1. Patrick on June 28, 2006 2:53 PM writes...

I can't comment on True's sexy ads or marketing spend but I will say something about so-called "scientifically-based" assessments.

Our experience is that web-daters (particularly women and people with a long-term relationship objective) are looking for tools which help them to more effectively screen other members. They'll use assessment tools and reporting if they feel they'll help to achieve this end.

None of the dating sites which use Thomas personality assessment tools seem to need to "sell" them to their members on the basis that they're "scientifically-based". I think this is because members don't really seem to care if the personality tools they came across are "scientific". What they care about is whether they're entertaining and whether they work. And usually in that order!

Thomas has been assessing people's behavioral preferences (personality) for over 30 years and despite having an instrument which is certified by an independent psychologist to meet testing standards established by the British Psychological Society (BPS) we don't focus on the science aspect. We spend our time thinking about how to make our instruments more compelling to users, and more importantly, how to make them effective tools for increasing conversion. That's what our web-dating partner sites care about. Maybe eHarmony and Chemistry.com are thinking along the same lines.

2. James Houran on June 28, 2006 7:24 PM writes...

I agree with Patrick that compatibility tests should be entertaining, but in my substantial experience with these assessments I have found that serious customers very much do care whether or not a given assessment has any scientific validity.

In fact, the public's questioning of compatibility assessments prompted me to publish the article:

Houran, J., Lange, R., Rentfrow, P. J., & Bruckner, K. H. (2004). Do online matchmaking tests work? An assessment of preliminary evidence for a publicized ‘predictive model of marital success.’ North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 507-526.

That article reviewed the major compatibility assessments and found that there is virtually no evidence that most are based in valid research. Validation by independent "psychologists" is not enough -- assessments need be evaluated by independent experts in tests and measurements! Psychometrics (especially modern methods of test construction and validation) is typically beyond the expertise of most social scientists.

The Thomas products were not reviewed in the article, but I would appreciate seeing the data/journal article/white paper/test manual that substantiates the claim that they meet professional testing standards. Compatibility tests are extremely difficult to do well given that there are gender biases in the perception and measurement of relationship satisfaction. These biases are not overcome with Classical Test Theory, but rather require Item Response Theory/ differential item functioning methods.

For further info on these issues, see:

Houran, J. Lange, R., Wilson, G., & Cousins, J. (2005). Redefining compatibility: Gender differences in the building blocks of relationship satisfaction. Poster presented at the 17th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, Los Angeles, CA, May 28.

Lange, R., Houran, J., & Jerabek, I. (2004). Building blocks for satisfaction in long-term romantic relationships: evidence for the complementarity hypothesis for romantic compatibility. Paper presented at the Adult Development Symposium Society for Research in Adult Development Preconference, AERA, San Diego, CA, August 11.

Thanks,

James Houran, PhD
Research Psychologist
Online Dating Magazine

3. James J. on June 29, 2006 4:46 PM writes...

I just saw this True ad:

http://content.yieldmanager.com/16210/109681/3776b79ecfe886b40ceca7b0910562cb.gif

Yes, that really is a True ad.