We’re all looking for that elusive, ‘spark’ – but what really ignites a long-lasting relationship? There is good news, Science is closing in on the answers.
For centuries, our romantic fates were thought to be written in the stars. Wealthy families would even pay fortunes to have a matchmaker foretell the success, or failure of a potential marriage.
Despite the lack of any good evidence for its accuracy, astrology still thrives in many lifestyle magazines, while the more sceptical among us, might hope to be guided by the algorithms, of websites and dating apps.
But are these programs any more rigorous than the signs of the zodiac? Or, should we put our faith in love languages, and attachment theory? (That’s to name just two fashions in pop psychology).
The world of matchmaking, is riddled with myths, and misunderstandings that recent science, is just starting to unravel. From the inevitably messy data, a few clear conclusions, are emerging that can help guide us in our search for true love.
If you are looking for the secrets of romantic success, the most obvious place to start, would seem to be the science of personality.
If you are an outgoing party animal, you might hope to find someone with a similar level of extraversion; if you are organised, and conscientious, you might expect to feel a stronger connection, with someone who enjoys keeping a rigid schedule.
The scientific research does offer some support for the intuitive notion, that “like attracts like”, but in the grand scheme of things, the similarity of personality profiles, is relatively unimportant.
“Yes, it is true that people are more likely to experience chemistry, with someone who is similar to them, in certain ways,” explains Prof Harry Reis, at the University of Rochester, New York. “But if I brought you in a room with 20 people, who are similar to you in various ways, the odds that you’re going to have chemistry, with more than one of them, are not very good.” It is only the extreme differences, Reis says, that will matter, in your first meetings. “It’s not likely, that you would have chemistry,with somebody who is very dissimilar to you.”
The rest is just noise. The same goes for shared interests. “The effects are so tiny,” says Prof Paul Eastwick at the University of California.
Eastwick found similarly disappointing results when he looked at people’s “romantic ideals” – our preconceived notions, of the particular qualities we would want in our dream partner. I might say that I value kindness above all other qualities, for instance, and you might say you are looking for someone who is adventurous, and free-spirited.
You’d think we’d know what we want – but the research suggests otherwise. While it’s true, that certain qualities, such as kindness, or adventurousness, are generally considered to be attractive, experiments on speed-daters, suggest that people’s particular preferences tend to matter very little, in their face-to-face interactions.
Someone who stated that they were looking for kindness, for example, would be just as likely to click, with someone who scored high on adventurousness, – and vice versa.
Despite our preconceptions, we seem open, to a wide variety of people, showing generally positive attributes.
“We can’t find evidence that some people really weigh some traits over others,” Eastwick says. He compares it to going out to a restaurant, ordering a specific dinner, then swapping food with the table next to yours. You’re just as likely to enjoy the random dish, as the one you’d originally ordered.
Given this growing body of research, Eastwick is generally very sceptical that computer algorithms can accurately match people for chemistry, or compatibility. Working with Prof Samantha Joel at Western University in Canada, he has used a machine learning program, to identify any combinations of traits, that would