50 (or more) First Dates
Image by mckaysavage via Flickr
You’ve probably heard of The Paradox of Choice — the idea that consumers, faced with more choices, actually buy less and make worse decisions. Variety is supposed to be good, but when the cost of sorting through all the options goes up, we kind of freak out. We pick the first thing we see — or we run for the hills. A typical example is the case of too many jams at the supermarket. Offer people six types of jam to sample and they’ll buy a lot more than if you give them 24 jams to sample.
Now, apply the same concept to online dating…
Tons of people are doing it. According to a Pew survey from 2006, over 37% of single Internet users have tried online dating. But the number of people to choose from is a problem in and of itself.
According to Technology Review:
New research about online dating sites shows that users presented with too many choices experience “cognitive overload” and make poorer decisions as a result. The findings could have implications for other kinds of websites, although new technologies and approaches could help address the problem, researchers suggest.
…
Pai-Lu Wu from Cheng Shiu University and Wen-Bin Chiou from the National Sun Yat-Sen University in Taiwan performed an experiment that involved giving online date-seekers varying numbers of search results to their queries on dating sites. Their study, published last month in the journal Cyberpsychology and Behavior, shows that having more search results leads to a less careful partner choice.
Chiou calls this a “double-edged sword,” since people desire a wider selection, but then devote less time to evaluating each prospect. Wu and Chiou conclude that “more search options lead to less selective processing by reducing users’ cognitive resources, distracting them with irrelevant information, and reducing their ability to screen out inferior options.” In other words, when faced with cognitive overload, date-seekers evaluated as many matches as possible, even ones that weren’t a good fit, and they were less able to distinguish a good option from a bad one.
I’ve never done online dating, but the article confirms my general impression from poking around such sites. Basically, the information people use for search criteria — height, religion, eye color — are pretty damn irrelevant to what does or doesn’t make for a good match. Likewise, general statements about sense of humor, etc., don’t really get you anywhere. (“I like to laugh.” Gee, really?)
One site mentioned in the article, Omnidate, appears to be doing virtual dates, where you chat as avatars. Sounds like a promising extension of the idea of online dating.
Meanwhile, what I think would be more useful is some kind of humor typology. Have people rate jokes, clips from TV comedies, etc. I bet you could break people down into four or five general humor categories (America’s Funniest Home Videos vs. Flight of the Conchords, etc.)
A lot more science could be brought to these things. Though, as always, probably better to start your search in the real world.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I have a few problems with this study.
What type of “dating” sites did they use for the study? What were the expectations of the people in the study? People going a site like ashleymadison.com or craiglist’s “no strings attached” certainly have different expectations than someone on a site like eharmony.com.
How did they decide what makes for a good choice or a bad choice?
online dating services, like any other tool, have limits to their usefulness. if you’re expecting a website to find your perfect match, then you’ve been watching too many diane lane movies.
online sites are good at winnowing out the obvious non-starters: if you don’t want kids, for example, you can filter out those who do. doesn’t mean all those who agree with you on these filters are going to be “matches”, obviously, but at a minimum you can find people with roughly the same set of requirements as yourself.
trying to use it for anything more than that is a fools errand, regardless of the number of options.
What’s a date?
Your humour typology would work for me (if I were looking) (in fact, it would be a nice way to meet friends, too). America’s Funniest Home Videos vs. Flight of the Conchords ? LOVE the Conchords!
In the interest of total transparency I have never used a dating service and have not dated a woman who was not either my wife or soon to be my wife for 30 years but I will offer a observation nonetheless.
It is possible the researchers have confused cause and effect. They are argue that having more options provoked some dating service users to make larger and less effective searches. Presumably, if these individuals had fewer selections they would make better choices. Perhaps or perhaps not.
However consider the opposite hypothesis, individuals who make poor choices or do not know what it is they are search for make larger searches while people who are good at decision making or know exactly what they want do not need to use extra search features and narrow their search more quickly and effectively. More search features simply give poor decision makers new ways to make poor decisions.
This is true for dating and buying blackberries in a jar. Sure there are now 30 different options available and at first it can seem overwhelming. However, the list can get cut pretty quickly when you separate seedless jam from the other kind, jam from jelly, and low sugar from the real deal. Now one is down to just four or five choices. Of course at this point, they are all really pretty much the same and you can always throw out a selection you don’t like.
The problem is not too many choices but people who do not know how to make choices.
Hey Ryan thought you might find the following interesting. It might be something you already are aware of.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3826857.stm)
All reminders that more is not always better it’s just more are terrific. But I want to quibble with your last line because there really is nothing wrong with meeting someone online. Whatever works. The issue is “as always, probably better to END [not start as you say] your search in the real world.” Its all about meeting in person and seeing if there can be an actual connection worth exploring.
[...] On: 50 (or more) First Dates [...]