Exploring How Beliefs About Algorithms Shape (Offline) Success in Online Dating: A Two-Wave Longitudinal Investigation

Abstract

Matching algorithms are a central feature of online dating, yet little research exists on their effectiveness—or people’s perceptions of their effectiveness—for recommending a mate. Accordingly, this study explores the effects of people’s beliefs in the legitimacy of algorithms on their first date with an online dating partner. Longitudinal survey data were collected from online dating participants leading up to and following the first date. Findings suggested that whether algorithms actually worked mattered less than whether participants had the perception that they worked for finding a partner. Moreover, participants reported better first dates to the extent that they believed in the efficacy of the compatibility matching process. The results have implications for understanding the role of algorithms in shaping relationship success on and off the internet.

Keywords

algorithms compatibility matching expectancy theory online dating relationships

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahuvia

A. C.

Adelman

M. B.

(1992). Formal intermediaries in the marriage market: A typology and review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 452–463. https://doi.org/10.2307/353076

Altman

Taylor

D. A.

(1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Antheunis

M. L.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2010). Getting acquainted through social network sites: Testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social attraction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.07.005

Bucher

(2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Explore the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086

Cacioppo

J. T.

Cacioppo

Gonzaga

G. C.

Ogburn

E. L.

VanderWeele

T. J.

(2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 10135–10140. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222447110

Carr

(2016, January 11). I found out my secret internal Tinder rating and now I wish I hadn’t. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/3054871/whats-your-tinder-score-inside-the-apps-internal-ranking-system

Clatterbuck

G. W.

(1979). Attributional confidence and uncertainty in initial interaction. Human Communication Research, 5, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00630.x

Collins

N. L.

Miller

L. C.

(1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.457

Courtois

Timmermans

(2018). Cracking the Tinder code: An experience sampling approach to the dynamics and impact of platform governing algorithms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy010

10.

Crum

Phillips

D. J.

(2015). Self-fulfilling prophesies, placebo effects, and the social-psychological creation of reality. In Scott

R. A.

Kosslyn

S. M.

Buchmann

(Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–14). John Wiley.

11.

Derlega

V. J.

Metts

Petronio

Margulis

S. T.

(1993). Self-disclosure. SAGE.

12.

Derlega

V. J.

Winstead

B. A.

Greene

(2008). Self-disclosure and starting a close relationship. In Sprecher

Wenzel

Harvey

(Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 153–174). Psychology Press.

13.

Duck

(1991). Understanding relationships. Guilford Press.

14.

Eastwick

P. W.

Finkel

E. J.

(2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245

15.

Eastwick

P. W.

Finkel

E. J.

Eagly

A. H.

(2011). When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the process of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1012–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024062

16.

eHarmony. (2019). About eHarmony. https://www.eharmony.com/about/eharmony/

17.

Evans

S. K.

Pearce

K. E.

Vitak

Treem

J. W.

(2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180

18.

Festinger

(1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

19.

Finkel

E. J.

Eastwick

P. W.

Karney

B. R.

Reis

H. T.

Sprecher

(2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 3–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436552

20.

Friedrich

Flunger

Nagengast

Jonkmann

Trautwein

(2015). Pygmalion effects in the classroom: Teacher expectancy effects on students’ math achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.006

21.

General Social Survey. (2019). Trends: Gender & marriage. https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends/Gender%20&%20Marriage?measure=posslq

22.

Gillespie

(2014). The relevance of algorithms. In Gillespie

Boczkowski

P. J.

Foot

K. A.

(Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). MIT Press.

23.

Hajian

Bonchi

Castillo

(2016). Algorithmic bias: From discrimination discovery to fairness-aware data mining [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, United States.

24.

Halaburda

Piskorski

M. J.

Yildirim

(2018). Competing by restricting choice: The case of matching platforms. Management Science, 64, 3574–3594. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2797

25.

Heino

R. D.

Ellison

N. B.

Gibbs

J. L.

(2010). Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 427–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510361614

26.

Houran

Lange

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. http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~atf/papers/houran_et_al_eharmony.pdf

27.

Hutson

Taft

J. G.

Barocas

Levy

(2018). Debiasing desire: Addressing bias & discrimination on intimate platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01563

28.

Jiang

L. C.

Bazarova

N. N.

Hancock

J. T.

(2011). The disclosure-intimacy link in computer-mediated communication: An attributional extension of the hyperpersonal model. Human Communication Research, 37, 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01393.x

29.

Jiang

L. C.

Bazarova

N. N.

Hancock

J. T.

(2013). From perception to behavior: Disclosure reciprocity and the intensification of intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 40, 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211405313

30.

Joel

Eastwick

P. W.

Finkel

E. J.

(2017). Is romantic desire predictable? Machine learning applied to initial romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 28, 1478–1489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714580

31.

Kim

Dindia

(2011). Online self-disclosure: A review of research. In Wright

K. B.

Webb

L. M.

(Eds.), Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (pp. 156–180). Peter Lang.

32.

Kirsch

Sapirstein

(1998). Listening to Prozac but hearing placebo: A meta-analysis of antidepressant medication. Prevention & Treatment, 1, Article 2a. https://doi.org/10.1037//1522-3736.1.0002a

33.

Kitchin

(2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154087

34.

Maslow

A. H.

(1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

35.

Match. (2018, February 1). Singles in America: Match release largest study on U.S. single population for eighth year [Press release]. http://match.mediaroom.com/2018-02-01-Singles-in-America-Match-Releases-Largest-Study-on-U-S-Single-Population-for-Eighth-Year

36.

Matsakis

(2018, November 8). Facebook is testing its dating service. Here’s how it’s different from Tinder. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-dating-how-it-works/

37.

Maxwell

J. A.

Muise

MacDonald

Day

L. C.

Rosen

N. O.

Impett

E. A.

(2017). How implicit theories of sexuality shape sexual and relationship well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 238–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000078

38.

McClung

Collins

(2007). “Because I know it will!”: Placebo effects of an ergogenic aid on athletic performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.29.3.382

39.

McCroskey

J. C.

McCain

T. A.

(1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757409375845

40.

McKenna

K. Y. A.

Green

A. S.

Gleason

M. E. J.

(2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00246

41.

Miller

P. J. E.

Niehuis

Huston

T. L.

(2006). Positive illusions in marital relationships: A 13-year longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1579–1594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206292691

42.

MonsterMatch. (2019). Dating app algorithms: Learn how the algorithms figure you out in a dating app. https://monstermatch.hiddenswitch.com/algorithms

43.

Montgomery

Kirsch

(1996). Mechanisms of placebo pain reduction: An empirical investigation. Psychological Science, 7, 174–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00352.x

44.

Nguyen

Bin

Y. S.

Campbell

(2012). Comparing online and offline self-disclosure: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0277

45.

OkCupid. (2019). About us. https://www.okcupid.com/about

46.

Ortega

Hergovich

(2018). The strength of absent ties: Social integration via online dating. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.10478. https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.10478

47.

Pikhartova

Bowling

Victor

(2016). Is loneliness in later life a self-fulfilling prophecy? Aging & Mental Health, 20, 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2015.1023767

48.

PlentyOfFish. (2019). POF chemistry predictor. https://www.pof.com/poftest.aspx

49.

Price

D. D.

Finniss

D. G.

Benedetti

(2008). A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: Recent advances and current thought. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 565–590. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.113006.095941

50.

Rader

Gray

(2015). Understanding user beliefs about algorithmic curation in the Facebook news feed [Conference session]. CHI ’15 Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

51.

Rainie

Anderson

(2017). Code-dependent: Pros and cons of the algorithm age. Pew Research Center.

52.

Roese

N. J.

Sherman

J. W.

(2007). Expectancy. In Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 91–115). Guilford Press.

53.

Rosenfeld

M. J.

Thomas

R. J.

(2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the Internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77, 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412448050

54.

Rosenfeld

M. J.

Thomas

R. J.

Hausen

(2019). Disintermediating your friends [Cited with permission]. https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_et_al_Disintermediating_Friends.pdf

55.

Rosenthal

(1994). Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 176–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770698

56.

Ruppel

E. K.

Gross

Stoll

Peck

B. S.

Allen

Kim

S. Y.

(2017). Reflecting on connecting: Meta-analysis of differences between computer-mediated and face-to-face self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12179

57.

Sharabi

L. L.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2017). What predicts first date success? A longitudinal study of modality switching in online dating. Personal Relationships, 24, 370–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12188

58.

Sharabi

L. L.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2019). Deception in online dating: Significance and implications for the first offline date. New Media & Society, 21, 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818792425

59.

Sharabi

L. L.

Dykstra-DeVette

T. A.

(2019). From first email to first date: Strategies for initiating relationships in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 3389–3407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518822780

60.

Smith

Anderson

(2016). 5 facts about online dating. Pew Research Center.

61.

Sprecher

(2009). Relationship initiation and formation on the Internet. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 761–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494920903224350

62.

Sprecher

(2011). Relationship compatibility, compatible matches, and compatibility matching. Psychological Research Records, 1, 187–215.

63.

Stackert

R. A.

Bursik

(2003). Why am I unsatisfied? Adult attachment style, gendered irrational relationship beliefs, and young adult romantic relationship satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1419–1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00124-1

64.

Statista. (2019). Number of online dating users in the United States from 2017 to 2023 (in millions). https://www.statista.com/statistics/417654/us-online-dating-user-numbers/

65.

Stewart-Williams

(2004). The placebo puzzle: Putting together the pieces. Health Psychology, 23, 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.23.2.198

66.

Tong

S. T.

Hancock

J. T.

Slatcher

R. B.

(2016). Online dating system design and relational decision making: Choice, algorithms, and control. Personal Relationships, 23, 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12158

67.

VanVoorhis

C. R. W.

Morgan

B. L.

(2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043

68.

Walther

J. B.

(1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003

69.

Walther

J. B.

(1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001

70.

Wells

(2018, July 11). Hinge employs new algorithm to find your “most compatible” match. Techcrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/11/hinge-employs-new-algorithm-to-find-your-most-compatible-match-for-you/

71.

Wheeless

L. R.

(1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00604.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB