Human matchmaking has existed for millennia and continues to be an important means of relationship initiation. Yet little is known about the matchmaking process or the role of formal intermediaries in mate selection. To begin exploring this topic, a two-part study was conducted using proprietary data from a professional matchmaking company. Study 1 surveyed matchmakers about what makes their services unique and the criteria they use to select partners for their clients. Study 2 used data from couples to understand if matchmakers’ preferences align with the characteristics their clients seek in a long-term partner. The results showed that rather than matching according to others’ preferences, part of a matchmaker’s work is helping their clients discover, and in some cases reassess, what they desire in a mate. These findings provide novel insight into the commercial dating industry at a time when online dating is beginning to automate many of the tasks traditionally associated with human matchmakers.
AhuviaA. C.AdelmanM. B. (1992). Formal intermediaries in the marriage market: A typology and review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(2), 452–463. https://doi.org/10.2307/353076
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00023992
4.
ChristensenH. T. (1947). Student views on mate selection. Marriage and Family Living, 9(4), 85–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/347505
5.
DavéS. (2012). Matchmakers and cultural compatibility: Arranged marriage, South Asians, and American television. South Asian Popular Culture, 10(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746689.2012.682877
6.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 94(2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245
7.
EastwickP. W.LuchiesL. B.FinkelE. J.HuntL. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032432
8.
FeingoldA. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.125
9.
FinkelE. J.EastwickP. W.KarneyB. R.ReisH. T.SprecherS. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436522
10.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG.GilesL. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72
11.
FrostJ. H.ChanceZ.NortonM. I.ArielyD. (2008). People are experience goods: Improving online dating with virtual dates. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20107
12.
GoodwinR. (1990). Dating agency members: Are they ‘different’?Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(3), 423–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590073007
13.
HeC.HeL.LuZ.LiB. (2023, April 23-28). Seeking love and companionship through streaming: Unpacking livestreamer-moderated senior matchmaking in China. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23), Hamburg, Germany.
HillR. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554–558.
16.
HoffK. A.Granillo-VelasquezK. E.HannaA.MorrisM.NelsonH. S.OswaldF. L. (2024). Interested and employed? A national study of gender differences in basic interests and employment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 148, Article 103942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103942
KnudsonS. (2017). A good match? Offline matchmaking services and implications for gender relations. Marriage & Family Review, 53(7), 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1247764
19.
LalvaniS.PalJ. (2022). The moral orders of matchmaking work: Digitization of matrimonial services and the future of work. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512968
20.
MarkowitzD. M.HancockJ. T.TongS. T. (2018). Interpersonal dynamics in online dating: Profiles, matching, and discovery. In PapacharissiZ. (Ed.), A networked self and love (pp. 50–61). Routledge.
PaticoJ. (2009). For love, money, or normalcy: Meanings of strategy and sentiment in the Russian-American matchmaking industry. Ethnos, 74(3), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141840903053097
RochadiatA. M. P.TongS. T.HancockJ. T.Stuart-UlinC. R. (2020). The outsourcing of online dating: Investigating the lived experiences of online dating assistants working in the contemporary gig economy. Social Media + Society, 6(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120957290
25.
RosenfeldM. J.ThomasR. J.HausenS. (2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(36), 17753–17758. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908630116
26.
SharmaD.SrivastavaP. R.PandeyP.KaurI. (2020). Evaluating quality of matrimonial websites: Balancing emotions with economics. American Business Review, 23(2), 358–392. https://doi.org/10.37625/abr.23.2.358-392
27.
ShepherdD. (2016). Building relationships: Online dating and the new logics of Internet culture. Lexington Books.
28.
SimpsonJ. A.FletcherG. J. O.CampbellL. (2001). The structure and functions of ideal standards in close relationships. In FletcherG. J. O.ClarkM. S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 86–106). Blackwell.
SprecherS.SchwartzP.HarveyJ.HatfieldE. (2008). The businessoflove.com: Relationship initiation at Internet matchmaking services. In SprecherS.WenzelA.HarveyJ. (Eds.), The handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 249–265). Erlbaum.
31.
SprecherS.SullivanQ.HatfieldE. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 66(6), 1074–1080. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1074
32.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). 2021 American community survey 1-year estimates. https://data.census.gov
33.
Van GelderenM. (2010). A heuristic-inducing method for generating initial ideas for opportunities: An application to the Australasian dating market. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 18(02), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495810000525
WhittyM. T.BuchananT. (2009). Looking for love in so many places: Characteristics of online daters and speed daters. Interpersonal: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 3(supp2), 63–86. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v3isupp2.76
