Monday, April 15, 2013

PAPER "Partnership longevity and personality congruence in couples"

Partnership longevity and personality congruence in couples

"Evidence of assortative mating according to personality was reported in a previous SOEP-based study ["Only the congruent survive - Personality similarities in couples. Personality and Individual Differences" Rammstedt & Schupp (2008)].
Based on population representative data of almost 7,000 couples, high levels of congruence between spouses were found, which increased with marriage duration. Almost 5,000 of these couples were tracked over a five-year period with personality assessed at the beginning and end of this time, which allowed us to investigate the relationship between personality congruence and marriage duration longitudinally. Using this data, we investigated (a) whether personality congruence is predictive for partnership longevity and whether congruence therefore differs between subsequently stable and unstable couples, (b) if stable couples become more congruent, and (c) if separated couples become less congruent with regard to their personality over time. The results provide initial evidence of personality congruence as a predictor for partnership longevity: the more congruent couples are in the personality domain of Openness, the more stable their partnership. In addition, we found no indications of an increase in personality congruence over time within the stable couples; within the separated couples, however, a strong decrease in congruence was detectable."

"Birds of a feather flock together—this folk saying also seems to hold for personality. Assortative mating for personality was demonstrated in a previous study (Rammstedt & Schupp, 2008) based on population-representative data of almost 7,000 couples, as well as in several other studies based on somewhat smaller and/or more selective samples (e.g., Bleske-Rechek, Remiker, & Baker, 2009; Gonzaga, Carter, & Buckwalter, 2010; McCrae et al., 2008).

Gonzaga, Carter, & Buckwalter, 2010 = eHarmony's researchers.


..... we hypothesize personality congruence to be predictive for partnership longevity and assume congruence to be higher in couples who turn out to be stable than in couples separating in the years thereafter (Hypothesis 1). On the other hand, it could be argued that longterm couples become more similar in their personalities over time. For example, for someone less open to experience than his or her partner, joining this partner in cultural activities might make him or her more interested and thus more open. We could therefore assume a personality change towards higher congruence over time in stable couples (Hypothesis 2). However, neither of the two alternative hypotheses is supported by data from previous studies. Gonzaga, Carter, and Buckwalter (2010), using data from an online relationship service [eHarmony], and Caspi, Herbener, and Ozer (1992), using data from the 20-year Kelly Longitudinal Study of couples, found no evidence that couples' resemblance increased over time.


 [Similarity is a word that has different meanings for different persons or companies, it exactly depends on how mathematically is defined. I calculate similarity in personality patterns with (a proprietary) pattern recognition by correlation method. It takes into account the score and the trend to score of any pattern. ]

Please see:
"Stability and change of personality across the life course"
"personality traits are highly stable"

Personality traits are highly stable in persons over 25 years old to 45 years old (the group of persons who could be most interested in serious online dating) They have only minor changes in personality (less than 1 interval in a normative test) and the 16PF5 test will not "see" them because the output of the 16PF5 test are 16 variables STens (Standard Tens) taking integer values from 1 to 10. STens divide the score scale into ten units. STens have the advantage that they enable results to be thought of in terms of bands of scores, rather than absolute raw scores. These bands are narrow enough to distinguish statistically significant differences between candidates, but wide enough not to over emphasize minor differences between candidates.

Please read also:

"Personality similarity and life satisfaction in couples" (2013) 

"Only the congruent survive - Personality similarities in couples. Personality and Individual Differences" 2008 Rammstedt and Schupp.

"Personality influences on marital satisfaction: Integrating the empirical evidence using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) model" 2009 Charania and Ickes.

"Personality Similarities Predict Relationship Satisfaction in 23 Countries" Erina Lee, Gian Gonzaga, and Emily M. Maywood (from eHarmony Labs)

"Similarity predicts relationship satisfaction in Brazil" 2011 Erina Lee, Gian Gonzaga.

"Partner Preferences of the Intellectually Gifted" 2012 Pieternel Dijkstra, D. P. H. Barelds et al.

"Relationship Compatibility, Compatible Matches, and Compatibility Matching" 2011 Susan Sprecher.

"Generalization in mate choice copying in humans" 2012 Robert I. Bowers, Skyler S. Place, Peter M. Todd, Lars Penke, and Jens B. Asendorpf.

"Personality, Partner Similarity and Couple Satisfaction: Do Opposites Attract or Birds of a Feather Flock Together?"  2011 Adrienne Kaufman

"Personality similarity between self, partner and parents" 2011 D. P. H. Barelds and Pieternel Dijkstra.

"Perceptions of Ideal and Former Partners' Personality and Similarity" 2010 Pieternel Dijkstra / D. P. H. Barelds. "
The present study's results, as well as the results found in previous studies (e.g., Eastwick & Finkel, 2008), may be used to educate people, especially singles, about what really matters in long-term relationships, for instance, similarity in personality, instead of complementarity."

"Personality similarity, perceptual accuracy, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples" 2011 Mieke Decuyper, Marleen De Bolle and Filip De Fruyt.

"It's that time of the month: The effects of hormonal shifts on female mate value, depressive symptomology, and short term mating orientation." 2011 Heather Adams and Victor Luévano.


At page 413 says: "It is vital for the study of personal relationships, as for any scientific discipline, to develop methodologies that are specifically designed to address the questions posed by the discipline. The articles in this special issue represent an effort in that direction. Perhaps equally important is the need for individuals who are involved in relationships study to learn these new techniques and to apply them in their research. It is also important for investigators to challenge statisticians to create new analytic techniques when existing ones are inadequate. These tasks are left to you, the reader."

That is because I had invented a new quantitative method to calculate similarity.

In compatibility matching algorithms there are 2 steps:
1) to measure personality traits or other variables.
2) to calculate compatibility between prospective mates.
The 3 milestone discoveries of the 2001 - 2010 decade for Theories of Romantic Relationships Development are:
I) Several studies showing contraceptive pills users make different mate choices, on average, compared to non-users. "Only short-term but not long-term partner preferences tend to vary with the menstrual cycle"
II) People often report partner preferences that are not compatible with their choices in real life. (Behavioural recommender systems or other system that learns your preferences are useless)
III) What is important in attracting people to one another may not be important in making couples happy. Compatibility is all about a high level on personality similarity between prospective mates for long term mating with commitment.

Also there is a similarity trilogy between genetic, mate choice and personality based recommender systems.

Personality Based Recommender Systems are the next generation of recommender systems because they perform far better than Behavioural ones (past actions and pattern of personal preferences)

WorldWide, there are over 5,000 -five thousand- online dating sites
but no one is using the 16PF5 (or similar) to assess personality of its members!
but no one calculates similarity with a quantized pattern comparison method!
but no one can show Compatibility Distribution Curves to each and every of its members!
but no one is scientifically proven!

The only way to revolutionize the Online Dating Industry is using the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of members, or a proprietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5 and expressing compatibility with eight decimals (needs a quantized pattern comparison method, part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation, to calculate similarity between prospective mates.)
High precision in matching algorithms is precisely the key to open the door and leave the infancy of compatibility testing.
It is all about achieving the eighth decimal!
With 8 decimals, you have more precision than any person could achieve by searching on one's own, but the only way to achieve the eighth decimal is using analysis and correlation with quantized patterns.

Without offering the NORMATIVE16PF5 (or similar test measuring exactly the 16 personality factors) for serious dating, it will be impossible to innovate and revolutionize the Online Dating Industry All other proposals are NOISE and perform as placebo.

No comments:

Post a Comment