Online Personals: An Overview

Andrew T. Fiore and Judith S. Donath

MIT Media Lab
20 Ames St., E15-390
{fiore, judith}@[Link]

ABSTRACT date, and fall in love. The design of social systems

Online personal advertisements have recently become an influences the beliefs and behavior of their users; the
easy, socially acceptable way to meet partners for dates or features of a person that [Link] presents as salient to
relationships. Because popular personals systems not only romance will begin to have some psychological and cultural
reflect but also have the potential to reshape how people influence if 40 million Americans view them every month.
attract one another, date, and fall in love, the design of these This influence exerts itself most strongly on the users
systems merits careful consideration. We present a survey themselves, but it also spreads into the general population.
of current styles of online personals, including searchable Because online personals systems affect such an important
profile listings, personality matching, and social network and intimate arena of their users’ lives, designers have a
systems. Finally, we encourage the community to study this particular obligation to work carefully.
booming phenomenon.
Second, usage data from online personals Web sites
Categories & Subject Descriptors: H.5.3 Group and provides an opportunity to perform rich analyses of the
Organization Interfaces; Asynchronous interaction; Web- preferences and behavior of people seeking relationships.
based interaction This information is intrinsically interesting as social
General Terms: Design, Human Factors
science, but, more importantly, it will inform future designs
and matching algorithms to improve the experience of
Keywords: Online personals, attraction, computer- online dating.
mediated communication, online dating, relationships
BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION Although there is little research about online personals
Online personal advertisements have shed their stereotype specifically, social scientists have produced a wealth of
as matchmakers for the awkward to claim a prominent role work relating to attraction and dating, and some work
in the social lives of millions of users. In August 2003, specifically about personal ads in print [1, 3]. We will
personals Web sites in the United States drew 40 million consider some of these findings that are germane to online
unique visitors — half of the number of single adults in the dating.
U.S. [8]. (Though chances are not all of the visitors were
single.) With that many users, online personals sites clearly Psychologists for decades have studied what characteristics
host a far more diverse base than the lonely, socially stilted people notice and seek in potential mates. Brehm et al. [4]
group that, according to the stereotype, populated and Fisher [5] provide an overview of the following factors
traditional personal ads in print. in attraction: Proximity and familiarity are two of the most
powerful determinants of attraction — those whom we see
Researchers have studied online friendships and romantic more often, and whom it is logistically easier to see, tend to
relationships from psychological and sociological seem more attractive (physically and otherwise). Physical
perspectives (e.g., [7], [10], [12]), and psychologists and attractiveness also plays a prominent role. Almost all
sociologists have studied the personals ads that appear in cultures consider facial symmetry beautiful in both men and
print publications. To date, however, online personals have women, but preferences for other characteristics, like waist-
been considered only anecdotally. Their careful study is to-hip ratio in women, vary somewhat with culture. People
vital for two reasons. also irrationally associate other good characteristics with
beauty, presuming pretty people to be smart and socially
First, as a suddenly popular way to meet partners for dates
capable even when this is not the case.
or relationships, online personals not only reflect but also
have the potential to shape how people attract one another, People are generally attracted to others who have
demographics, attitudes, values, and personality traits
similar to their own. (Contrary to the adage that “opposites
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). attract,” homophily dominates human attraction. Most
CHI 2004, April 24–29, 2004, Vienna, Austria. people seek people like them [4, 9].) Online dating systems
ACM 1-58113-703-6/04/0004. provide tremendously powerful tools for identifying people
who match you in these traits.
Additionally, people are inclined to like people who will who likely are not calculating the marginal benefit of one
like them back — that is, partners who are attainable. It’s mate over another, but they are more useful for describing
not that people who are “5’s” on the imaginary trends across thousands of users of online personals.)
attractiveness scale dislike more attractive “10’s,” but rather
that the greater potential for rejection (or the potential for ONLINE PERSONAL AD SYSTEMS
the 10’s to cheat with an “equal” during a relationship) is a Online personals systems usually include personal profiles
disincentive to feeling attracted to them [4]. of users, which document their location, gender, age,
physical attributes, race, religion, smoking and drinking
Bolig et al. [3] assert in their study of magazine personal
habits, self-description, and preferences for these
ads that “physical characteristics are initially most salient in
characteristics in a potential mate or date; a private
identifying potential mates.” However, it is unclear whether messaging system; and a mechanism for indicating interest
a textual description of physical attributes (e.g., female with without writing a substantial message, variously termed
an athletic build, 5’5”, brown hair) that one might find in an “winking,” “eye contact,” or a “collect call.” In contrast to
online personal ad carries the same salience as the direct other systems that support online communities, personals
experience of manifest physical characteristics that Bolig et systems usually lack a common forum, where everyone can
al. describe. read what anyone posts.
Unfortunately for online dating systems, some important
components of attraction remain far from tractable for a Profiles
computer system. Experiments in pheromonal compatibility User profiles include a title or pseudonym, constrained
show that people prefer people who smell certain ways, descriptors like age and hair color, free-response
likely because they possess genotypes that might make descriptors, and sometimes photographs. Constrained
them advantageous partners [6, 11]. Even if we had descriptors limit users to certain categories (e.g., the set of
accurate models of people’s preferences in these domains, hair colors) or types of input (e.g., numeric for age). Free-
incorporating this information into an online personals response descriptors let the user answer questions with
system is not within the capabilities of present technology. arbitrary text. Some sites give straightforward prompts for
free-response descriptors, such as “Describe yourself” or
Selling Yourself “Describe who you’re looking for.” Others, such as Spring
Becker [2] analyses people’s search for mates in terms of a Street Networks (provider for [Link] and other sites),
marriage market, in which the participants seek partners to provide less direct prompts: “Best (or worst) lie I’ve ever
maximize their own happiness or welfare by exchanging told,” “Song or album that puts me in the mood.”
what they have for what they want. Each person carries a On [Link], frequent users have become so familiar with
certain value on the market, which we can consider to be a common responses to the idiosyncratic free-response
weighted average of characteristics like beauty, prompts that they sometimes make mocking reference to
intelligence, social status, wealth, and fertility. Logically,
clichéd answers to a question in their own response.
people should seek the best partner they can afford; we
would all like to have someone who is a “10,” but a “7” can Some new personals sites incorporate personality
realistically expect only another “7.” Not all 7’s possess psychology into their profile-building process; Tickle,
the same mix of qualities. One might make up for lower eHarmony, and PerfectMatch purport to match their
attractiveness with a greater intellect; one “shops” for the members according to the results of personality tests.
preferred combination of qualities. Indeed, single people
who use “formal marriage market intermediaries,” such as Searching and Matching
personal ads or human match-makers, sometimes refer to Most systems provide both searching and matching
the process of “buy[ing]-a-boy” or selling oneself as “the functionality. In searching, users specify exactly what
right product” [1]. characteristics they are looking for. They can search the set
of profiles based on constrained descriptors such as age, eye
Market models often assume that actors have complete or color, and religion, and sometimes by keywords in the free-
nearly complete information about the world. Usually, in response descriptors.
social environments where one might find a date, this is not
true. But online personals systems would seem to provide In matching, which is slightly less direct, systems pair users
an ideal example of a marriage market, because they offer by comparing their profile descriptors to the descriptors of
so much information about so many choices. (As we noted others — usually the constrained descriptors, because
above, though, it’s unclear whether a computer-based contemporary techniques for clustering or otherwise
profile can capture enough of the salient information to identifying similarity work better with clearly defined
gauge attraction or compatibility.) As such, online features than with free text. Different systems apply
personals provide a powerful empirical test-bed for market different weightings to the features of the profiles.
theories, and the theories themselves provide a framework
within which we can consider personals systems. (Marriage
markets give us little insight into the actions of individuals,
Private Messaging The designer of a personals system chooses to emphasize
Online personals systems invariably provide a private (both visually and algorithmically) some characteristics
channel through which members communicate without more than others. These decisions affect users’ perceptions
revealing their names or regular email addresses. Typically, of what is important in others whom they see on the site.
it functions like a Web-based email client, except that users Users will perceive a system as more efficacious if its
can write only to others on the same site. design highlights the characteristics of others that are truly
salient to the user (rather than being salient to the technical
Users write each other with the private messaging system to
architecture of the system, or just arbitrary).
find out whether they want to proceed to contact via email,
phone, or face-to-face interaction. This provides privacy
Types of systems
and safety until the users are comfortable with each other.
Several varieties of personals systems are common. We
Although sites often allow free browsing and searching in differentiate among them based primarily on the
order to attract customers, most require users to pay for the mechanism that enables users to find one another.
ability to send private messages. Some sites allow non-
 Search/sort/match systems. By far the most common
paying users to reply to messages from paying users but not
kind of personals system, they provide the profile,
to initiate conversations on their own.
search-and-match, and private messaging capabilities
eHarmony restricts whom even paying customers can described in the previous section. Because they are so
contact. In this system, users can contact a potential date numerous, I describe them further by target audience.
only after the system has matched them with the person
— Mainstream systems. Web sites like [Link]
based on the results of their personality tests. That is,
and Yahoo! Personals draw a broad base of users
eHarmony provides only matching, not searching, and
from a variety of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic
prevents communication between people who are not
backgrounds. These sites function as a baseline
matched by the system.
both demographically and in terms of their design.
Additionally, some personals systems offer a form of free
— Subpopulation systems. Sites like [Link] for
contact without a substantial message, variously called an
Jewish singles and [Link] for gay men
“eye contact,” a “wink,” or a “collect call.” These
attempt to serve a specific subpopulation. These
mechanisms allow a user to express interest in another
sites add population-specific details to their
without formulating a message or, usually, paying for
profiles — for example, JDate profiles have an
membership. On Nerve, some women are so deluged with
entry for the specific denomination of Judaism,
collect calls that they indicate in their profiles that they will
and Manhunt’s physical build options include
not respond to them, often criticizing the stinginess of those
“bear,” a body description unique to gay male
who do not pay for full privileges but still want a response.
culture. Some mainstream sites also run smaller
sub-sites for subpopulations.
DESIGN OF PERSONALS SYSTEMS
Two conflicting goals face designers of online personals Other subpopulation systems, like Right Stuff
systems: Dating, cater to wealthy or well-educated users.
1. Support users who want to meet a partner with They typically require that members have attended
whom they can have a successful relationship. an elite college or meet minimum wealth or
occupational status requirements. Sometimes they
2. Support the growth of the site by retaining users charge extremely high monthly fees to ensure that
for as long as possible. their population remains exclusive. VanityDate
These goals conflict because a user who succeeds in finding requires members either to be beautiful, wealthy, or
a good match will no longer need the site. A system that extremely accomplished; rotating panels of existing
proves too successful in this sense might not receive the members screen new applicants.
revenue it needs to stay in business. Even a non-commercial  Personality-matching s y s t e m s . Sites like
system needs to retain a critical mass of users to remain [Link] and [Link] give personality tests
useful. In considering the design of personals systems, we to their users and match them based on research into
should keep in mind the tension between these goals. We compatibility of personality features.
might discover that we can serve one only at the expense of
the other.  Social network systems. These sites, best represented
by [Link], are the most recent type of
Similarly, we must consider whether a single design can personals system. They encourage users to bring their
work for people variously seeking marriage, casual dates, friends onto the system and then suggest matches
casual sex, and friends. Perhaps a more articulated system between members of their social networks.
for each purpose would better serve each population.
DATING WITH ONLINE PERSONALS personals into their dating lives and how the systems affect
Traditionally, people meet dating partners within some their conceptions of relationships.
context: friends of friends, school, work, the local grocery
store or place of worship. This context introduces a certain The community might also consider radically different
amount of accountability; if a person behaves badly in a designs. What if users could bid for the right to contact a
dating relationship, the consequences will likely extend desirable other, or if they could rate their dates and receive
beyond the immediate dyad. recommendations for other dates through a collaborative
filtering system? Perhaps users could seek pheromonally
With the exception of the recent and, so far, much less appealing partners, finding chemistry before the first date.
common social network systems, online personals take
relationships out of context. More specifically, the only Clearly, new designs in this domain pose both technical and
context is the personals Web site itself, which is sparse social hurdles. The social benefit of a highly successful
compared to any of its real-world analogues. The lack of system, however, would be immense.
real-world context means that online dates can cut across
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
social networks to connect people who might otherwise
We thank Dan Ariely and Jeana Frost of the MIT Media
never have an opportunity to meet. For users who don’t
Lab for their insight in this work.
want their friends to know they are dating online, this
quality is a boon. It may also make it easier, however, for
REFERENCES
users to behave badly without social consequences.
1. Ahuvia, A.C., & M.B. Adelman. “Formal Intermediaries in
Social context (and the problems that might ripple through the Marriage Market: A Typology and Review.” In J. of
a social network in case of a breakup) provides an incentive Marriage and the Family 54 (May 1992): 452-463.
to maintain a relationship. The lack of social context in 2. Becker, G. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, Mass.:
online dating combined with the easy availability of new Harvard University Press, 1992.
partners makes it easier and perhaps more tempting to drop 3. Bolig, R., Stein, P.J., & P.C. McKenry. “The Self-
an existing relationship. Advertisement Approach to Dating: Male-Female
Similarly, without a social network to restrain Differences.” In Family Relations 33 (1984): 587-592.
misinformation, exaggeration is rampant in online personal 4. Brehm, Miller, Perlman, and Campbell (2002). Intimate
ads. Users exaggerate their own qualities to the degree that Relationships 3 e . New York: McGraw-Hill Higher
they perceive that others in the system are exaggerating Education.
[Dan Ariely, correspondence, 2003]. In fact, this 5. Fisher, H. Anatomy of Love: A natural history of mating,
exaggeration has become almost necessary: If users fail to marriage, and why we stray. New York: Fawcett-
exaggerate as much as others, they might be passed over by Columbine, 1992.
browsers who are looking for desirable characteristics and 6. Jacob, S., McClintock, M. K., Zelano, B. and Ober, C.
find them in more ambitious exaggerators. (These “Paternally inherited HLA alleles are associated with
characteristics vary locally, but common candidates for women’s choice of male odor.” In Nature Genetics, 30
exaggeration include height, weight, body measurements, (2002): 175-179.
attractiveness, and sexual prowess.) If they exaggerate too 7. Lea, M., & Spears, R. Love at first byte? Building personal
much, their duplicity might be discovered when they meet relationships over computer networks. In J. T. Wood & S.
their interactional partners in person. Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten
track (pp. 197-233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.
CONCLUSION 8. Mulrine, A. “[Link]: For better or for worse, the
Online personals are a burgeoning yet ill-understood Internet is radically changing the dating scene in America.”
cultural phenomenon. Because they inherit so much from U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 29, 2003.
earlier computer-mediated communication tools, the CHI 9. Shibazaki, K. & K.A. Brennan (1998). “When birds of
community has the expertise at its disposal to understand different feathers flock together: A preliminary comparison
the social dynamics at play in these environments and to of intraethnic and inter-ethnic dating relationships.” J. of
improve the experience of using online personals. Because Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 248-256.
they nonetheless differ significantly from prior tools, it is 10. Walther, J. B. “Computer-mediated communication:
important for us to use our expertise to this end. Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction.”
This paper provides an overview; future researchers might In Comm. Research 23, 3-43, 1996.
consider building detailed models of which characteristics 11. Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., and A.J. Paepke.
people seek most in online personals. The demographic and “MHC-Dependent Mate Preferences in Humans.” In Proc.
behavioral data are a tremendous resource both for scholars Biological Sci., vol. 260, no. 1359 (June 1995): pp. 245-49
of human relationships and for designers of these systems. 12. Wellman, B., & M. Gulia. “Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone:
Virtual Community as Community.” In B. Wellman (Ed.)
A long-term ethnographic study of a small number of users
Networks in the Global Village (pp. 331-67). Boulder,
would yield insight into the way individuals integrate online Colo.: Westview Press, 1999.