A Study of Factors in Women’s Choice of a Potential Partner in the Context of Internet Dating

   Introduction. The study aims to investigate the factors of women’s choice of partner in an online dating situation. In the period of digitalization, many women seek to expand their opportunities to find a suitable partner through the use of online dating services. At the same time, many women have certain concerns and do not know what exactly to pay attention to when dating so that it leads to the creation of a romantic relationship. This is the first time that the question of the existence of a relationship between the factors of partner selection and the consequences of online dating is considered, which determines the novelty of the study. Its results will help to identify the most successful strategies for choosing a potential partner that lead to the establishment of long-term relationships.

   Objective. To identify the most common factors among women in selecting a potential partner in an Internet dating situation.

   Materials and Methods. A translated version of Liesel Sharabi’s questionnaire-questionnaire was used to establish the peculiarities of women’s use of dating services. Binomial criterion, Fisher’s exact test, and conjugacy test were used as methods of statistical data analysis.
Results. The empirical object of the study was women aged 18 to 60 (n = 61). It was found that women are quite selective in the situation of choosing potential partners in dating services. The majority of women feel apprehension regarding the use of dating services, which is associated with the fear of not meeting a suitable partner there. At the same time, women remain convinced of the effectiveness of dating services and hope to get married through their use. The main factor in choosing a partner among women is the way he or she shows himself or herself in correspondence. At the same time, women who got married as a result of online dating also took into account such a factor as the appearance of the chosen one.

   Discussion. The obtained data are confirmed by the results of other authors’ studies. Thus, women’s selectivity in the situation of Internet dating is explained by the increase in their self-confidence, as well as by the desire to demonstrate themselves from the “right” side. At the same time, women’s fears seem to be quite justified, taking into account that men are much more likely to describe their desired, rather than real, characteristics in questionnaires. Women more often make a choice based on the features of correspondence, since most of the criteria important for selection are revealed in the course of communication.

1. Antsibor, L., & Nicolau, A. (2013). Theoretical approaches to the problem of choosing a marriage partner. Studia Universitatis Moldaviae (Seria Ştiinţe ale Educației), 9(69), 154–161. (In Russ.)

2. Barclay, P. (2016). Biological markets and the effects of partner choice on cooperation and friendship. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 33–38. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.012

3. Balakireva, M. A. (2022). Znachimost’ kriteriev vybora brachnogo partniora pri sozdanii brachnykh otnoshenii. Psychology of Personal Interaction in Modern Society. Psychology of personal interaction in modern society. Collection of materials of the I All-Russian scientific-practical conference with international participation (P. 79–85). Publishing house “Sreda”. (In Russ.)

4. Baumard, N., André, J. B., & Sperber, D. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality: the evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 59–78. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x11002202

5. Best, K., & Delmege, S. (2012). The filtered encounter: online dating and the problem of filtering through excessive information. Social Semiotics, 22(3), 237–258. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2011.648405

6. Bowen, M. (1976). Theory and practice in psychotherapy. In P. J. Guerin (Ed.) Family Therapy: Theory and Practice (pp. 42‒90). Gardiner Press.

7. Buss, D. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73(1), 47–51.

8. Buss, D. (2007) The Evolution of Human Mating. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 502–512.

9. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570.

10. Buston, P. M., & Emlen, S. T. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(15), 8805–8810. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1533220100

11. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.

12. Chernyaeva, K. O. (2010). Cultural identification in social networks of the Internet. Bulletin of the Volga Region Academy of Public Service, 1(22), 209–214. (In Russ.)

13. Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(25), 10135–10140. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222447110

14. Castro, F. N., & Lopes, F. A. (2011). Romantic preferences in Brazilian undergraduate students: From the short term to the long term. Journal of Sex Research, 48(5), 479–485. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2010.506680

15. D’Angelo, J. D., & Toma, C. L. (2017). There are plenty of fish in the sea: The effects of choice overload and reversibility on online daters’ satisfaction with selected partners. Media Psychology, 20(1), 1–27. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2015.1121827

16. Fletcher, G. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 102–105. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00070

17. Frohlick, S., & Migliardi, P. (2011). Heterosexual profiling: Online dating and ‘becoming’ heterosexualities for women aged 30 and older in the digital era. Australian Feminist Studies, 26(67), 73–88. doi: 10.1080/08164649.2010.546329

18. Frost, J., Chance, Z., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2008). People are experience goods: Improving online dating with virtual dates. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(1), 51–61. doi: 10.1002/dir.20106

19. Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 27–42. doi: 10.1080/00224490409552211

20. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152–177. doi: 10.1177/0093650205285368

21. Hammerstein, P., & Noë, R. (2016). Biological trade and markets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371(1687), 20150101. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0101

22. Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2017). Is romantic desire predictable? Machine learning applied to initial romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1478–1489. doi: 10.1177/0956797617714580

23. Kaplan, M. F., & Anderson, N. H. (1973). Information integration theory and reinforcement theory as approaches to interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(3), 301–312. https://psycnet.apa.org doi: 10.1037/h0035112

24. Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 951–969. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.951

25. Kerckhoff, A. C., & Davis, K. E. (1962). Value consensus and need complementarity in mate selection. American Sociological Review, 27(3), 295–303. doi: 10.2307/2089791

26. Knudson-Martin, C. (1994). The female voice: Applications to Bowen’s family systems theory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 20(1), 35–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1994.tb01009.x

27. Kuznetsov, V. O. (2023). The problem of choosing a marital partner in social media development. In Challenges of globalization and development of digital society in the conditions of new reality (P. 103–109). ALEF Publishing House.

28. Miller, G. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. Doubleday.

29. Norwicki, S. Jr., & Menheim, S. (1991). Interpersonal complementarity and time of interaction in female relationships. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), 322–333. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(91)90023-J

30. Pines, A. M. (1999). Falling in love. Why we choose the lovers we choose. Routledge.

31. Pleshakova, E. V. (2024). Family values that give relative universality to the subjectivity of the subjectivity of a woman’s “meaningful choice” of a spouse at the stage of family creation. World of Science. Pedagogy and Psychology, 12(2). (In Russ.)

32. Polyakova, O. O. (2020). Features of the use of dating sites in the marriage and family behavior of the population. In Social processes of modern Russia : materials of the International scientific-practical conference (P. 600–603). NISOC Publishing House. (In Russ.)

33. Posysoev, N. N. (2004). Fundamentals of family psychology and family counseling : textbook. VLADOS-Press. (In Russ.)

34. Ramirez, A., Bryant, E. M., Fleuriet, C., & Cole, M. (2015). When online dating partners meet offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication between online daters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(1), 99–114. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12101

35. Rosenfeld, M. J. (2017). Marriage, choice, and couplehood in the age of the internet. Sociological Science, 4(20), 490–510. doi: 10.15195/v4.a20

36. Sharabi, L. L. (2024). The enduring effect of internet dating: Meeting online and the road to marriage. Communication Research, 51(3), 259–284. doi: 10.1177/00936502221127498

37. Sharabi, L. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2017). What predicts first date success? A longitudinal study of modality switching in online dating. Personal Relationships, 24(2), 370–391. doi: 10.1111/pere.12188

38. Sultanova, I. V., & Barybina, A. I. (2019). Psychological aspects of personality factors in the choice of marriage partner in student youth. Humanitarian-pedagogical education, 5(4), 178–185. (In Russ.)

39. Shabshin, I. I. (2005). On psychological peculiarities of communication on the Internet. Moscow Psychotherapy Journal, 1(44), 158–182. (In Russ.)

40. Schmidt, D. A. (2023). Motivation for using online dating services. In Actual problems of modern social psychology and its branches. Collection of scientific papers (P. 884–892). Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. (In Russ.)

41. Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate selection criteria. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10(4), 241–253. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(89)90002-2

42. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (eds.) Handbook of interpersonal communication (P. 529–563). Sage.

43. Wilson, W. (1989). Brief resolution of the issue of similarity versus complementarity in mate selection using height preference as a model. Psychological Reports, 65(2), 387–393.

44. Winch, R. F. (1955). The theory of complementary needs in mate selection: final results on the test of the general hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 20(5), 552–555.