love and relationship zone

The largest and most comprehensive study of contemporary love and dating in modern Britain Authors Dr Monica Whitty, Dr Tom Buchanan and Angus Watson

The LoveGeist Report 2009
Table of contents
1. Introduction 2
2. Foreword by Dr Monica Whitty 3
3. What is love? 4
4. The Great Britain and Northern Ireland love map 6
5. What do we want from love? 9
6. A post-recession romantic era? 12
7. Who’s most romantic? 13
8. Love and marriage 14
9. Looking for The One 16
10. Differences between men and women 17
11. What men and women want 18
12. Money and love 22
13. Doing it for the kids? 23
14. Splitting up and forgiveness 24
15. The role of parents 25
16. The London effect 26
17. Future love 27
18. Methodological notes 38
19. Biographies of authors and contributors 40
20. About match.com 44
21. Bibliography 45
22. Appendix: survey questionnaire from SurveyMonkey 46
1

1. Introduction
THE LOVEGEIST REPORT 2009 IS THE LARGEST AND MOST COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF CONTEMPORARY LOVE AND DATING IN MODERN BRITAIN.
The LoveGeist Report 2009 is the first of a series of annual reports, intended to be the chief source of information on British attitudes to love. Commissioned by match.com, the UK’s biggest online dating site, based on a massive survey, focus groups, and match.com’s huge member base, the study is a comprehensive and academically accredited analysis of people’s perception of romantic love.
The LoveGeist Report 2009’s scope is vast. Some of the chief areas of analysis are:
• What are the cultural, social and economic effects of the recession on love and dating?
• Will marriage survive its current decline?
• How do romantic beliefs vary regionally in the UK?
• Are online daters looking for the same as traditional daters?
• What does love mean to a new generation of singletons and young married people?
Four sources were used:
1. A detailed survey of 11,309 single people
2. Focus groups of 28 married and unmarried men and women
3. 4,767 anonymised partner preference records from match.com
4. Previous academic literature on love and dating
See Methodology and Bibliography for detailed explanations of each.
The Future Love section
The Future Love section of The LoveGeist Report 2009 draws on commentary from a range of experts in psychology, relationships, anthropology and dating to predict how our ways of finding and keeping successful relationships are likely to evolve.
Drawing on their experience and expertise, our commentators examined the research conducted by Dr Whitty and Dr Buchanan to determine our future in love. Aspects covered include:
• How we can find love and happiness when men and women are looking for different
things
• The gap between aspiration and reality
• How changing lifestyles dictate the way we find love
Authors
The LoveGeist Report 2009 was compiled by features writer Angus Watson, from a technical report by psychologists Dr Tom Buchanan and Dr Monica Whitty of the Universities of Westminster and Nottingham Trent respectively. Dr Monica Whitty has written widely on the subject of online dating. Dr Tom Buchanan’s main teaching and research areas are personality and social psychology, and how they intersect with the Internet.
See Biographies of Authors and Contributors for more on authors.
2

2. Foreword By Dr Monica Whitty
This project set out to learn more about current opinions on love in the UK. We were able to leverage match.com’s position as the UK’s biggest dating site to gain a unique insight into what thousands of single people think about love, as well as what they are looking for in a relationship. Through focus groups, a survey based around an established psychological measure, and analyses of what people were searching for through match.com, we were able to gain a comprehensive picture of what people wanted from their relationships, and how that might be different for a variety of people.
Of great interest in these modern and economically difficult times, we found that our participants were still looking for love and most desired a long-term relationship (often marriage). While they could see that the meanings of these relationships have changed, many talked about the need and desire to work at a relationship. However, not everyone in the UK is of the same mindset when it comes to love. For example, Londoners were found to be the least romantic and yet the most keen on marriage.
Some of our findings confirmed things already known about love; for instance, that men are the more romantic sex. Nonetheless, as demonstrated in this report, other results held surprises and raised questions for future research to examine. The LoveGeist Report 2009 creates the ideal foundation to explore such questions and map out the UK’s love landscape, now and in the future.
3

3. What is love?
A: What does love mean for different people?
What is love? It’s a question that’s tortured writers, scholars and teenagers for centuries. Psychologists have produced multiple definitions – companionship, passionate love, intimacy, and many more.
The LoveGeist Report 2009 found people looking for love in contemporary Britain consider small gestures more important than lavish gifts. It found that love grows gradually, not suddenly. It found that love needed work, but not as much work as marriage.... and it discovered many other nuggets about modern love, all to follow. Some of these are displayed in these quotations from our focus groups:
"Small gestures count for a lot…They mean someone’s thinking about you when they didn’t really have to"
"You are the sum of your relationships"
"Love is when everything’s stripped down and you still want to be with them"
"Love is a risk"
"Love is imagining being without her and not wanting to find out what that was like"
"Marriage doesn’t have the meaning it once did"
"I love her more now than I did before we married"
"At different stages of your life, you want something different"
"Marriage empowers you to do things you wouldn’t have done before"
"Love is not a puzzle that slots together. We all need time, work and effort"
In all aspects of love, there is one central theme. Love means different things to different people. So the first goal of the study was to find differences and similarities in people’s attitudes to love. It’s a subject that we’ll return to throughout.
B: The Measure of love
The Romantic Beliefs Scale
In 1850, poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways." In 1989, two American academics called Sprecher & Metts published a survey method which does exactly that. The Romantic Beliefs Scale counts the ways of love, quantifying romance into a form that can be analysed statistically.
4

The Romantic Beliefs Scale has been adopted widely as the academic standard for analysing people’s ideas about love. Its Romantic Belief Score measures how romantic people are, and it shows what people consider to be important in love.
Results are generated from a multiple choice questionnaire, comprised of 15 statements, for example:
• I believe that to be truly in love is to be in love forever
• I am likely to fall in love almost immediately if I find the right person
• If I love someone, I know I can make the relationship work, despite any obstacles
• If I were in love with someone, I would commit myself to him or her even if my
parents and friends disapproved of the relationship
People choose one of seven strengths of responses, ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree".
This test comprised part of the survey, which had at least 7,300 respondents to each question.
See Methodology for more on the survey group.
5

4. The Great Britain and Northern Ireland love map The LoveGeist Report 2009 found signifi cant geographical differences in romantic belief. Welsh were most romantic, followed by residents of the Midlands, creating a ‘love belt’ around central Britain. Londoners were least romantic, and Scots the second least romantic. Map 1: The Great Britain and Northern Ireland Love Map Or, in table form: Table 1: GB and NI Romantic Belief League Table by Region 6 Region Rank Romantic Beliefs Score Wales 1 67.10 East Midlands 2 66.41 West Midlands 3 66.38 Northern Ireland 4 66.13 South East 5 65.72 East 6 65.28 North East 7 65.10 South West 8 65.05 Yorks and Humber 9 64.93 North West 10 64.87 Scotland 11 64.45 Greater London 12 63.25
The score is calculated from The Romantic Beliefs Scale, as described above. The differences may not seem much numerically, but they are significant: more statistically significant, for example, than the affects of anti histamine on the symptoms of hay fever.
• The ‘love belt’ effect is clear, with Wales and the Midlands occupying the top three
spaces
• The top five areas produce a love bandolier (the diagonal ammunition belt worn by,
for example, a fictional Mexican bandit)
• The survey, perhaps conversely, found that unromantic Londoners are the most likely
to want to get married
We can also look at results for UK cities:
Table 2: GB and NI Romantic Belief League Table by City
7

The average number survey of respondents per city was 209. With 33 people, Derry had the fewest respondents, but still enough for a decent sample. London had the most (1,526).
• The strong showing from Wales and the Midlands is reflected in the top cities, of
which four out of five are from the ‘love belt’
• A coastal location and the presence of a pier are seemingly unrelated to a
population’s romantic beliefs, with Southend topping the poll and Brighton least
romantic
• Wolverhampton can be seen as the best city for singletons. It’s only second in the
league table, but it’s much nearer than Southend to other top romance spots, like
Derby and Stoke-on-Trent
For further comparison of geographical romance, see www.lovegeist.co.uk
8

5. What do we want from love?
Interpreting Romance
The results from the survey were crunched into a Pearson’s r test. This is a statistical algorithm which shows a result’s significance as a score between minus one and one. The nearer the result to one, the more ‘true’ it is, the nearer to minus one, the more ‘false’.
So below we see that the ‘truest’ statement is "I believe falling in love means being with someone who helps make me a better person", while the ‘least true’ is "It’s important to me that someone I form a long term relationship with is intelligent".
All the results from the survey are shown here, with their ‘r’ score. This report will refer back to them regularly.
Table 3: Correlates of Romantic Beliefs
(minimum number of respondents to any question was 7,309)
9

A: Self-improvement
The strongest response was to the statement "falling in love means being with someone who helps make me a better person". So perhaps love is seen as necessary to ‘complete’ one as a person, hence the prevalence of phrases like "you make me whole" and "you lift me up". Love, we might say, is a device of mutual improvement.
The focus groups found that "better" meant being a less selfish, more confident, more challenged, more motivated and happier person:
"You want to make them happy"
"You’re empowered to do things you wouldn’t have done before"
"I didn’t see the world from just my point of view any more...when he hurt, I hurt"
"Being single is a selfish way of life but when you’re in a relationship, it’s about seeing someone else ahead of yourself"
In the focus groups, only single women did not agree with the view that love makes you a better person.
B: Small gestures and manners
The second strongest romantic belief was that considerate gestures are more important than lavish gifts. The survey backed this up, with a very conclusive 90.6 % of men and 86.2 % of women saying that they preferred considerate gestures over lavish gifts.
Manners also scored very highly. This suggests that people want a partner who treats them well consistently, with whom to travel happily through life, rather than someone who rewards them for service with generous presents. This is contrary to the perceived ‘WAG’ ideal of finding a lover who can deliver regular expensive gifts.
This anti-materialist love position is backed up by another question in the survey. Only 14.5% women (and 3.2% men) think a partner’s high income is important. As one single woman from the focus groups put it:
"Small gestures count for a lot. They mean someone’s thinking about you when they didn’t really have to"
Interestingly, men are more likely to want considerate gestures, but are also more likely to make them.
C: Relationships take work, but it’s worth it
The vast majority of respondents (84%) said that they would work hard to try and solve the problems in a relationship that wasn’t going well. The focus groups backed this up:
"Love is not a puzzle that slots together. We all need time, work and effort"
10

"I grew and learnt more about relationships with people that I was with for a long time"
This reinforces the notion that romance was more important than casual flings to our respondents.
D: Intelligence is not a factor
Behavioural aspects were important, but not actual intelligence. The survey also showed that singletons were looking for someone with a "similar sense of humour" to them. This suggests that a compatible level of intelligence is sought, rather than a high level.
11

6. A post-recession romantic era?
Most of The LoveGeist Report 2009’s findings pointed to increased desire for long-term, settled monogamy, with less emphasis placed on casual flings. This suggests that perhaps we’re looking for people with whom to shelter from the harsh wind of recession:
• 61.3 % of survey respondents said that finding someone to fall in love with was more
important to them now than it was a year ago
• 84.4% agreed that if things were not going well in a relationship they would work
hard to try to solve the problems
• 95 % want a long term relationship in the future. Only 0.7% did not. 4.1% had no
opinion
• Just over half (53.9%) had become more fussy about whom they dated over the past
year
Attitudes to falling in love were similarly mature. People believe love to be gradual rather than a sudden process:
• Most survey respondents (68.3%) agreed that they needed to know someone for a
period of time before falling in love
• 54% agreed that if they met their true love they would soon know it, but only 34.6%
agreed that they would fall in love almost immediately if they met the right person
The focus groups supported these findings. Single women believed that they couldn’t have ever been properly in love, or else they’d be married. This implies that they see true love as lasting forever. Said one:
"To commit to be with one person for the rest of your life is something I don’t fully understand right now"
Married men and women agree that love doesn’t strike suddenly, and the moment that you fall in love is impossible to pinpoint. One suggestion is that it is when the idea of being without your partner becomes frightening, another was that it’s when you start to think of yourself as part of a team:
"As much as there are wonderful feelings, there are horrific ones too"
"Starting to think of yourself as ‘us’ rather than me"
12

7. Who’s most romantic?
The LoveGeist Report 2009 allows for all sorts of cross-analysis. As well as geographically, we can compare the romantic beliefs of different types of people.
A: Casanova was not romantic
Amongst our respondents, the more times someone has claimed to be in love, the lower their Romantic Belief score. This is not a new finding. Shakespeare created characters who flitted their adoration from one person to another, more in love with the idea of love than with love itself (Orsino in Twelfth Night, for example). They were ‘doting’ rather than ‘loving’.
B: But men are more romantic
The LoveGeist Report 2009 found that men are significantly more romantic than women, which is consistent with previous research. Possible explanations include the idea that cultural shifts are stepped. Women may be close to income parity now, yet atavistic gender-defined attitudes to courtship endure. Men are vastly more likely to pay for a first dinner, although they may earn less than their female dining companion. A man will be more likely to give a single seat on a train to his date.
For a further explanation of this, based on the different ways that men and women fall in love, please turn to the Future Love section of the report.
C: Romantics don’t play scrabble
The more romantic a person is, the less they look for intelligence in a loved one.
D: We’re (almost) all keen to settle down
Only 45 respondents from approximately 11,000 (0.41%) were not looking for a long term relationship. This flies in the face of the now outdated notion that online dating sites are populated by men looking for no-strings sex.
E: Better to have loved and lost?
We found that people who’d been in love before are less romantic than those who haven’t. Possibly people who’ve loved and lost have been put off after being hurt, or after hurting someone else. Or it may be that more romantic people are more idealistic, and therefore less likely to meet someone who fulfils their higher expectations.
13

8. Love and marriage
A: Is marriage relevant in modern society?
The LoveGeist Report 2009’s findings on marriage are consistent with the decline of marriage in Britain. Although 95.2% said they wanted a long-term relationship, only 53.7% said they wanted to get married (although only 11.0 % said they didn’t).
B: Why get married?
Survey respondents were asked to rate several statements about the appeal of marriage. On average, respondents considered only two statements important:
• I find marriage appealing because it symbolises commitment
• I find marriage appealing because I believe it is the best way to bring up children
On average, no other factors – including relationship-bolstering, economic security, religious reasons, self-improvement, familial expectancy and peer pressure - were rated as important. Men and women agreed on this.
The appeal of marriage for bringing up children is heartening, given that studies (e.g. one by the Conservative Party in 2006) show that marriage offers the best chance to children for a stable upbringing. However, the need to symbolise commitment had the strongest response. The fact that peer and familial and religious pressure didn’t feature implies that people are marrying to prove commitment to each other, and perhaps themselves.
In the focus groups, married women said that external pressure had little to do with their decision to get married. Said one:
"This is the person I can envisage being with till the end"
C: Marriage is hard, love is easy
In the focus groups, married women made a distinction between love and marriage, stating that love was easy, but marriage really needed work. They described marriage as being like another job; not in a negative way, but as a new set of tasks and relationships (for example with in-laws).
D: Marriage changes you
Married women in the focus groups said that getting married is like moving on a level; rather like one might in a video game, armed with new skills for new challenges. One said that her husband had changed more than she had, now seeing himself in the role of long-term provider.
E: Reasons not to marry
Single women in the focus groups have mixed attitudes to marriage, ranging from very optimistic to very pessimistic:
14

"To commit to be with one person for the rest of your life is something I don’t fully understand right now"
"I agree with the idea of marriage but can’t see how you spend your life with just one person"
Most single men found the idea of marriage outdated:
"It doesn’t have the meaning it once did"
"It doesn’t change the love; it’s an expression of Love. It changes society’s perception of you"
Married men backed up the view that marriage was partially a societal display:
"Marriage was a public display of our commitment"
The majority of single men felt that marriage was more important for the woman, and that the point of marriage was the day itself and the presents.
In the survey, the only significant reason given not to get married was "I don’t need to get married to prove my love for someone". Interesting that this is the converse to the chief reason to get married: "I find marriage appealing because it symbolises commitment". It strengthens the idea that the purpose of marriage, as seen by our focus groups, is to strengthen a relationship’s perceived validity. However, the need for that validation can be seen in a positive or negative light.
F: It’s still romantic
Survey respondents who wanted to get married had significantly higher Romantic Beliefs scores than those who did not. But, oddly, people who believed marriage would still exist in 100 years time had significantly lower Romantic Beliefs scores than those who did not.
Married men said they got married because they realised that they weren’t thinking about the next relationship, and were completely satisfied with their current one.
"I saw my relationship as a see-saw. At different points in your relationship someone is at the heavier end. The point we decided to get married was the point we came into balance"
The idea of starting a family was an issue, but part of a package of issues rather than a defining one.
G: The future of marriage
Of the survey respondents, 71.6% expected marriage to still exist in 100 years time, while 9.8% thought that it would not.
The focus groups, asked if they thought marriage would exist in 2,000 years time, said they thought that there would still be some form of official commitment.
"The promise between two people will still exist"
"Other mammals express commitment but don’t get married"
15

9. Looking for The One
Is The One somewhere out there? Is there a soulmate - a pre-destined life partner - for everyone? The LoveGeist Report 2009 asked its focus groups.
Single men believed in The One. They held a general belief that there would be one person with whom they would have a deeper connection over and above all possible others. Married men disagreed that there was just one person right for them.
"There are many people that you can be compatible with"
Single women believed that it was dangerous to think that there was just one person out there for them. The married women agreed, saying that different people are right for different stages in your life.
"There’s one for different times of your life...you are the product of your relationships"
This reflects the aforementioned finding that single men are the most romantic, and women are more pragmatic. So, perhaps for women, the teenage holiday fling with the fisherman who speaks no English inevitably gives way to the kind, reliable, but less physically exciting man with stable employment, whereas men continue to believe they could be happy with that Russian tennis player 30 years their junior.
16

10. Differences between men and women
The LoveGeist Report 2009 found several differences and several similarities between men and women when it comes to relationships, as Table 4 shows.
Table 4: Gender Differences
The surprise result was that men are significantly more likely to say "I love you" first. Previous research shows that, overall, women are more likely to say "I love you". However, saying it first is a greater risk as it may not be reciprocated. Men tend to be greater risk takers. It may equally be because men are more romantic, so more likely to say "I love you" for the first time on a beautiful evening after a great dinner. Other results showed that old fashioned values persist. Typical gender-specific manners are important. Women are more likely to be attracted to money, and men reflect this by being more likely to pay for a first date.
n.b. Many of Table 3’s results are discussed elsewhere (small gestures in Section 5, money in Section 12).
17

11. What men and women want
Turn ons, top attributes, and what we’re looking for
Three tables now follow – Tables 5 to 7 - incorporating match.com and survey data. Together, they show what men and women want, and don’t want, in a partner. The three Tables come first with brief explanations, then a discussion of the results.
Table 5: Five top turn ons and turn offs
The LoveGeist Report 2009 looked at partner preference trends based on anonymised data from 4,767 match.com records. On joining the site, daters are given the option of a tick box list of turn-ons and turn-offs. Table 5 below show the most popular turn ons and biggest turn offs.
Table 6: Desirable Attitudes
Table 6 opposite is less complicated than it looks at first glance, but it needs some explanation.
match.com users are offered optional tick boxes to express which attributes they’re looking for in a partner. Each attribute then has several options. For example, if you decide that you’re looking for a certain body type, you have nine options to tick, ranging from slender to full-figured. You can tick as many as you like, or none.
Table 6 shows what percentage of the data group expressed a preference for each category (e.g. ‘body type’), and, of people expressing a preference in that category, what was the top choice (e.g. ‘slender’), and what percentage chose that top choice. The next four columns show the results split for men and women.
So, looking at the top result we can see 68.8 % of sampled match.com daters responded to the question: "Do you want your dates to smoke?" by ticking one of the options. Of these, 66.3% ticked the "no way" box. Women cared more than men, with 73.6% expressing a preference (as opposed to 64.5%), and, of these 67.8% ticked "no way" (as opposed to 64.5% of men). So, we can see that about three quarters of women think smoking is an issue. Of those, just over two thirds really don’t like it.
18

Table 6: Desirable Attitudes
68.8
63.7
55.3
47.3
35.3
19
33.5
33.0
22.7
19.7
9.2
8.4

Table 7: Determinants of Partner Choice
Survey respondents were given statements about partner choice and asked to rank them from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Their results are shown below, ranked in order, then split for men and women. Women’s order of preference is the same as the average. Men’s is very similar, with differences only between ranks four to six, highlighted in red.
A: The Perfect Woman – what men want
• Top turn ons for men are flirtiness, long hair, candlelight, erotica and thrills. The choice of flirtiness as number one turn on is interesting, especially as it’s also number two for women. One might assume that ‘flirtiness’ – implying that your partner flirts with people who aren’t you as well as you - might be a turn off in a loved-one. However, given that 95% are looking long term commitment, it is likely that online daters mean here that they want to see definite signals on a first date, or even during pre-date correspondence
• Top turn offs for men are sarcasm, body piercings, tattoos, boldness / assertiveness and power. This shows perhaps that character is more important to men than physical factors
• A woman’s physical attractiveness, however, is more important for men than her intelligence and values. The opposite is true for women
• 91.1% of men who expressed a preference about alcohol want a ‘social drinker’, as opposed to teetotallers and "regular" drinkers. Daters seem to be looking for a fellow ‘social drinker’ with whom to ease those first date nerves, but not someone who drinks every day
• 77.1% who expressed a preference are looking for ‘about average’ body type (this was the preferred choice for every region except London (see Section 14). With the exception of London, this shows either that people have realistic ideas of who they will attract, or that the super-skinny or super toned figures used in advertising are not actually the most attractive
20

• Blue-eyed blondes are most the most popular
• Of men who expressed a preference as to whether their partner already had children approximately a third wanted to meet women without children. Men who already had children tended not to mind
• The average woman being sought by men is 167.4cm tall (5’6") and aged 31
• She is a teacher
B: The Perfect Man – what women want
• Top turn ons for women are candlelight, flirtiness ,dancing, public displays of affection and thrills. Like the men’s result, this would suggest that women aren’t thinking much beyond the first few dates when ticking these boxes
• Turn offs for women include long hair, body piercings, sarcasm, tattoos, skinny dipping. Like men, women seem to prefer a traditional looking partner
• Physical attractiveness is less important for women than intelligence and having the same values
• 91.5% who expressed a preference are looking for a drinker (like the men, perhaps with an eye to that first date)
• 80.6% who expressed a preference looking for ‘about average’ body type (again, see men’s result)
• Most are looking for a blue-eyed man with brown hair
• 84.2% who expressed a preference want to meet men without children, but those with children of their own are less likely to mind either way
• The average man being sought by women is 185 cm tall (6’1") and aged 37
• He is employed in an executive / management role
C: The Perfect Person – what men and women BOTH want
• Important characteristics are not being a smoker and having an average figure
• Fewer than half of respondents specifies a partner with no children, although a childless partner was unimportant to those who already have children themselves
• The least important characteristics are income and occupation
• For the relationship itself, security is most important
• Then sexual compatibility
• Then a similar sense of humour (which could mean no sense of humour, so actually being funny is not necessarily important, but being intellectually compatible is)
• Sarcasm is not deemed attractive in either sex
D: A note on pickiness
42% of women vs 32% of men ticked characteristic boxes, so we might conclude that women looking for love are more picky than men. Women were also more likely to say that they have become more fussy about who they dated over the past year (61.9% of survey respondents as opposed to 43.3%).
E: Designing The One
As Dr Monica Whitty’s previous studies have suggested, the presentation of tick-boxes to the online dater gives him or her the sense that they can order up their perfect partner (has tattoos, likes thunderstorms, under five feet tall, etc).
21

12. Money and love
The LoveGeist Report 2009 investigated attitudes to money in both the survey and the match.com data. match.com provides income range tick-boxes for its members to specify the salary they are looking for in a partner: "£25,001 - £35,000", "£35,001 - £50,000" and so on.
Fewer than 10% of respondents in total ticked any figure, split into 4.5 % of men and 14.4% of women. Of those who expressed a preference, men in 2009 are mostly after women in the £25,001 - £35,000 bracket, whereas women most commonly look for a man bringing home £35,001 - £50,000.
The finding that women place more value on a partner’s economic status is consistent with previous studies, which have suggested it’s because women need resources for child rearing. However, The LoveGeist Report 2009 found no significant difference in salary requirement between women with or without children. It may be that richer men are deemed to have higher social status, and are attractive for that reason. It could also be because women are thinking short term, looking towards an extravagant date rather than a life of ease, or at least hoping to avoid a date in a fast food restaurant.
Another possible conclusion is that men aren’t so interested in a partner’s earnings because women earn less on average, and men don’t want to narrow their options too much.
22

13. Doing it for the kids?
When daters join match.com, they can specify five degrees of desire for children, ranging from "don’t want" to "definitely".
A: Men keener for families
Using the match data, The LoveGeist Report 2009 found that men are more likely than women to want children. Possible explanations are that men are trying to attract women, believing them to want children, while, conversely, women are trying to avoid putting men off by looking broody.
This kind of strategic self-presentation has been found in previous studies by Dr Monica Whitty.
B: Babies most popular in London
The study also found significant regional differences:
Table 8: Desire for Children Across Genders and Regions
The popularity of babies in Ireland may be down to religion, with Catholics anecdotally keener on larger families. The fact that Londoners are most likely to want children is harder to explain. It could be the case that Londoners are more likely to present themselves strategically, or perhaps London’s daters are younger, and therefore more idealistic about what they will want in a few years time. It’s certainly an area for next year’s LoveGeist to investigate.
23

14. Splitting up and forgiveness
A: Why break up?
Male and female survey respondents only return two significant reasons for breaking up: growing apart and incompatibility. Women cite infidelity as a third reason, which agrees with previous research.
The LoveGeist Report 2009 found that factors such as opposition from family and friends are relatively unimportant when it comes to the formation and dissolution of relationships.
B: Forgiveness
90% of respondents wouldn’t forgive a partner for infidelity, with no significant difference between men and women. This could be a problem, since a third of survey respondents reported they had been unfaithful in the past.
24

15. The role of parents
• 35.8 % of survey respondents see the approval of their parents as an important factor in long-term relationships
• 17.9 % said they’d seek their parents’ advice on relationships
• Only 3.7% said that their parents’ disapproval would make them end a relationship, although 4% said that their parents had been important in causing the end of previous relationships, and 8.6% said their former partner’s parents had been important
Effects of living with Mum and Dad
These statistics are significantly different for those who live with their parents (15.2 % of the survey group – 1,697 people):
• 46.5 % see the approval of their parents as an important factor in long-term relationships
• 29.0 % said they’d seek their parents’ advice on relationships
• 5.2% said that their parents’ disapproval would make them end a relationship, 6.8 % said that their parents had been important in causing the end of previous relationships, and 11% said their former partner’s parents had been important
25

16. The London effect
As touched on above, Londoners display different romance characteristics to the rest of the country.
• Londoners have the lowest romantic belief score
• Yet Londoners are the most likely to want children
• The most popular female figure (for men) in London is ‘slender’, and the most popular male figure (for women) is ‘athletic and toned’. For all other regions it was ‘about average’
• Londoners look for younger partners, on average a 29 year-old woman and a 34 year-old men (as opposed to 31 year-old women and 37 year-old men elsewhere)
Possible explanations gathered by The LoveGeist Report 2009 are that London has the youngest median age of all those surveyed, or that London has more single people, so singletons can be more picky.
26

17. Future love This section of The LoveGeist Report 2009 draws on commentary from a range of experts in psychology, relationships, anthropology and dating to predict how our ways of fi nding and keeping successful relationships are likely to evolve. Turn to About the Authors and Contributors for biographies. Does exponential choice equal exponential happiness? Dr Cecilia d’Felice Whatever the millennia, one thing holds true, fi nding lasting love and commitment is the number one priority for 95% of young British single people, according to The LoveGeist Report 2009. What is fascinating about the future of dating is that although romance is still important - especially for men - 95% are prepared to wait to fi nd the right person. This bodes well for the future of relationships, as most people agree that love is easy but relationships require hard work and commitment to sustain them. Many single people are very clear about what they are looking for and the greater the choice available to them, the more focused they become. Choice allows for discretion. The more choice you have, the more chance you have of meeting a really great match that is ideal for you. When it comes to romance, men and women agree on nearly every level about what they are looking for and what they are not. Interestingly, The LoveGeist Report 2009 found that men believe there is a special person, ‘out there’ who is the one for them, whereas women believe it is more a question of being in the right place at the right time – ever pragmatic, when more choice is available, both men and women become even more discerning about what they are looking for. The national consensus for both sexes that an average build will do doesn’t wash for Londoners, enjoying the largest dating pool in Britain, who are looking for slender women and athletically toned men. Nationally, being physically attractive and sexually compatible are high on the agenda for all singles, but again when the pool is greater, our singles can be even more demanding, asking for younger, fi tter, fertile partners. So what does this all mean? Well it may well support the idea that exponential choice, such as you will fi nd in a large pool of single daters, may equal future exponential happiness, as those enjoying greater choice are more discerning about fi nding the right person for them and are more likely to fi nd it. Which is where online dating can add to your happiness quotient as it can replicate a large dating pool, such as found in a big city, by giving subscribers access to a far wider group of potential dates than they may fi nd in their home village or town. Traditionally, young adults were expected to leave home and fi nd themselves a compatible partner to settle down with and raise a family. Many found their way to cities in order to fi nd greater choice in work and romance. Now that our economic landscape 2728 is a little bleaker that option may no longer be available. With the survey confi rming that singles are even more committed to fi nding happiness through love than they were a year ago, and more determined to make their relationships last through hard times as well as good, fi nding a well matched mate has never been more popular. The problem with choice, however, is that it can be confusing. A large pool of potential dates, such as those found on online dating sites, represents a wonderful opportunity to fi nd your ideal match if you are clear about what you want in your future partner. Will we ever get over the Ex factor? Dr Luisa Dillner Romance is alive and well and most people want some, according to The LoveGeist Report 2009. No change there you might say. But what is notable are the rather realistic responses to some of the survey’s questions (apart from the desirable profi les of ideal men and women – there aren’t enough 167.4cm tall women with blonde hair and blue eyes to go round). The survey looked at responses from over 10,000 people and found that 84% said they would work harder to fi x problems in future relationships. Marriage wasn’t that popular, but long term commitment was considered the gold standard for relationships. For most people the search for long term commitment will have at least one false start. Surviving a break up is a necessary life skill, helped by time passing and meeting someone else. Learning from failed relationships is a much harder business. By the time a relationship fractures it’s usually been going off for some time. The LoveGeist Report’s survey shows the most common reasons for break-ups are incompatibility, growing apart and infi delity, which is what most studies show. Usually one person takes a unilateral decision to leave a few months before they have the decency (or courage) to tell their partner. So it’s a shock to at least one person. There are various ways of getting over someone. There’s a saying that the best way to get over an old boyfriend is to get under a new one but there’s no research to support this. Instead there’s a study that suggests pining for your lost love is a better way to recover, so sob over songs you played together and bars that you drank in. Don’t see them or hope they will come back, because although ex’s pop up for some sex for old times sake, it’s never helpful (unless your sex life was terrible then it’s a helpful reminder). You can get over casual relationships quite quickly but long term ones take, well longer. American psychologist Linda Wallerstein estimates that it can take between one and three years to really feel better after a divorce. The amount you grieve depends on how much of your future was invested in your relationship, did you hope it would be forever, did you share a home, have children together? It’s often too raw and emotional for people to refl ect objectively on failed relationships and then the moment’s gone. Sometimes people think they should go for a "different type"- someone who’s nice to them and wants commitment, which means they’re more 29 likely to succeed if they want long term love. The statistics show that most people who want a relationship manage to fi nd one. In the absence of a part time diploma in how your last relationship went pear shaped, you can do worse than stick to American psychologist John M. Gottman’s rules. Successful relationships are characterised by couples saying fi ve positive things to one negative thing. If this seems challenging the other rules are no easier. Instead of yelling at your partner to do whatever you want them to do, you have to ask nicely and politely, explaining how helpful it would be. You must not harshly criticise, show contempt or be emotionally distant. You should be affectionate, laugh together and continue to have sex. I’m struck by a comment in a research paper that looked at very long lasting relationships. It’s not something you would necessarily learn from previous relationships unless someone told you. It’s from one man who said, "Commitment means a willingness to be unhappy for a while. You’re not going to be happy with each other all the time." How do we fi nd love and happiness, if we are looking for different things? Flic Everett From the moment we’re born, we all want to be loved. That’s not in question. As an adult, it’s working out what love actually looks like that’s diffi cult - particularly when the search for it offers an ever-expanding universe of choice. Once, you were stuck with whoever happened to live in your village. Now, with the number of single people booming, it’s easy to browse an entire X Factor audition of potential partners. It’s increasingly tempting to believe that perfection is both desirable and attainable - over half of survey respondents (55%) from match.com’s LoveGeist Report 2009 believe that the person they fall in love with will make a ‘perfect’ partner- "completely loving, understanding and accepting." Even the Dalai Llama would struggle with those concepts. It seems that while our grandparents had a relatively practical view of lasting love, (sheds for men to hide in, and coffee mornings for women to have a good moan about them), the upcoming generation of singles will settle for nothing less than total one-ness. I worry about this- because anyone who believes another human being can appear perfect for longer than six months, tops, is doomed to disappointment and a lot of smashed crockery. It’s also clear that there’s a deepening chasm between the romantic aspirations of men and women. While women used to be considered the fl uffy sex, with heads full of tweety birds, men are now the ones lost in a rosy cloud of fantasy- The LoveGeist Report 2009 suggests that they have far more ‘romantic beliefs’ than women. I’d agree that modern men tend to be sensitive. Raised by feminist mothers and long-term disciples of the David Beckham school of metrosexuality, these guys believe in perfect love. Women, by contrast, are far more picky over the specifi c characteristics they’ll put up with in a partner. It’s no longer enough for him to offer a GSOH and a love of country walks- 41.5% of women listed various do’s and don’ts (including brown eyes and smoking) as 30 deal-breakers, and 61.9% have become even choosier in the past year. Men, however, are just grateful for any attention, with only 43.3% admitting any fussiness according to the fi ndings. Men and women now even disagree over whether there’s a "one’ for everyone. Men tend to believe they’re either already with their "one’, or that she’ll magically appear- pragmatic women, however, are convinced that true love is a simple matter of right place, right time. For men, love’s a miracle, for women, it’s a numbers game. So can anyone expect to fi nd lasting happiness when their expectations and hopes are so different from their potential mates’- and in women’s cases, at least, so high? Worryingly, the future of love could resemble an extended job interview- when one partner doesn’t quite tick all the boxes, they’ll be dumped and replaced with another, more promising candidate. I suspect, however, that this trend won’t last long, as The LoveGeist Report 2009 has found, our overwhelming desire for a long term relationship (95.2% hope for one) may no longer automatically result in marriage- only half hope for an actual wedding- but even though we’re leaving it later than ever before to settle down, dating in your twenties may prove the best way to discover what you really want for the rest of your life. What you’d choose in a partner in theory, and what you accept when you fall in love, too, are often very different. Ultimately, most want the person they fall in love with to make them ‘a better person.’ Whether they have blue or brown eyes, or want kids now or later, is far less important than how they make you feel about yourself. And that’s not ever likely to change. Why we love Dr Helen Fisher Fashions often change with the stock market. So it is with love. In The LoveGeist Report 2009 some 61% of approximately 11,000 men and women said that fi nding someone to fall in love with was now more important to them than it was a year ago; 95% of singles said they were looking for a long term, committed partnership; and 43% of men and 62 % of women agreed with the statement, "Over the past year I have become more fussy about who I date." Casual sex is "out;" attachment is "in." People in the UK are more interested in a committed long term partnership. During this current economic crisis, subscriptions to match.com, have risen some 35% in the UK alone. I’m not surprised that men and women are now seeking stable relationships, for a simple reason. When people become deeply worried about their economic future, they go back to basics. And there is nothing more central to human happiness than a deep steady genuine connection to another. This craving for romance and companionship arises from primordial parts of the human
brain. My colleagues and I have now put 49 men and women who reported that they were madly in love into a brain scanner (fMRI) and studied the brain circuitry of romantic love. As it turns out, as you feel this rush of passion, the "reward system" of the brain leaps into action—triggering feelings of wanting, craving, focus, energy, elation and motivation—in this case the motivation to win life’s greatest prize: an appropriate mating partner.
In fact, I think romantic love is one of three basic mating drives that evolved to ensure the survival of our young: the sex drive pushes us to seek a range of partners; romantic love enables us to focus on a single mating partner at a time; and the brain circuitry for deep attachment motivates a couple to remain together at least long enough to rear their children through infancy as a team. All three of these basic neural systems for reproduction lie like sleeping tigers in the mind. And as feelings of economic insecurity touch all of us, these brain systems can awaken--triggering the urge to build a long term partnership.
I suspect that many of these relationships will turn into happy long term marriages too for several reasons. Foremost, it’s possible to sustain romance in marriage. Among the individuals whom we put into the brain scanner were 17 men and women who reported they were still "in love" after an average of 21 years of marriage. To our surprise, their brain activity was remarkably similar to that of those who had just fallen madly in love. Moreover, when I looked at divorce data on 58 societies through the Demographic Yearbooks of the United Nations, I found that those who married in their late twenties were more likely to remain married than those who wed when younger. Most of the participants in The LoveGeist Report 2009 were between ages 25 to 34—a cohort biologically primed to settle down. Add economic insecurity and many will not resist their instinct to build stability in their private lives. Indeed, some 95% of the men and women in this survey said they seek a partner with whom they can feel secure. And 84% agreed that if the relationship was going poorly, they would work hard to solve their problems.
Many interesting facts and trends have emerged from The LoveGeist Report 2009. But I would like to comment on the finding that men were significantly more romantic than women. This is well known to scholars. Men fall in love sooner than women do because they are so visual; while women tend to be choosier because they will do the majority of rearing infants. Men are also more dependent on their primary relationship for intimacy because most have fewer close friends. And more men remarry after divorce.
Once smitten, both sexes experience the same feelings, along with the same activation patterns in the brain. As a man or woman begins to fall in love, they begin to regard the beloved as "special," and central to their life. As one man summed it up, "The world had a new centre and that centre was Susan." The lover then focuses on this special partner, sweeping aside what they don’t like about their beloved; doting on what they adore. As Chaucer wrote, "Love is blynd." Lovers also have tremendous energy, as well as exhilaration when things are going well and despair when things go poorly. Most important, lovers crave emotional union with their beloved; and they think obsessively about him or her: someone is camping in their head.
These feelings can happen instantly or grow with time. But when you are ready to fall in love and meet someone who fits within your concept of an ideal partner, what I call your "love map," these neural networks can become triggered. Romance and attachment are deeply wired in the brain. And our worldwide economic crisis has ignited this passion for commitment.
31

32 This desire to attach may endure too—due to a two worldwide trends that are shaping the future of the family. Foremost, women are entering the paid labour force in droves. This isn’t new. For millions of years women commuted to work to gather fruits and vegetables, returning to camp with much of the evening meal. The double income family was always the rule—before our ancestors settled down to farm. But as women’s roles expand today, men’s roles are expanding too. Both sexes are freer to make the kind of relationship that suits them. Second, the world population is aging. Some 90% of Americans (and many other peoples) will eventually marry. But in our modern world, many are marrying later. Today we have the time to fi nd the "right" partner and the freedom to build the relationship we want to make love last. The future is bright for long term relationships Emily Murray and Denise Knowles I’m a journalist on more!, a magazine which responds to young women’s desire to fi nd – and keep – the right man. The news from match.com’s LoveGeist Report 2009 that 95% of single people in the UK are looking for a long term relationship is unsurprising, and lends weight to the sense in the more! offi ce that the future of relationships is bright. This is a sentiment shared by Relate counsellor Denise Knowles, with whom I collaborate on a number of features for the magazine, as her knowledge and understanding of how to make a relationship work long term is invaluable to our knowledge-thirsty readers. more! magazine is the fastest growing glossy weekly in the UK. It is also the only weekly women’s title that offers advice and information on the subject of relationships and how to make them work. Are these two facts unrelated? I don’t believe so. Young women today place increasing importance on the concept of ‘family’, which includes their desire to settle down and start a family of their own. Indeed, according to our most recent research, ‘family’ is our readers’ number one priority. Understanding your own emotions, ambitions and needs before making a long term commitment is something more! encourages our readers to always think about, as a way of making a relationship last. Denise shares similar beliefs; there’s no point looking for someone else to make you feel secure, if you don’t already feel secure in yourself. A feature more! ran recently called ‘Are you ready to settle down?’ is an example of this. It encouraged readers to analyse their lives to ensure they were ready to settle down. From following career dreams, to travelling the world, more! feel it’s important that readers have satisfi ed ambitions that the freedom of being single affords before deciding to settle down. And when young women today are ready to search for their life partner, they’re in luck. The number of ways in which singles can now search for love – from speed dating to online match making to Facebook fl irting - is bigger than ever, although our research shows that more!’s readers often prefer the more traditional face-to-face Saturday night 33 encounter. However you prefer to meet men, it’s now much more acceptable to tell the world that you’re looking for love, and also exactly what you do (and don’t) want from your life partner. According to The LoveGeist Report 2009, the thing that most people were looking for in a long-term partner was someone who made them feel secure. Why might this be? In Denise’s view, the fact that we’re no longer able to buy our way out of sorrow and sadness in the way we used to, due to the recession, means we’re looking closer to home for comfort. If we’re down, Denise explains, we’re less likely to buy an expensive new handbag. Instead, we turn to our partners – or look for a partner to turn to – for security. But, says Denise, this is a relatively new phenomenon - the fall-out of the pre-recession days of ambition and acquisition, when people were too busy trying to ‘have it all’ to pay their relationship due attention. She believes this explains why ‘growing apart’ is the most common cause of break-ups, according to the report. However, in Denise’s opinion, the ongoing switch of focus to home life and making the most of what you’ve got, suggests that in a few years time ‘growing apart’ will no longer be the most common cause, as people will have placed greater emphasis on making their relationships work. match.com’s LoveGeist Report 2009 reveals that casual, short-lived relationships aren’t enough for the majority of today’s singles. Denise’s experience as a counsellor means that the news comes as no surprise to her; she regularly works with young people who have watched their parents divorce, and who are in no hurry to make the same mistakes again. They see the misery rushed and failed relationships can bring, so think longer and harder before making a commitment. Something Denise and I believe will continue to be the case as we move forward into the next decade. New ways to do the same old thing Jason Stockwood The search for love is a challenge almost as old as time. It’s been chronicled more intensively in literature and fi lm than any other subject and, if you listen to the majority of conversations in bars and offi ces, our interest in analysing the intricacies of love is as strong as ever. This year, our search for love has intensifi ed: 95% of the 11,309 people questioned as part of The LoveGeist Report 2009 survey said they aspire to be in a long term relationship and love has risen up the priority list for many with 65% saying it is more important to them than it was a year ago. But although the search for love is old, the love landscape that we are confronted with has changed beyond recognition. People now turn to the internet to help them fi nd love, as naturally as they do to manage any other aspect of their lives. The interesting aspect of this change isn’t the technology story, or even the question of our relationship with technology. At match.com, the thing we’re most fascinated by is people’s attitudes towards love and the big change that we 34 have seen over the last ten years is that people are increasingly determined to take control of their own romantic destiny. Fatalism used to be mistaken for romanticism: true love was not something you found, it was something that found you. By 2009, the data suggests that romantic fatalism has gone the way of the chastity belt and the chaperone. We’ve realised that not only can we take charge of our own destinies, but it’s right that we do. Love is a prize worth working for. The internet has played its part in driving this change by giving us the tools we need –since 2005, 6.5 million people in the UK have turned to match.com in their search for love - but I think the change is part of a wider trend. The age of deference is receding and we have found the courage to shrug off Cupid and Fate. And that’s lucky, because the challenge of fi nding love isn’t getting any easier. Demographic studies suggest that the single population in this country is growing fast – according to reports, there will be 16 million singles in the UK by 2010, compared with 14 million in 2007. The LoveGeist Report 2009 suggests we are getting more selective about our partners too. The natural corollary to the decline of romantic fatalism is a rise in our expectations. Over the past year, 52% of people questioned said that they had become fussier in what they look for in a partner. Some people might regard that as a worrying trend - that it suggests our expectations are becoming unrealistic. I don’t believe that. When you examine what people actually say they’re looking for, their expectations seem pretty reasonable to me: mutual values, personal drive and a shared sense of humour are what matter most to us. Online is never going to be a replacement for meeting face to face, and we would never want it to be. But when you consider the things we say we’re looking for, the internet is ideally suited to the search. Written exchanges between two people can reveal much more about ourselves than a chat in a pub and - as writers have known for hundreds of years - it can be an incredibly intimate medium. The internet has actually re-introduced us to the power of the written word. In that respect, perhaps the tools we use in our search for love aren’t so new after all. Can women really have it all? And do we want it? Kate Taylor I’m thinking of entering the priesthood. Not because I’ve found Jesus, but because I’m convinced marriage is going to be the next big thing in the world of love, and there’ll be plenty of work to go round. Currently, the state of marriage doesn’t look good: according to the Offi ce of National Statistics, marriage rates are at their lowest since records began in 1862, with just over 230,000 couples tying the knot in 2006. The Labour government has stripped away many of the tax benefi ts of marriage, and the age at which people marry for the fi rst time has risen – the average fi rst-time bride is 30 years old, her groom is 32.
And yet, and yet… Divorce rates are beginning to fall. The UK rate is at its lowest since 1981 and continues to drop. These figures pre-date the credit crunch, so it’s not money issues keeping people together. The LoveGeist Report 2009 reveals that 95% of singles still dream of getting into a committed relationship, and that marriage is still an incredibly popular idea.
But more than that, there’s a swing in the thinking of younger women these days. A survey by NOISE (New Outlooks in Science & Engineering) last year found that just 4% of teenage girls wanted to be engineers in the future, but 12% dream of being housewives. The 1950’s ideal – gingham apron, baking, dusting – is having a resurge of popularity, with Anthea Turner telling us how to organise our homes and bake the perfect apple pie "just like Mum used to buy on her way home from the office".
My generation of women (I’m in my late 30s) were sold the "having it all" idea by our mothers. They were the ones who pushed us into University, into careers, because we had the opportunities that they never had. But we’ve found out that the real opportunities aren’t always perfect: we now have the opportunity to work after motherhood and marriage, but that also gives us the less-welcome opportunity to do all the housework too (women still do 83% more housework than their partners), and struggle to fit childcare around our job. We have the "opportunity" to delay motherhood till our late-30s and early 40s, but sadly that often also gives us the opportunity to endure IVF – which is at its highest rate ever – or struggle with infertility.
As ever, the real indications of trends come from the world of celebrity. The new role models aren’t ball-breaking career types, they’re domestic goddesses. Paris Hilton recently announced she wanted to be married with kids by the time she’s 30, and Heidi Klum regularly doles out relationship advice based on her marriage to Seal (and her 4 children). Cheryl Cole, Colleen Rooney and Victoria Beckham all weathered rumours of infidelity but chose to stay married. And what’s the message in Beyonce’s recent song? "If you like it then you should have put a ring on it."
We’ll start seeing today’s sassier, smarter single girl – Bridget Jones v2 – holding out for marriage again. Not living together, marriage. Statistically, couples who cohabit are far more likely to split up than any married couple, especially after they have children and, oddly, especially after they eventually tie the knot. She’ll realise that "having it all" only means "doing it all", and that equality hasn’t had any effect on her ovaries; children can’t be put off for long before they’re put off forever. She’ll bake, she’ll clean and she’ll dote on her husband out of choice, not fear. And she’ll love every second.
35

36 The future of online dating Dr Monica Whitty My work over the last ten years has focused predominately on online relationships, with a particular focus on online dating. In my co-authored book ‘Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online relationships’ I wrote about the rules that have been established by online daters and the expectations they had about others using this matchmaking tool (Whitty & Carr, 2006). I also discussed the potential therapeutic benefi ts of online dating, suggesting that an added bonus of online dating is that one can gain more personal insights and learn more about what they are really searching for in life. In one of my journal articles I extend this discussion by looking at the strategies individuals employ to present themselves on online dating sites – and how much of this self represents and ‘ideal image’ of the self (Whitty, 2008a). My work has also elucidated that online daters tend to be quite fussy and often enter a site with a ‘shopping list’ of attributes they hope to fi nd in a partner (Whitty, 2007, 2008b). The LoveGeist Report 2009 confi rms this. We found that 43.3% of men and 61.9% of women had become fussier about who they date over the last year. Given the potential of online dating sites, and the ability to refi ne searches, it is no wonder why individuals hope for a little more than they can fi nd offl ine and indeed some do fi nd a mate to match their expectations. In previous work I have also outlined the stages involved in online dating, which include: The Attention phase, The recognition phase, The interaction phase, The face-to-face meeting, and The Resolution. I’ve demonstrated how the differences and similarities between these phases and traditional dating (Whitty, 2008c). The progression often feels less natural for people, and it is for this reason that I’ve argued that online daters have been stigmatised. However, the stigma does appear to be lifting – and so we need to consider why this is the case. The internet is part of most people’s daily lives and the digital divide will become less, as digital technologies become more immersive. No longer will there be such an obvious difference between the online and offl ine worlds. Many already send emails and twitter on their mobile phones, some fi nd it hard to switch off to these forms of communication in their daily lives. Digital technologies have provided a whole range of new forms of relating and in many ways has freed up people to express themselves and self-disclose. As people learn more about the timing and detail of self-disclosure using digital technologies, relationships formed with people online will seem more natural and hence should lose its stigma. Online dating sites are different to other forms of dating because many offer a huge pool of possibilities and many sites allow the client to do the choosing. As people get better at selecting and sites help facilitate this process (e.g., linking people with similar social identities) I can see the online dating industry increasing even further in popularity. As The
LoveGeist Report 2009 elucidates, people are still looking for love and long-term relationships and so online dating may provide the tool needed to find that special other.
References
Whitty, M. T. & Carr, A. N. (2006). Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online relationships. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Whitty, M. T. (2007). The art of selling one’s self on an online dating site: The BAR Approach. In M. T.
Whitty, A. J. Baker, & J. A. Inman (Eds.), Online matchmaking. (pp. 57-69). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Whitty, M. T. (2008a). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1707-1723.
Whitty, M. T. (2008b). The joys of online dating. In E. Konjin, T. Martin., Utz, S. & A. Linden. (Eds.), Mediated Interpersonal Communication: How Technology Affects Human Interaction. (pp. 234-251). New York: Taylor & Francis Group/Routledge.
Whitty, M. T. (2008c). eDating: The five phases of online dating. In C. Romm. Social Networking and eDating. (pp. 278-291). Hershey: Information Science Reference.
37

18. Methodological notes
The LoveGeist Report 2009 was compiled from four sources:
1. A comprehensive survey of 11,309 single people
2. Four focus groups of 28 married and unmarried men and women
3. Analysis of 4,767 partner preference records based on anonymised data from match.com
4. Previous academic literature on love and dating
The methodological triangulation used here combines data from multiple sources (self report, observation and qualitative analyses) to shed light on the same questions from different angles, a key strength of multi-method approach.
A: Survey
A survey instrument was created by the research team and administered via SurveyMonkey.com.
The survey comprised:
• Questions about experiences and expectations of love and relationships
• Questions about attitudes to marriage
• Questions about experiences of relationship breakups
• The Romantic Beliefs Scale (Sprecher & Metts, 1989). See Section 3B of report for description
Participants were recruited by three means:
1. Email invitations sent to match.com members (200,423 invitations; 10, 447 responses; response rate of 5.2%)
2. Emails to known associates of match.com staff (105 responses)
3. Links at the end of two articles posted in the ‘dating and personals’ section of the MSN web portal (757 responses)
No incentives were offered for participation. Only one response was allowed per invitation.
Survey facts:
• 78.1% (8828) of 11,309 respondents completed the survey. The partial data of people who began the survey but did not answer all the questions was included
• Participants were aged between 18 and 71+, with the largest group of participants being between 25 and 30 years of age
• 45.8% were men and 54.2% were women
Statistical significance of findings:
In statistical terms this is a non-probability or non-scientific opportunity sample, i.e. it was not taken at random across the population, but instead across a very large group of online daters and other single people. So the report can make valid, statistically backed claims about the ideas and behaviour of British adults who are looking for love.
38

B: Focus groups
Group makeup:
A company called Initiative who look after match.com’s media planning, buying and econometric research co-ordinated and ran the focus groups. All came from the ABC1 demographic category.
Group members largely worked for one of match.com’s agencies or were an associated of such a person, but the majority did not work on the match.com business. A select few of the participants knew each other and two worked for match.com directly. This method of recruitment has biases and we acknowledge the limitations they present.
There were four groups: single men, single women, married men and married women, each comprised of seven people, apart from single women, which was six strong. All participants were between 21 and 34 years old.
Groups method:
Groups met in Victoria, London on Wednesday 3rd June 2009. Leigh Taylor, an experienced focus group facilitator from Initiative ran the groups based on a semi-structured interview schedule and questions that were similar across groups. Each group lasted for one hour. The groups were videotaped and Dr Monica Whitty sat in on the groups in order to write additional observational notes.
C: match.com data
match.com provided anonymous data for trends analysis from the same day in April for four consecutive years (2006-2009).
The data comprised anonymous tick box information members provide during registration (such as age, sex, what they were looking for in a match, top turn-ons and turn-offs etc).
There were 4,767 records in total. 47.5% were women, 52.5% were men. No individuals were identifiable from this anonymised data. Data protection legislation, and professional ethical standards for psychological research, were strictly adhered to and personal details of any member were accessible to the research team.
This analysis is based on observational, not self-report data. It thus gives us an insight into what people actually want: the things they specify they are searching for when they register with match.com.
D: Previous academic literature on love and dating
In compiling the survey, generating research questions, and interpreting the data Dr Whitty and Dr Buchanan drew heavily on the existing research literature on love and dating.
See Bibliography for details of key sources.
39

19. Biographies of authors and contributors
Dr Tom Buchanan, Reader in Psychology
Dr Tom Buchanan is a Reader in Psychology at the University of Westminster, UK. His main teaching and research interests are in the broad areas of personality and social psychology, and how they intersect with the Internet. Most of his work involves or examines the use of the Internet for psychological research, and in particular collection of psychological data (especially online questionnaires, personality assessment and self-reports of cognitive function). Many of his ongoing projects are linked to factors affecting how people behave ‘on the Internet’, and application of online research methods to important real world questions.
Dr Cecilia d’Felice, Clinical Psychologist
Award winning clinical psychologist Dr Cecilia d’Felice specialises in all aspects of adult mental health, emotional wellbeing and relationships, working for the NHS in London as a senior chartered clinician.
She has become a regular psychological expert on national TV and Radio. Most recently she presented the 8 part series ‘Best Friend Rehab’ and was both expert and consultant to the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation’s (NHK) 90-minute documentary on depression.
Cecilia’s new book - a synthesis of memoir and therapy - called ‘Dare to be You - Eight Steps to transforming your Life’, is to be published by Orion later this year. She is co-presenter of ‘Girls, Girls, Girls’ on Play Radio, the UK’s largest internet radio station.
She is a columnist for both Psychologies and International Life and wrote a weekly column for the Independent on Sunday called ‘How to be Happy’. She won the Mind Journalist of the Year award in 2007.
Cecilia was awarded a rare Medical Research Council Pre-Doctoral Fellowship when researching depression at the Institute of Psychiatry before specialising as a therapist. Additional awards include the Pearson Award for making an outstanding contribution to Psychology and the Caroline Prize for English.
Dr Luisa Dillner, Author and Journalist
Dr Luisa Dillner is a doctor and a publishing director at the British Medical Journal Publishing Group. From 2007 until 2009 she wrote the Love by Numbers column in the Guardian Weekend and has also contributed to the Observer, the Sunday Telegraph, Cosmopolitan, Vogue, Elle and Mumsnet.
She is the author of The Complete Book of Mothers-in-Law (Faber, 2008) and Love by Numbers (Profile Books, 2009).
She has four children, lives in London and most importantly has a perfect long term relationship.
40

Flic Everett, Journalist, Author and Broadcaster
Flic Everett is a writer, broadcaster, shop-owner and agony aunt. She currently writes advice columns for Company, and Scarlet Magazine, has been agony aunt for The Mirror, Real Magazine and The Daily Express, and has written extensively on sex, relationships, lifestyle and celebrities for The Daily Mail, the Guardian, and The Sunday Times Style, amongst others.
Her live TV credits include a stint as agony aunt for BBC 3, co-presenting Girlstalk on Granadabreeze with Jenni Trent Hughes and Coleen Nolan. She has appeared on BBC1’s Heaven & Earth Show, GMTV, and BBC Breakfast. She is also a regular on Granada Reports, discussing emotional and lifestyle issues, and was chief consultant and scriptwriter on the C4 series Sex Tips For Girls.
Flic is an experienced radio broadcaster, appearing regularly on radio 5’s Steven Nolan show, and presented her own phone-in show, Emotional Rescue. She also frequently presented the late-night phone-in for the station, and in July 2004, guest-presented Woman’s Hour on Radio 4.
Flic has also written five successful books on sex, most recently How To Be A Sex Goddess (Carlton) which has appeared in the top 100 bestsellers list on Amazon.
Dr Helen Fisher, Biological Anthropologist
Dr Helen Fisher is a world-renowned biological anthropologist, an expert in the science of human attraction and a scientific advisor at match.com.
She has authored five books and many articles in scientific journals and popular magazines. As a research associate in the Department of Anthropology at Rutgers University, she focuses on the role of biology in human love and sexuality.
Dr Fisher’s current book, entitled Why Him? Why Her? (ONEWORLD 2009) looks at finding real love by understanding your personality type. She has also written, Why We Love (Henry Holt, 2004), which discusses her research on the brain physiology of romantic love. In 1999 her book, The First Sex: The Natural Talents of Women and How They Are Changing the World (Random House, 1999), received the New York Times Book Review "Notable Book" award, and discusses gender differences in the brain and behaviour and the impact of women on twenty-first century business, sex and family life.
She received her Ph.D. in biological anthropology at the University of Colorado with a dissertation on the evolution of human female sexuality and the origin of the nuclear family. For her work in communicating anthropology to the lay public, she received the American Anthropological Association’s "Distinguished Service Award" in 1985.
Denise Knowles, Relationship Counsellor, Relate
Denise joined Relate in 1990 and qualified as a counsellor two years later. She is a highly skilled practitioner and qualified psychosexual therapist, family counsellor, supervisor and trainer and runs a successful private practice. She is also a well-known media spokesperson.
41

Denise’s special interests include psycho-sex therapy, family counselling, couple and individual counselling, relationship education and health promotion. She is an integral member of the counselling and training team of her local Relate Centre, Northampton, offering courses such as Parenting Skills, Moving On and other life-skills workshops.
She also has a great deal of experience as a radio and magazine agony aunt. As well as giving regular advice in the pages of more! magazine, she has monthly problem pages in Yours and Top Sante magazines and a weekly slot on BBC Radio Northampton. She is frequently interviewed for national news stories on the BBC One O’Clock News, Sky News and Radio Five Live and has gone head to head with John Humphreys on Radio Four’s Today Programme. She appears regularly on national discussion TV and radio shows including GMTV, This Morning, Woman’s Hour and many more.
Emily Murray, Deputy Features Editor, more! magazine
Emily is the deputy features editor at more!, the UK’s fastest growing glossy magazine. Her job involves writing and editing articles on men, sex and relationships for a readership of predominantly 18- to 26-year-old women, for most of whom finding and keeping a man is a priority.
Before arriving at more! in 2007, Emily worked at the UK’s best selling bridal title Condé Nast Brides magazine, writing features on everything from real life weddings and honeymoon sex to dealing with tricky mother-in-laws.
Other publications Emily has written for include Easy Living, The Independent Magazine, the Daily Mail, Condé Nast Traveller and Marketing, where she started her journalism career as a reporter.
Prior to becoming a journalist Emily worked in advertising for two of the UK’s most successful agencies, Bartle Bogle Hegarty and Clemmow Hornby Inge, working on such accounts as Tango, Levi’s and Lloyd Grossman sauces.
Emily has been married for three years and lives in North London with her husband. They are expecting their first child in January so she’s had to cool it on the parkour and mountain biking.
Jason Stockwood, UK Managing Director, match.com
Jason Stockwood is Managing Director of match.com. Jason joined the business in March 2007 from online travel brand Travelocity where he was Managing Director of Travelocity Business EMEA. Jason created Travelocity Business EMEA in 2006 when he brought together the First Option (Hotel Reservations Agency - Manchester) and Travelstore (Travel Management Company - Amersham) under the Business brand.
Before joining Travelocity, Jason spent five years with lastminute.com plc, most recently as the Commercial Director responsible for Global Flights and Group Procurement. He is also a trustee for drinkaware.
Jason began his career at Trailfinders and Lufthansa Airlines and has a BA (Hons) degree in Philosophy.
42

Kate Taylor, Relationship Expert
Kate Taylor is a ‘Relationship Expert’ for match.com. She is regularly called upon by print and broadcast media for her expertise in everything from revitalising tired relationships and sparking a chemical attraction, to spicing up sexual encounters or making a great first impression. Her advice will not only reignite dying passions in existing relationships, but give singles the confidence they need to enjoy their new found status and get out there dating.
Kate has a brilliant understanding of what both sexes want out of love, life and their relationships, gained during her time as author of GQ Magazine’s popular ‘sex life’ column and while at The Sun as their dedicated sex and relationship expert.
She has written six books including: The Wedding Survival guide, The Good Orgasm Guide and A Woman’s Guide To Sex, as well as co-written and presented two series for Channel Four, Sex Tips For Girls and More Sex Tips For Girls. In 2007, her newest book, Not Tonight Mr. Right, hit store shelves with great success.
Kate met her husband, John, on match.com in 2000. They live in Surrey with their two sons Tom and Harry.
Angus Watson, Freelance Features Writer
Angus Watson is a freelance features writer with a Bachelor of Social Science degree (2:1 hons) from the University of Bristol. He writes a variety of features for broadsheets and tabloids, and has a weekly interview column on charitable giving in the Financial Times. He has internet dated for two years, and written three articles for the Daily Telegraph based on his experiences of online romance. See www.guswatson.com.
Dr Monica Whitty, Reader in Psychology
Dr Monica Whitty is Reader in Psychology in the Division of Psychology at Nottingham Trent University, UK. She is the programme leader of the first MSc Cyberpsychology in the UK. She is the first author of ‘Cyberspace Romance: The Psychology of Online Relationships’ (2006, Palgrave) with Adrian Carr, and ‘Truth, Lies and Trust on the Internet’ (2009, Routledge) with Adam Joinson. She has published widely on the following topics: online dating, cyber-relationships, internet infidelity, online identity, possible selves, misrepresentation of self online, cyberstalking, cyberethics, internet surveillance in the workplace, and online gaming.
43

20. About match.com
match.com began with one simple mission: to make love happen. It’s been the inspiration since the founders realised the potential of the internet to connect people with each-other.
The site helps millions of people find love and over 6.5 million people have joined match.com in their search for someone special since 2005, making it the UK’s biggest* dating site.
match.com in the UK is part of MEETIC, Europe’s online dating leader and is based in London’s Leicester Square. As well as operating the UK site http://uk.match.com/ which launched in 2001, match.com powers the dating services for a number of leading UK brands including, MSN, Yahoo!, Penguin, The Sun, Russell Grant and Vodafone.
The match.com site is designed to give members the best possible chance of finding love. Getting started is easy, simply register, create a profile and you can browse the profiles of hundreds of potential matches. Members are supported by a dedicated customer care team who work around the clock to ensure the success of the match community.
Thanks to the match.com’s matchmaking technology thousands of people make love happen on match.com every year.
Make Love Happen
*Nielsen Netratings, April 2009.
44

21. Bibliography
Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1969). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
Blier, M. J., & Blier-Wilson, L. A. (1989). Gender differences in self-ratedemotional expressiveness. Sex Roles, 21 (3-4), 289-295.
Cloyd, J. (1976). The marketplace bar: The interrelation between sex, situations, and strategies in the pairing ritual of homo ludens. Urban Life, 5, 293-312.
Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177-192.
Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R. et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment - A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128-165.
Mumford, K. & Smith, P. N. (2009). What determines the part-time and gender earnings gap in Britain: Evidence from the workplace. Oxford Economic Papers, 61 (1), 56-75.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273.
Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1989). Development of the "Romantic Beliefs Scale" and examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 387-411.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313-335.
Townsend, J. (1993). Sexuality and partner selection: Sex differences among college students. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 305-330.
Townsend, J., & Wasserman, T. (1997). The perception of sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in variability. Achieves of Sexual Behavior, 26, 243-268.
Whitty, M. T. (2008). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1707-1723.
Whitty, M. T. & Carr, A. N. (2006). Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online relationships. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
45

http://cp.match.com/en-uk/landing/lovegeist/lovegeist.pdf

love and relationship zone

Thursday 10 September 2009

The safest road to good relationship

Wednesday 9 September 2009

steps to successful relationship

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me