Chemistry.com: Chemical Romance

OPW -- I just got the following promo email through from Chemistry.com.  It's quite edgy... "Chemical Romance - An interview with Dr Helen Fisher, Playboy Magazine, Feb 2007 - Mark Brooks

Q: Biochemically speaking, how does seduction work?
A: Sex drive is associated with testosterone in both men and women. Romantic love is associated with elevated activity of the dopamine system, which is like natural cocaine.
Q: What happens when she climaxes - other than the obvious?
A: Orgasm drives up oxytocin levels in the brain: again, that increases her feelings of attachment toward you. When a man has an orgasm, he deposits testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine and oxytocin into the woman. All of that is in his seminal fluid, so when he ejaculates he's really injecting her with extremely powerful chemicals."

Comments

[Fernando Ardenghi]

And what really happen with women taking contraceptive pills and men who use condoms?

Also see "Changes in Women's Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle. "
Abstract Previous research has shown that women's mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle in a number of ways. The leading explanation for these changes--the good genes hypothesis--predicts that women should prefer presumed markers of genetic benefits ("good genes") most strongly when they are fertile and evaluating men as possible short-term mates. Research testing this hypothesis has almost exclusively examined preferences for purported markers of good genes. Little is known about how preferences for men who display traits valued in long-term, investing mates ( e.g., warmth and faithfulness) change across the cycle. The authors had women at different points in their ovulatory cycle rate videotapes of men in terms of how attractive they found each man as a short-term and long-term mate. The authors then examined how women's preferences for traits typically valued in long-term and/or short-term mates varied according to women's fertility status. The results supported the good genes hypothesis. Implications of these findings for models of human mating are discussed.
http://content.apa.org/journals/psp/92/1/151

It seems Chemistry.com only works with early stage attraction between prospective mates and it seems after the first meeting; in some persons attraction reduces its level OR worse even morphs / metamorphoses to rejection!!!!

Mr. Brooks ask them for scientific evidence of "chemistry"!!!

Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
[email protected]

[Dave Evans]

Helen and I just launched her new blog at helenfisher.typepad.com, where she will have lots more to say about the nature of love.

Fernando, what do you mean Chemistry only works with early stage attraction?

[Helen Fisher]

Hello All, I would like to correct what seems to be a misunder-standing. I designed all of the core questions on the Internet site, Chemistry.com. And I designed them with the hope of matching people so that they would not only fall in love but STAY in love long term. This is actually the point of this site: to provide an opportunity to find love that will last. As you may not know, I and my colleagues have put 32 people who were madly in love into a brain scanner and we have found some of the primary brain circuits associated with this intense feeling, passionate love. And I deeply believe that if you can trigger that circuit with someone who is similar to you in some specific social ways and complementary to you in a range of other biological and cultural ways, you can not only trigger this brain circuit for romantic love but keep it percolating for years. It seems to be working; I have been to my first Chemistry.com wedding. But I will continue to improve my questionnaire as I learn more about why you fall in love with one person rather than another: mate choice--one the crucial decision of one's life. semper ad astra (always to the stars) Helen.

[Fernando Ardenghi]

Dear Dr. Fisher:

At http://helenfisher.typepad.com/helenfisher/2007/02/lovefrom_from_a.html
you wrote "Today some 1.6 million men and women have joined Chemistry.com, (a sincere thanks to them), and I have collected data on the first 523,622. And from the ways these men and women have answered the questions I devised to join the site, it appears that we are attracted to those who are genetically different from ourselves—in more ways than just MHC compatibility!"

I think you could possible made 3 great mistakes:
* you forget age segmentation. Also race and/or religion segmentation.
* you forget to take into account women taking contraceptive pills.
* you did not check if a temporal pattern or Romantic Relationship Development exists.

And what happened with "birth order" item you included at Chemistry's questionnaire? Does it really "work" for something?

If I were you, in order to investigate / research better, I would arrange data as follows:

MEN:
* up to 24 years old and supposed to date by fun, to find a mate for a short term relationship without any commitment.
* more than 24 years old supposed looking for compatible real persons for a long term relationship with commitment.

WOMEN:
* up to 24 years old taking contraceptive pills and supposed to date by fun, to find a mate for a short term relationships without any commitment
* up to 24 years old NOT taking contraceptive pills and supposed to date by fun, to find a mate for a short term relationships without any commitment
* more than 24 years old taking contraceptive pills, and supposed looking for compatible real persons for a long term relationship with commitment.
* more than 24 years old NOT taking contraceptive pills, and supposed looking for compatible real persons for a long term relationship with commitment.

".... But when scientists administer personality tests to long-married couples, NO patterns of personality similarity or differences emerge. ... "
I think it is because they are using multiple/simple linear regression equations instead of more powerful ones!!!

I will respectfully recommend to repeat your research using another more powerful math equations to evaluate dyadic similarity and to use the 16PF5 test to measure personality. Not more the Big-Five because it is an oversimplification.

Common information from other papers suggests:
* It seems that what is important in attracting people to one another may not be important in making couples happy.
* While opposites attract for short term affairs, similarity is preferred for marriage (Amodio & Showers, 2005).
* The divorce rate in (United States of) America hovers between 50 and 75% (Kreider and Fields, 2002).
http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/scientific-papers-t395.html

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
[email protected]

The Hypothesis I support: "ALMOST COMPLETE SIMILARITY on MOST of the 16 personality related domains is really strongly associated with couple satisfaction and stability."

[James Houran]

Hi all,

I think Chemistry.com is handling the sexuality aspects of online dating in a much more classy, educational and productive way than other online dating sites -- so kudos to Helen. Helen and I are acquaintances, so I am familiar with her questionnaire and she is aware of my work in scaling and mathematics in compatibility testing.

Scientists are still grappling with this notion of love and attraction, but traditionally "love" has been simplified as two main types -- Passionate/ Erotic Love (mechanisms driving sexuality and emotional passion) and Companionate Love (feelings of deep attachment and friendship). It is well established that early stages of romantic relationships are characterized by high levels of Passionate/ Erotic Love, but that these levels naturally and predictably fade over the course of a relationship. That is not a sign that the bond is weakening for the couple; it is simply a natural progression where one bond gives way to the influence of feelings and drives that more often concern attachment, friendship and commitment.

Passionate Love throughout one's relationship of the intensity experienced in the early stages of a relationship is what Hollywood promotes, but it is not what actually happens. Too often, people are not taught realistic expectations for relationships --and so they understandably become disappointed.

My own research using advanced scaling techniques dervied from modern test theory, as well as the literature with which I am aware, all consistently points to a cognitive view of "sustained" romantic compatibility, which stresses partners’ dynamic reinterpretation of their social, emotion and sexual realities. In past publications and academic conferences, I have defined it as “a holistic pattern of shared beliefs and values, mutually beneficial similarities and differences across personality traits, demographic preferences, and a cognitive set that motivates and sustains both erotic and companionate love in each partner.” This view sides with previous work (4,5) suggesting that relationship satisfaction derives from the tendency to view positive perceptions as more important than negative perceptions, as well as the tendency to alter the importance of specific perceptions as is needed over time. For example, the tendency to describe the marital relationship in unrealistically positive terms is called marital conventionalization. Such positive distortions in marriage– what Edmonds (1) viewed as social desirability bias in marital quality measurements —are strikingly similar to psychological constructs such as positive illusions (8) and unrealistic optimism (6).

The assessment or cognitive appraisal of one’s partner and the quality of marriage thus parallels a self-fulfilling prophecy (2) whose contents form a cognitive set that is determined mostly by the psychological costs associated with changing or leaving the relation (3). To avoid such costs we suspect that the partners use Erotic Love to reinforce Companionate Love or vice versa. Of course, individuals can also use negative distortions to effectively negate Erotic or Companionate Love. Such cognitive sets help explain why satisfied couples can be “objectively” incompatible and unsatisfied couples can be “objectively” compatible. Although my own work has not assessed this variable in any rigorous way, I speculate that this cognitive set is related to Psychologist Robert Sternberg’s (7) notion of the conscious decision to commit to a relationship. Accordingly, conventionalization may not simply be a confounding variable in relationship satisfaction and adjustment; it might well be the very process by which couples remain satisfied and bonded over time.

Of course, common sense and personal experience tell us that physical attraction is also a highly idiosyncratic phenomenon. To this end, the testing firm of weAttract.com has developed a computerized “physical attraction test” that finds photographs of individuals from a pool of online daters that a person will find attractive based on that person’s preferences mapped from a set of prototype faces and body types. At the 2005 iDate Conference, Fujii Film introduced facial recognition software that parallels the pioneering efforts of weAttract.com. This software reportedly finds matches to photographs a person finds attractive from online dating profiles. Thus, if an online-dater finds Person A and Person B attractive from their photographs, this software will locate other candidates from an online dating pool that resemble the photographs of Person A and B.

As noted by Thompson and his colleagues (9), it remains to be seen whether psychological and physical compatibility can efficiently and validly be synthesized into a single compatibility test and matching system. I appreciate Helen's efforts along these lines, but I have seen no compelling psychometric evidence for the Chemistry.com "test" -- or for most compatibility tests for that matter. Of course, I anticipate that any successful efforts along these lines would significantly increase the validity of a compatibility test in predicting relationship satisfaction and stability. Still, I think the evidence is clear that sustained romantic compatibility happens because the couple creates that reality in a conscious manner. I have seen no data that sustained romantic compatibility is due to hardwired, biological mechanisms per se.

In the mean time, let me draw everyone's attention to Wilson and Cousin’s (10)excellently put and accurate perspective on the current state of romantic compatibility testing – “It will not tell you whether or not you are going to fall in love with another person in a compulsive, ‘chemical’ way, just whether or not it is a good idea if you do” (p. viii).

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
Online Dating Magazine

References

1Edmonds, V. H. (1967). Marital conventionalization: definition and measurement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29, 681-688.

2Houran, J., & Lange, R. (2004). Redefining delusion based on studies of subjective paranormal ideation. Psychological Reports, 94, 501-513.

3Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2000). Modeling Maher’s attribution theory of delusions as a cusp catastrophe. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 4, 235-254.

4Levinger, G. (1986). Compatibility in relationships. Social Science, 71, 173-177.

5Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2003). The dynamic structure of relationship perceptions: differential importance as a strategy of relationship maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1433-1446.

6Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well being: theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201-228.

7Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

8Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.

9Thompson, M., Zimbardo, P. & Hutchinson, G. (2005). Consumers are having second thoughts about online dating: are the real benefits getting lost in over promises? [Industry Report]. Dallas, TX: weAttract.com. Available online at: http://weattract.com/images/weAttract_whitepaper.pdf.

10Wilson, G. D., & Cousins, J. M. (2003). CQ: learn the secret of lasting love. London: Fusion Press.

[James Houran]

Hi again, List

Fernando is a sincere academic who is also very well read. However, we disagree about the importance of the similarity versus complementarity. The fact is that the degree of similarity observed depends on the particular individual-difference domain studied, with romantic partners showing strong similarity in age, political, and religious attitudes; moderate similarity in education, general intelligence, and values; and little or no similarity in personality characteristics (for reviews, see Houran et al., 2004; Klohnen & Mendelson, 1998; Watson et al., 2004).

Therefore, based on the available literature, it can be argued very strongly that “personality” is among the least important variables we should be considering when assessing the long-term compatibility for a couple!

Furthermore, recent and cutting edge research strongly suggests that the strict similarity vs. dissimilarity issue is illusory – it takes both sameness and difference between two people to ensure long-term compatibility, although men and women focus on different issues! (see Houran et al., 2005; Lange et al., 2004).

This debate of similarity versus complementarity is fueled by response biases in the datasets from most studies. It seems to be that what we see as strong similarity is really the result of response biases in the data (Houran et al., 2004; Houran et al., 2005; Lange et al., 2004). Most research in relationship science (or social science in general) does not utilize proper analytical techniques. Modern test theory is the statistical gold standard for the professional tests and measurements community – and these analytics should alone be used in analyzing data and developing compatibility algorithms.

Specifically, only modern test theory can properly control for artifacts in data that are grounded in response biases. And it is crucial to control for such biases because statistical theory (Stout, 1987) and computer simulations (Lange et al., 2000) alike demonstrate that they can lead to spurious factor structures of constructs, significant distortions in scores, and consequently erroneous reliability and validity findings.

Basically it comes down to this: any study cited in support of a similarity versus a complementarity model of compatibility (or that presents any finding) is meaningless unless it was conducted with modern test theory methods. And when modern test theory analytics are used, the complementarity hypothesis is the front runner (Lange et al., 2004), even in datasets that were first used to advocate the similarity hypothesis using traditional (i.e., outdated) statistics! (see Houran et al., 2004; Houran et al., 2005).

Finally, as far as I know only the Big Five Model of personality has been validated with modern test theory. There is a reason why it is the most popular personality model in the social sciences today -- it works really well. For all we know, the variables that make up the 16PF are not independent at all, but rather they all scale on the same factor.

Lay audiences are encouraged to learn more at:
http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/features/compatibilitytesting.html

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
Online Dating Magazine

References

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

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

Klohnen, E. C., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1998). Partner selection for personality characteristics: a couple-centered approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 268-278.

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

Lange, R., Irwin, H. J., & Houran, J. (2000). Top-down purification of Tobacyk’s Revised Paranormal Belief Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 131-156.

Stout, W. F. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait dimensionality. Psychometrika, 55, 293-326.

Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Nus Simms, E., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004). Match makers and deal breakers: analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029-1068.

[Patrick Perrine]

Hello,

As is always the debate amongst scientists and psychologists: Is it nature or nurture that is most responsible for human behavior and how do we asses which plays what role? It is important for us to understand that there is a biological (or chemical) connection that draws one person to another (think pheromones for instance), but we also need to be aware of the environmental influences over these predisposed desires. I think most academics and professionals who delve into these issues can at least agree in the simplest forms that it is a pairing of the two that combine to create our total human mating preferences.

Then there is the debate on testing methodology and statistical relevance, which I think James Houran addressed very comprehensively. I'll depart from the testing theories and discuss compatibility relevance.

Research suggests that our chemical make-up plays a role in predisposing us for certain behaviors, desires and experiences. And as such, the brain, our largest sex organ, plays a vital role in who we are attracted to and to what degree that attraction develops. Dr. Fisher enlightened us as to a component of Chemistry.com’s methodology and tracking of brain circuits that are associated with such pivotal elements of attraction and desire, two essential elements of establishing and maintaining a healthy and happy relationship. But how is that methodology transferred to an online questionnaire to predict chemistry that will develop between two complete strangers?

At myPartnerPerfect we developed our questionnaire and compatibility system to match those users that are most likely to be compatible for a long-term relationship. We delve deep into the gay man’s relationship history, sexual desires, lifestyle, personality, and additional mating preferences that are weighted to present candidates with those matches that maintain a high level of compatibility and with whom they are most likely to develop chemistry. We maintain that although there may be a level of “hardwiring” that predisposes our attractions, our desires for companions and partners are also heavily influenced by our environmental experiences. Our goal is very similar to the quote James Houran, Ph.D. made from Wilson and Cousin, in that our compatibility system is designed to present those matches which are a “good idea” to pursue, the chemistry that develops cannot be predetermined through our compatibility system; however the match elicits a strong indication for potential chemistry. The chemistry that one feels towards another person is highly influenced by our environment, our life experiences, and dare I saw it, our “pre-wired predispositions” and biological make-up (specifically hormones).

It is due to the mere natural flaw of online compatibility and profiling systems that makes it difficult to survey one’s potential chemistry with another person. The natural flaw being that it is a survey, a Q & A, not a face-to-face interaction/meeting. And it is again, the human experience that helps to further define our attraction and satisfaction with a partner. Because compatibility and profiling systems are a tool in which we attempt to predict the potential marrying of physical attraction and relationship sustainability, it must be utilized in the capacity of a predicting tool, much like doctors predicting potential health problems based on family histories. Utilizing a compatibility system as an initial tool in determining potential matches, coupled with personal interaction through interviewing and screening, is the key to myPartnerPerfect’s successful matchmaking. As efficient as it may be to simply complete a survey and then be returned matches based on dynamic algorithms drawn from a series of research studies, potential matches are only truly qualified in predicting relationship satisfaction and sustainability when there is a personal, or real-life, interaction.

So I ask this question: Do brain circuits associated with intense feelings and love respond similarly when reading a profile of someone with whom they have just become a match? If they illicit the same type of brain activity, how would you determine that it isn’t due to experiential memories of previous erotic love and fantasies of new found potential love, versus the mere“chemistry” that exists between the two potential matches – on paper?

[Helen Fisher]

Good morning All. I am fascinated with the above comments, particularly those of Jame Houran. I have read some of your material, James, and it has been very helpful; this is too. Thank you. Thank you also to Fernando Ardenghi, who has very kindly send me many articles in the past two years.

I feel obliged to respond first to Fernando on several of his points. Foremost, I have begun to examine how one's answers are likely to change as one ages, and it came as no surprise to me: people become more conservative as they age. I will continue to study this but it appears that age does not affect several other aspects of temperament.

Fernando recommends that I measure by race. I disagree. Feelings or romantic love and attachment to a partner are deeply embedded in the human brain. Skin color and other racial markers have nothing whatsoever to do with these basic brain systems. People around the world write the same kinds of love poetry and suffer the same loses when rejected in love. And in our brain scanning experiments racial traits appeared to make no difference in brain function. I am atempting to study human traits, not racial traits. I agree with you though on religion; this does play a role in who you chose to love; this must always be considered when attempting to find people appropriate partners.

Fernando recommends that I consider the role of contraceptive pills in mate choice. I am familiar with some of the literature on this subject, and taking contraceptive pills can alter your mate preferences. But if I were to attempt to match people using this criteria, I would also have to consider the effects of SSRIs like prozac and the dozens of other medications that alter brain function. I read recently that some 100 million prescriptions for antidepressants are written annually. Then there are those who drink alcohol regularly and/or take other drugs that can alter perception and attraction mechanisms. It is simply not possible to consider all of these effects on personality when matching.

Birth order I have begun to analyze in the first group of 523,000 members of chemistry.com data. And very preliminary findings suggest that birth order has no correlation with many personality variables. Other researchers have found this as well. Last, I don't use the Big Five in matching because the data on these five personality variables (Zentner 2005) do not indicate that similarity or complementarity on these scales are necessarily components of long term happiness.

There is much more to be said to Fernando but I would like to move on to the very interesting comments of James Houran. As you probably know, James, I have long thought that humans have evolved three distinctly different brain systems for mating and reproduction: the sex drive; romantic love; and deep attachment to a partner. I think each evolved for a different reason. The sex drive evolved to motivate individuals to seek a range of mating partners. Romantic love evolved to focus one's courtship time and energy on a single partner and initiate pairbonding. And the brain system for attachment evolved to motivate partners to remain together at least long enough to rear their young through infancy. In fact, recent data by myself and my colleagues, as well as those studying the sex drive confirm that the sex drive and romantic love are overlapping but different brain systems.

So I agree with your discussion of passionate love and companionate love and the general progression from one to the other (although some people make a deep attachment first and then fall in love; these three systems can operate in any combination). I would add that in good long term marriages feelings of romantic love often do persist, but this passionate love tends to come in peaks or spurts and does not have the intensity of the very early-stage passionate romantic love. I believe you say this too.

I loved your comments about "positive illusions." In short, we tend to be happier in our relationships when we cling to our positive perceptions of our partner, despite reality (Zentner 2005). Because of the importance of positive illusions to long term happiness, I have even begun to conjecture that the necessity for positive illusions may be one of the myriad factors that have contributed to the evolution of the remarkable human ability for self deception.

Regarding the Chemistry.com test, I believe in transparency; I believe that people should know what I am doing and what I am trying to do. I don't have time or space to elaborate on this here but I am working on an academic paper on this now and if you want to email me in a couple of months, I will send you my final submission. In the meantime, just to say that I am certainly working daily to make this questionnaire reliable in scientific terms. This is a huge project. As you unquestionably know, creating a psychometrically sound "measure" can take years, if not a lifetime. But I have a new theory about mate choice, and I am determined to see if I have found one of nature's patterns. And to do that I need to make this test as accurate as humanly possible.

Why spend this time? For several reasons. Foremost, I am enormously interested in this subject as a scientis. But also because our choice of mate is one of the most important things we do, not only for our personal happiness but for our genetic future. It matters. Last but by no means least, in my endeavors to understand human (biological) patterns of mate choice and build a respectable matching system, I may help some people find long term love. I went to my first Chemistry.com marriage last June and found it very compelling.

But I agree with you that no matching system will ever be perfect. There is magic to love. Timing plays an important role. So does proximity. And mystery. And one's childhood. These and myriad other subtle or often chance variables cannot be considered in any matcing system. And as you say, James, couples need to "create their reality."

But it is my feeling that sparking that brain chemistry and maintaining a fulfilling long term partnership begins with choosing the right person. And a suitable matching process can help. Creating one of these has become my job. And I am hard on to it. ... I am hoping that Cupid will help me out.

Cheers, Helen.

Zentner, MR (2005) Ideal mate personality concepts and compatibility in close relationships: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89#2:242-256.