Q&A from “eHarmony: Using the Friends & Family plan to find love online”

Wise Readers,

If you have to resort to the Internet to find a mate, isn’t that a clue that You’re Not Ready?  What are the pitfalls and pleasures of online romance?  If you don’t even have time to find a mate, do you have time to…have one?  What’s a prefrontal cortex, and why do we need one to find True Love?  And what’s up with the studies where arranged marriages are happier than marriages for love?  Read on! 

Cheers, Duana

Reader Comments (18)

Awwwww… how nice to acknowledge sister Betsy - and that Fred already has a good woman in his life! Betsy is a jewel for helping her brother find a wife.

Sounds like eharmony is the ticket, if you want to go the Internet route. On the one hand it’s efficient; on the other hand, is it meddling with the universe? Can’t Fred naturally run into someone compatible through hobbies, clubs, civic organizations, church, synogogue, friends of friends, political volunteering, his kids’s acitivities, singles groups, the gym, sports teams, whatever? If that’s not happening, then it’s Not Time Yet.

Of course, the flip side is, “Today we have the Internet; it you need it, use it!” If time is of the essence to find a mate, then the Internet is certainly efficient and certainly casts the biggest net. I’ve never used an online dating service, but it seems about as romantic as shopping for a car online - just check the color and features you want - we’ll show you some options.

As for who’s better at selecting a mate, the seeker or the seeker’s family, I’d say the family is (Betsy), hands down. Left to our own devices of marrying for “love” men and women often make bad choices of marriage partners (witness our astonishing divorce rate) and I’ve made those bad choices myself. We’re too close to the situation, but family (i.e., Betsy) are more objective and can see a “match” or “miss” better than we can. Weren’t the arranged marriages of the past most often based on unifying resources, not on the bride or groom’s happiness? I am still touched at the love and attention Betsy is showing for her brother’s situation, and that of his kids.

Would I trade my disastrous first marriage for a better match (such as using the Internet) from the start? No. I needed to learn the life lessons it brought me. Before the marriage, friends and family tried to steer me away from “Mr. Wrong” but I wasn’t interested in “Mr. Compatible.”

Too often, that is our sad commentary. We have our first marriages (with partners we select) and then have our second marriages that actually work.

Hats off to Betsy for helping her brother. While a part of me still struggles with the Internet as “meddling” with the mating game, I agree it is The Tool to Use if there’s no time, or no patience left to spare. Also, it takes the guess-work out of it. Marriage candidates out in life don’t wear “A” for available on their shirts, but candidates on eharmony do.

Best wishes to Fred and his kids for much healing and happiness always :-)

March 10, 2010 | Gillian

whoa. If Fred can’t find the time to search a database, how can he find the time to have a relationship ? I’d be in the candidates who wouldn’t agree to this. Some things you have to do for yourself. Probably Betsy could choose a good wife, but I’d get her opinion and do it myself.

March 10, 2010 | Anon.

Veddy inter-esting. I’d be very willing to have my *sister* (or any similarly close friend) choose some potential mate profiles for me, though of course the final choice would be mine … and I’d want to simultaneously be conducting my own search to leave no stone unturned :) My sister (and friends) know me well, are similar in age, and would put my happiness forefront.

Would I trust other family members, such a parents, to make the choice? Not so much. Their narcissism would get in the way, but that’s a whole different story. They would choose mates for me based on what would make them look good, not what would make me happy.

Actually, I’d have been better off had I listened to my sister re: choosing partners in my former relationships. What the data are suggesting has certainly proven to be true in my life: I wasn’t the best “screener” of the potential mates - she could see things about them I couldn’t.

March 10, 2010 | Joan

PS: I am wondering: How does the Costa & McCrae “Big 5” test compare to the other test you’ve written about re: builders, negotiators, explorers, and … what was the 4th one?

March 10, 2010 | Joan

Hi, Gillian,

Thank you as ever for thought-provoking comments. Now that I’ve Got You Under My Skin, lol, here’s a partial response.

I think you’re voicing a common objection to Internet dating. There are many scientifically validated concerns, including:
—A sizeable portion of the folks online are already married and lying about it (some sources put it above 30%, but the real number is naturally unclear);
—People can misrepresent themselves in any number of ways, particularly as regards the inherited mating psychology preferences for youth, beauty, and the ability and willingness to provide, protect and commit;
—Some individuals use the Internet in a predatory, sociopathic manner and are dangerous;
—It’s easier to project one’s own hopes about the other person and ignore reality in the online medium;
—A woman can’t smell a guy over the Internet, so she is missing crucial information from the outset.

But. There are also many concerns that aren’t based on what’s actually happening. And a prime target is the belief that if something is Meant To Be, then the right person will somehow show up in one’s daily life without strategic effort on the part of the person who wants to be partnered.

In reality, there is a word for people who wait for love to fall into their laps, and that word is Single. Especially when people are no longer in a good position to be surrounded by lots of similar singletons and lack the time to spend out and about, relying on the romantic fantasy that Someday He’ll Come Along, The Man I Love…is likely to keep one living only in fantasy.

So the Internet makes a ton of sense for many, many groups of people, including the following:
—Those no longer in college or other environments where singletons abound;
—The Single With Children and/or a career they can’t or choose not to spend a ton of time away from;
—Those who are in a profession (teaching, professing, ministering, doctoring, counseling) where the single people they do meet are utterly inappropriate as prospective mates, for ethical reasons;
—People who aren’t comfortable being involved in an activity where they might meet other singles, such as churches, bars, auto clubs, singles mixers, volunteering opportunities;
—Or who are involved, but aren’t happy with the results per their lovelives;
—Or who are involved in many activities, but don’t want to up the Ick Factor by dating someone there and then possibly breaking up, resulting in Awkward Moments;
—Those stuck in a part of the country where few share their values, interests, cultural background, religion, or any aspect of themselves so core that they can’t/shouldn’t Settle about it;
—Singles who have lots of married friends who are nonchalant about helping their buddy get hitched (or know nobody single to recommend);
—Those who are shy about initial meetings, and who wish to know a bit about somebody before meeting in person.

These same concerns probably explain the increasing, rather than decreasing, popularity of matchmakers in the US. As Thomas Bradbury and Ben Karney write in their excellent text “Intimate Relationships”, “In 2007, there were 1,600 registered matchmakers in the US, up from 1,300 in 2004. Far from an outdated custom, matchmaking is a growth industry.”

And increasing numbers of Americans find the Internet to represent something they anticipate as working for them in the realm of love. Mary Madden and Amanda Lenhart published data at the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which estimated that 16 million Americans had sought out love online by 2006, and that 3 million had begun a long-term relationship with someone they’d met that way.

Finally—I must admit my personal bias here. All facts come with a point of view, and Love Science is not above that basic premise (although it does/I do try to be). I feel a kinship with Fred because I have been in his shoes, almost to the letter. So this particular column’s advice comes not only from the data-driven basis that children of single parents get less time with the primary parent than if the parents were still married (so Internet dating can salvage some of that lost time)—nor solely from all the data showing the Internet to be a valid way of meeting and marrying—nor even from the data about our Friends & Family as better judges of our character, our futures, and our relationships than we are….And not only from the standpoint of my decade-plus working with private clients….But from my own personal experience.

As a single parent, I used the Internet to be found by my now-husband. I was parenting full-time, working from home full-time, and playing no-time. I also did not then reside in a community where my values and interests were the norm, and I knew that meeting and marrying a life partner was a) something I desired with all my heart; b) something that was not going to Just Happen; and c) something that would probably require that I move to—and hence, date someone from—another city (which did occur).

I got what I wanted, and needed, and my daughter did, too. I got a wonderful husband and a son I never would have known otherwise. Hopefully, they got what and whom they wanted and needed as well ;). I am richly fulfilled.

Real romance is not what happens before the wedding, but after. And I wish that for Fred and his children—however he needs to go about it.

March 10, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

(continued)
Gillian, I loved the way you phrased this: “Marriage candidates out in life don’t wear “A” for available on their shirts, but candidates on eHarmony do.”
Yes. That’s a huge advantage, because no time is spent wondering if the other person just wants a booty call; everyone’s there for a Real Relationship.

I also noted your intriguing comment that “the arranged marriages of the past most often based on unifying resources, not on the bride or groom’s happiness?” That has historically depended on the family and the family’s resources. Particularly for families of great wealth, status and power, marriages were arranged to protect those assets, rather than based on love. However, in families of modest means, many have chosen based on what they believed would make their adult child—and future grandchildren—happiest. This tradition continues today in many cultures relying on formal arranged marriages. The parents and matchmakers make introductions, but the would-be mates then meet and have the option to give the thumbs-up or -down. It’s not too romantic, perhaps. But it’s worked for thousands of years.

Thanks again for the splendid thoughts.

March 10, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Duana, as usual another interesting piece of info! Thanks for sharing it, and I say….Let her pick some dates, and then he can go out with them and see if there is chemistry! I’ve often wondered who my family members would choose for me!!

March 10, 2010 | maggie

Dear Anon., Thank you for writing. My initial response to Fred’s sister Betsy, prior to doing the research on Family & Friends, was along the lines of your reaction. I wrote the following to her:

“All this will take time, and you really cannot do this for your brother. If he was married, he’d have to spend a bit of time each day with his wife; if he wants a wife, he needs to spend a bit of time most days finding her. eHarmony relies on accurate matching, which means he has to answer the lengthy questionnaire himself, and then he has to read the profiles himself when he gets matched, and then he has to answer and send letters and make phone calls and go on some dates…

“The goal is to actually meet very few people—the right ones. Let the dating service do its work and have your brother do his by reading the profiles of the women, then speaking with a few and dating fewer still. Yes, he’ll give eHarmony some money, but he won’t spend a lot of wasted time and $$$ and emotional energy dating…a great savings. (And “free” sites come with a big price—they don’t match anyone, wasting tons of time.)

“I know a man who did all the above. He received over 1,000 matched profiles from eHarmony over the course of three months; he spoke with five, went on first dates with three, and went on a second date with one…to whom he is now married. I’m his wife. :)”

There are two problems with my initial answer to Betsy, though:

1. I answered her before I had done extensive research, so although I knew the right information about the dating sites, I was Wrong about the role family can realistically play in a successful courtship. I admit to my readers in private letters that the answer is based on what I know right then, and that a full-length column will reveal more. Still, I was pretty far off the mark here.

2. Did I mention I was Wrong? LOL. Although the plan I laid out for Betsy’s brother, wherein he did the work himself, would and does work, it’s patently clear from the science that Betsy may do a much better job of the initial screen than Fred would. She can even take the personality inventory for him—she’s more likely to get it right. All Fred really needs to do is agree to meet the Best Of The Best, as Betsy put it.

You’re right, too, though. It’s your prerogative to decide that you wouldn’t date anyone who went about it this way. But again, people around the world, in the West, and in the USA are dating this way. And…it’s working. To each his or her own.

March 10, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Joan, excellent comments. I’ve been hearing privately from people who would never let their parents select their life partner, but who have others in their lives whom they would trust to matchmake. Interestingly, Dave Weinlick was an anthropology graduate student when he came up with the plan to enlist his friends’ help. Being in that discipline, he was well-aware of how successful arranged marriages usually are—yet he chose to let his friends, more than his family, do the arranging. (His family was involved on the day-of bridal selection, but his friends had the major say.)

I think, then, that whether one is trusting of the Friends & Family matchmaking scenario depends in part on the degree of trust you’re alluding to. Many folks have parents or sibs or even friends who might lack the wisdom or real regard for our feelings to pull off a successful arrangement.

And being comfortable with the matchmaking idea also arises by coming from a culture where that’s the norm. Clearly, most of us in the Westernized world are not going to read this column, slap our foreheads, and exclaim: “Why didn’t I do that?!”

That’s appropriate. The study I referenced above from Jaipur, India, does show that at the wedding, couples who married for love were happier than those in arranged marriage—a stat reversed by Year 5. And marital happiness in arranged marriages was *double* the for-love marriages a decade in. But that doesn’t necessarily mean arranged marriage is key to happiness. After all, in many parts of India, marrying for love essentially means losing one’s entire support network—a predictor of really bad marital mojo. Here, where marrying for love is the norm, we retain and even expand our support when we wed.

And Yet. Other data show that our orientation going into for-love marriages is so romantic, so unsustainable, that Real Life can quickly erode our feelings. For instance, in arranged-marriage cultures, marital satisfaction typically *grows* after children are born; in our society, the reverse is true. (An interesting article that details this and other long-term love information can be read at this link). 

Ultimately, what seems to make the most sense—with the greatest safety, if not the greatest fairy-tale start—is a combination of the Do It Yourself and Friends & Family methods. There is a middle way, and some are using it. I predict good things for them.

March 10, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

(continued)
Joan,

Personality mismatches are perhaps the biggest source of marital conflict, because they are enduring and core to who we are. So your question regarding how the Big 5 personality dimensions compare to Helen Fisher’s personality test is important.

Although my reading of Fisher’s data and the worldwide, cross-cultural research on the Big 5 tells me both are relevant, two things make me prefer the Big 5.

First, I am not a personality theorist; I’m not an expert in this particular domain. Those who are, though, tend to say that the Big 5 is a more accurate personality typing system than the Myers-Briggs (on which Match.com and Chemistry.com’s systems are based).

Second, the way eHarmony makes use of the Big 5 is likelier to help a person get long-term love. I’ve taken both tests—eH’s and Chem.com’s— repeatedly. eHarmony’s is extremely lengthy—one of the facets of eHarmony intended to screen out players and entice those seriously desiring marriage. Chemistry.com’s is quite short, and won’t thwart anyone, however much they might be seeking to lure the unsuspecting into short-term sex while promising commitment.

While I’m in such a confessional mood today, I should admit having personally used all three of the largest websites—eHarmony, Chemistry.com, and Match.com—when I was dating. I met fantastic and less-fantastic people on all three sites, and I don’t necessarily believe eHarmony presented me with a greater number of more suitable partners than the other sites made available… I in fact have a number of disagreements with the manner in which eHarmony does things, and for a woman, the other two sites had more men, at least at that time. But I did meet my husband on eHarmony, and for men, I think the odds there are numerically best.

For me…eHarmony worked veddy, veddy well. But the best way to meet a mate is whatever way it Works.

March 10, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Dear Maggie, Thank you! I wonder—will you be using the Friends & Family Plan anytime soon? If you do—let us know what happens. Best to you.

March 10, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Duana, thank you for the wonderful responses! I was fascinated to learn that by Year 5 the couples of arranged marriages are happier than those who married for love. I can definitely see this.

I’m wondering if those young couples who marry for “love” are just too young to have the life experience to know that the love “buzzzz” wears off … You can’t tell them anything because they already know Everything and the parents/older family members know Nothing. :)

Please note … I am not casting stones - this was me exactly. I married husband #1 in my 20’s, for “love,” and against my family’s advice. The marriage failed in less than 3 years, due to incompatibility, which most everyone (expect me) saw from the start.

I’m wondering … what age group uses the Internet most heavily to find a mate? Is it the younger set seeking their first mate, or the divorced set … seeking a second chance at love?

March 10, 2010 | Joan

PS… About the arranged marriages in the Jaipur study: Is divorce frowned upon there? Perhaps the marital satisfaction grows (“double the for-love marriages a decade in”) because the spouses know they are stuck with other —period— and so they decide to see it as good (??). Sort of like the item I bought that is non-returnable? I will find reasons to like it.

March 11, 2010 | Joan

Hi, Joan,
I wish you were in my classes. The discussions would be fascinating. (Then again, we wouldn’t get the actual material covered, lol.)

So, let’s take your queries, not necessarily in order ;):
1. “I’m wondering if those young couples who marry for “love” are just too young to have the life experience to know that the love “buzzzz” wears off…”

Yes, and no. In collectivist (non-Industrialized, usually Eastern) communities where divorce is frowned on, and the support for staying together is very strong, and sex roles are predictable, and elders teach youngers what to expect, and the entire family continues helping the young couple learn to get along—love matches will usually last (caveat: Most of these cultures are the same ones that forbid free-choice marriages—in which case, a love match will have zero support and will be extremely unlikely to work.). Everyone knows his or her role and understands what’s expected in marriage as an Institution, and the entire community is behind those roles and that Institution.
Of course, for people who don’t fit the expectations, it’s pure Hell.

But meeting all these conditions is quite rare in societies like ours, where an individualist self-concept is the norm. The idea that we all make our own fate, and that others have nothing to do with it, combined with an actual support for divorce in our laws and pop culture, very much works against getting the social support a marriage of any kind needs. To wit, a recent comedy show I attended featured numerous comedians who led the audience in cheers for divorce; people happily wed were actively made fun of.

There is another success factor that’s huge in Westernized nations, though, and you’ve nailed it: Age. I’ve read that the divorce rate among those marrying before 20 in the USA is 90%; but it’s just 10% for those who wait until age 29 to tie the knot for the first time. (And btway, the divorce rate is higher for 2nd marriages than it is for 1st marriages—many people believe the reverse.)
An area of the brain called the prefrontal cortex seems to be the crux of the matter. This portion, located just behind the forehead, is where our personality resides, and it’s responsible for our ability to plan and judge and be moral creatures. It’s where We live—the We that makes us separate, individual, moral beings.
Unfortunately, this part of the brain doesn’t finish “cooking” until age…25. So is the divorce and age correspondence a Coincidence? I think not.

Wherever society will help non-grown-ups to learn to live like grown-ups while entering youthful marriages, that can work. But in cultures like ours, letting two undeveloped prefrontal cortexes wed is a recipe for failure.

March 11, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

#2: Will people grow to love their mate more because they’re “non-returnable”?
What an interesting query, Joan. And: Yes.

One thing researchers have repeatedly noted is that when an item of any kind is made non-returnable (such as household appliances), people rate that item as more desirable than if they had the option to trade it in.
This finding does extend to marriage. Here, two findings that make the point:
—Couples in “covenant” marriages in the USA have voluntarily entered a deal in which they are unable to divorce, by law, in any but the most extreme circumstances. Although these marriages have not been entered into nearly as often as the no-fault divorce option marriages commonly found throughout the USA, the covenant marriages are rated as happier by those in them.
—Divorce laws have changed over the past half-century in the USA, and attitudes have changed with them. Divorce, once permissible only for extreme duress (adultery, addictions, abuse) and/or childlessness, gradually became no-fault—permissible for any reason, and permissible without both parties’ consent. Data were collected on marital happiness, both before and after the laws changed.
Fascinatingly, before no-fault divorces were legal, people reported much greater satisfaction with their marriages than *after* the laws changed. Today, couples who are happy report *less* happiness than their forebears who wed under the old set of laws. And these newer couples also report less commitment to and investment in their marriages than people who are in covenant marriages, or who lived where divorce for Fault was the only option.

March 11, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

#3: Who is using the Internet for dating?
—Many Internet sites won’t give demographic details. For instance, eHarmony responded to many of my queries by stating that since they are a privately held company, they aren’t required by law to publish information on such questions as who is using their site.

However, Match.com is publicly traded and required to post certain demographic information. Here is what they sent me on their Fact Sheet:

Member Demographics (U.S. data from member profiles)

• Male 56%, Female 44%
• 29% are under age 30; 51% are ages 30-49; 20% are age 50+
• 79% have some college or college degree
• 69% non-smokers, 24% smokers, (7% did not answer)
• 56% do not have children, 23% have children who at least sometimes live at home, 19% have children away from home, (2% did not answer)
• The 50+ age group is Match.com’s fastest growing demographic

March 11, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

I love love love Love Science, but I have to ask, do you receive any kickbacks from any of these companies? I’ll keep reading even if you do, but I do want to know.

March 12, 2010 | Katrina

Hi, Katrina,
Thank you for the kudos and question.

Love Science has the option to make money by linking to dating websites. But I have declined to link up in that way. Although the incentives are tied to how much traffic is driven to the dating websites (or how many memberships are generated), rather than to the quality of my review, it’s tough to see how these two things could fail to be connected.

So, the dating site links I’ve posted do not result in any financial benefit to Love Science. I endorse using the Internet to find love, but whether or not one site is right for You depends on You and what you’re looking for. And my professional and personal experience leads me to believe that every site has some problems, some benefits, and only some percentage of the population that is well-served.

Books are somewhat different. Love Science receives a small percentage of the cover price for some of the books LS readers click-through to purchase. However, I only link in that way if I am 100% in favor of the book from a scientific and user-friendly standpoint; otherwise, I elect either to a) not link or reference a book at all, or b) link and reference, but without any possibility of financial gain for Love Science.

And Love Science receives no money for linking to the research articles, academic institutions, scientists, professional journals, etc., which are the backbone of the articles here.

Thanks again for a relevant question, and I hope to hear more from you in the future.

March 12, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.