompting developers to turn to collaborative filtering to gain insight into their users’ preferences. Collaborative filtering algorithms work by delivering recommendations based on the behaviors of users who appear to have similar tastes (Krzywicki et al., ). For example, imagine a hypothetical scenario where Tyrone is attracted to Carlos. If others who like Carlos also show an interest in Zach, then Zach will be presented to Tyrone as a possible match. This strategy is used to suggest products on Amazon and movies on Netflix, but on dating apps, recommendations must be reciprocal to minimize rejection (Pizzato et al., ). In other words, matching algorithms must consider not only whether one person is likely to find another attractive but also whether that interest will be well received. Collaborative filtering is commonly used for matching on popular dating apps such as Tinder and Hinge (Lau & Akkaraju, ).

Launched inThe Science of Online Dating, Tinder is known for its gamified approach to dating and dating picking a guy emphasis on hookups and casual relationships, although it is no longer just a ‘hookup app.’ The Tinder app is designed to mirror a deck of playing cards where users can swipe left to “keep playing” and right to match, with a double opt-in system used to confirm both partners are interested before they can begin messaging (Myles, ). Like other games of The Science of Online Dating, Tinder uses the Elo system (Elo, ) to rate the desirability of users and match them with others who are in roughly the same league (Carr, ). The Elo system comes from chess, where it is used to assign players a score based on their prior wins/losses and the skill levels of their opponents (Glickman, ). On Tinder, ratings work similarly, with a right swipe from someone desirable having the greatest impact on a user’s score, just as a win against a Grandmaster in chess would matter more than beating an amateur player (Bartlett, ). Tinder claims to have retired Elo scores but provides few details about its new system (Tinder, ).

Also inHinge was founded free christian dating app a dating app geared toward long-term The Science of Online Dating. At Hinge, the Gale-Shapley algorithm (Gale & Shapley, ) is used to recommend compatible matches to users (Carman, ). The Gale-Shapley algorithm solves the problem of creating stable matches between two groups when both sides prefer some partners over others (e.g., in the case of college admissions, marriage). Matches are stable if there are no two people who would rather be with each other than the partner they have been recommended (Gale & Shapley, ). For instance, by matching Ravi with Ava, one can be confident that there is no one else in the dating pool they would prefer who would also be interested in them in return. Lloyd Shapley and Alvin Roth won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science for their work with the Gale-Shapley algorithm, which is in many ways a natural fit for online dating. However, this approach assumes that compatibility comes from matching people who are similar in desirability, when online daters are also known to engage in aspirational mate pursuit by seeking out the most desirable partners (Bruch & Newman, ; Dinh et al., ).

One concern about the use of collaborative filtering for matchmaking is the potential for gender and racial bias to creep into the algorithms (Hutson et al., ; Zhang & Yasseri, ). MonsterMatch () is a dating app simulation that illustrates how this might happen and the ways collaborative filtering algorithms can exclude certain groups of users by privileging the behaviors of the majority. Rather than making dating more inclusive as was once hoped (Ortega & Hergovich, ), the move to collaborative filtering may be reproducing many of the same biases seen offline (Nader, ). Given these concerns, MonsterMatch co-creator Ben Berman has urged dating app developers to provide users with the option to reset the algorithm by deleting their swipe history or to opt out of algorithmic matching entirely (Pardes, ). New techniques are also being developed to improve these algorithms by incorporating more diversity into their recommendations (Adomavicius & Kwon, ; Chen et al., ).

“In the back of our minds, there’s always been the possibility: maybe it works just because we tell people it does.”
–Christian Rudder, OkCupid

Now for the question on everyone’s mind: Do the algorithms work? It can be difficult to say with any certainty since most matching algorithms are proprietary, but scientists are skeptical of their ability to predict long-term relationship success (Finkel et al., ). In a study, Joel et al. built a machine learning algorithm to attempt to predict romantic desire using constructs from relationship science. Although the algorithm provided some indication of a person’s selectivity and desirability, it was unable to anticipate which people would hit it off in person. As Finkel et al. () noted in regard to online The Science of Online Dating, the forces behind compatibility are complicated and based on more than just the individual qualities that each partner brings to the relationship.

One thing that is becoming clear is that matching algorithms may not need to work for online dating to be effective. Sharabi () uncovered a placebo effect in online dating, where people’s positive expectations for compatibility matching predicted better first dates regardless of how well the algorithms actually worked. OkCupid’s user testing has similarly shown that placebo AI may be complicating developers’ efforts to create a reliable matching system. In a blog post for OkTrends, Rudder () described a series of experiments where bad matches were led to believe that they were good and good matches were lied to and told that they were not compatible (i.e., 30% matches were increased to 90%, and 90% matches were lowered to 30%), The Science of Online Dating. While there were signs that OkCupid’s algorithm worked, so too did merely suggesting someone was a compatible match.

Matching algorithms have come a long way from the online dating sites of the early s to the dating apps of today and continue to grow increasingly complex. Looking to the future, a report by eHarmony projects that the next few decades could see algorithms integrated with DNA data and the Internet of Things in order to deliver more personalized recommendations (Deli et al., ). The developers at Hinge are also exploring ways that geolocation data can be used to optimize their algorithm with information about users’ offline dates (LaPoff et al., ). Beyond matchmaking, algorithms will be key to creating safer and more equitable online dating experiences. For example, Bumble, which has been labeled a feminist dating app thanks to innovative design features that challenge pre-existing gender norms, has begun using AI to respond to harassment directed at women on the platform (Bumble, ). These advances make it important to consider how algorithms could affect the long journey of evolution of online dating by bringing about major changes in the coming years.

Adomavicius, G., & Kwon, Y. (). Improving aggregate recommendation diversity using ranking-based techniques. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 24(5), – alovex.co

Anderson, M., Vogels, E. A., & Turner, E. (, February 6). The virtues and downsides of online dating. Pew Research Center. alovex.co

Bartlett, M. (, July 17), The Science of Online Dating. How Tinder’s algorithm micromanages your dating life. Technocracy. alovex.co

Bowles, N. (, January 11). Mr. (swipe) right? The California Sunday Magazine. alovex.co

Bruch, The Science of Online Dating, E. E., & Newman, M. E. J. (). Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Science Advances, 4(8), 1–6. alovex.co

Buckwalter, J. G., Carter, S. R., Forgatch, G. T., Parsons, T. D., & Warren, N. C. (). Method and system for identifying people who are likely to have a successful relationship.U.S. Patent No. 6, B1. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Buckwalter, J. G., Carter, The Science of Online Dating, S. R., Forgatch, G. T., Parsons, T. D., & Warren, The Science of Online Dating, N. C. (). Method and system for identifying people who are likely to have a successful relationship.U.S. Patent No. 7, B2. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Bumble. (). With Bumble’s private detector, The Science of Online Dating, you have control over unsolicited nudes.alovex.co

Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, The Science of Online Dating, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (25), – alovex.co

Carman, A. (, July 11). Hinge’s newest feature claims to use machine learning to find your best match. The Verge.alovex.co

Carr, A. (, January 11), The Science of Online Dating. I found out my secret internal Tinder rating and now I wish I hadn’t. Fast Company.alovex.co

Carter, S. R., & Buckwalter, J. G. (). Enhancing mate selection through the Internet: A comparison of relationship quality between marriages arising from an online matchmaking system and marriages arising from unfettered selection. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, The Science of Online Dating, – alovex.co

Chen, J., Dong, H., Wang, X., Feng, F., Wang, M., & He, X. (). Bias and debias in recommender system: A survey and future directions. ArXiv. alovex.co

Cooper, K. (, October 15). The most important questions on OkCupid. The OkCupid Blog. alovex.co

Courtois, C., & Timmermans, E. (). Cracking the Tinder code: An experience sampling approach to the dynamics and impact of platform governing algorithms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, The Science of Online Dating, 23(4), 1– alovex.co

Deli, E., Depotter, C., Lewis, N., Nam, K. M., Silfanus, N., Voirin, N., & Ng, The Science of Online Dating, W. W. (). The future of dating: . eHarmony UK and Imperial College Business School, The Science of Online Dating. alovex.co

Dinh, R., Gildersleve, P., Blex, C., The Science of Online Dating, & Yasseri, T. (). Computational courtship understanding the evolution of online dating through large-scale data analysis. Journal of Computational Social Science. alovex.co

Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (). Sex differences in black women left out dating race preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), – alovex.co

eHarmony. (). The history of online dating. alovex.co

Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, – alovex.co

Elo, A. E. (). The rating of chessplayers, past and present. Arco Publishing.

Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (). Online dating: A The Science of Online Dating analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3– alovex.co

Frost, J. H., Chance, Z., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (). People are experience goods: Improving online dating with virtual dates. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(1), 51– alovex.co

Gale, D., & Shapley, L. S. (). College admissions and the stability of marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly, 69(1), 9– alovex.co

Glickman, M. E. (). A comprehensive online dating without registration to chess ratings, The Science of Online Dating. American Chess Journal, 3, 59–

Halaburda, H., Piskorski, M. J., & Yildirim, P. (), The Science of Online Dating. Competing by restricting choice: The case of matching platforms. Management Science, 64(8), The Science of Online Dating, – alovex.co

Houran, J., Lange, R., Rentfrow, P. J., & Bruckner, K. H. (). Do online matchmaking tests work? An assessment of preliminary evidence for a south korea dating site “predictive model of marital success.” North American Journal of Psychology, 6(3), –

Hutson, J., Taft, J. G., Barocas, S., & Levy, K. (). Debiasing desire: Addressing bias & discrimination on intimate platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2, Indian men dating chinese girl 73, 1– alovex.co

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), – alovex.co

Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., The Science of Online Dating, & Finkel, E. J. (). Is romantic desire predictable? Machine learning applied to initial romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 28(10), – alovex.co

Jung, J., Lim, H., The Science of Online Dating, Lee, D., & Kim, C. (). The secret to finding a match: A field experiment on choice capacity design in an online dating platform. Information Systems Research, 1– alovex.co

Krzywicki, A., Wobcke, W., Kim, Y. S., Cai, X., Bain, M., Mahidadia, A., & Compton, P. (). Collaborative filtering for people-to-people recommendation in online dating: Data analysis and user trial. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 76, 50– alovex.co

LaPoff, M., Chesbrough, J., Mort, L., Levy, S., MacGougan, T., McGrath, J. M., & McLeod, J. (), The Science of Online Dating. System and method for providing enhanced recommendations based on ratings of offline experiences.U.S. Patent Application No. / A1. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Lau, T., & Akkaraju, U. (, November 12). When algorithms decide whose voices will be heard. Harvard Business Review.alovex.co

Mathews, T. J. (, November 3). Operation Match. The Harvard Crimson. alovex.co

Maybin, S., Maguire, E., Price, H. C., Walton, J., & Shah, P. (, February 12). The dating game: Which dating apps are winning the hearts of the world? BBC News. alovex.co

MonsterMatch. (). Dating app algorithms: Learn how the algorithms figure you out The Science of Online Dating a dating app. alovex.co

Myles, D. (). Romantic and sexual encounters in the age of algorithms: A comparative analysis of Grindr and Tinder. In C. Piazzesi, M. Blais, J. Lavigne, & C. Lavoie Mongrain (Eds.), Contemporary intimacies and sexualities: Social changes, transformations in practices, and representations (pp. 1–11). Montreal Press.

Nader, K. (). Dating through the filters. Social Philosophy and Policy, 37(2), – alovex.co

Ortega, J., & Hergovich, P. (). The strength of absent ties: Social integration via online dating. ArXiv. alovex.co

Pardes, A. (, May 25). This dating app exposes the monstrous bias of algorithms. Wired, The Science of Online Dating. alovex.co

Pizzato, L., Rej, T., Akehurst, J., Koprinska, I., Yacef, K., & Kay, J. (). Recommending people to people: The nature of reciprocal recommenders with a case study in online dating. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 23, – alovex.co

Rosenfeld, M. J., Thomas, R. J., & Hausen, S. (). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, (36), – alovex.co

Rudder, C. (, February). Inside OkCupid: The math of online dating [Video]. TED Conferences. alovex.co?language=en

Rudder, C. (, July 28). We experiment on human beings! OkTrends.alovex.co

Schwartz, B. (). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. HarperCollins.

Sharabi, L. L. (). Exploring how beliefs about algorithms shape (offline) success in online dating: A two-wave longitudinal investigation. Communication Research, 48(7), – alovex.co

Sharabi, L. L., & Timmermans, E. (). Why settle when there are plenty of fish in the sea? Rusbult’s investment model applied to online dating. New Media & Society, 23(10), – alovex.co

Slater, D. (). Love in the time of algorithms: What technology does to meeting and mating. Penguin.

Sprecher, S. (). Relationship compatibility, compatible matches, and compatibility matching, The Science of Online Dating. Psychological Research Records, 1(2), – alovex.co

Tierney, J. (, January 29). Hitting it off, thanks to algorithms of love. The New York Times.alovex.co

Tinder, The Science of Online Dating. (, March 15). Powering Tinder—The method behind our matching. alovex.co

Tong, S. T., Hancock, J. T., & Slatcher, R. B. (). Online dating system design and relational decision making: Choice, algorithms, and control. Personal Relationships, 23(4), – alovex.co

Wu, P. L., & Chiou, W. B. (). More options lead to more searching and worse choices in finding partners for romantic relationships online: An experimental study. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), – alovex.co

Zhang, J., & Yasseri, T. (). What happens after you both swipe right: A statistical description of mobile dating communications. ArXiv. alovex.co

This article is © bythe author(s). The editorial is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY ) International license (alovex.co), except where otherwise indicated with respect to particular material included in the article. The article should be attributed to the authors identified above.