The second example of an evidence-based compatibility test concerns the matchmaking service and website of (formerly TRUEBeginnings).
TRUE commissioned the development of a comprehensive, online compatibility test designed to be broader in scope than the WRCI or the PREPARE marital preparation inventory via an integration of the mixed literature on similarity and complementarity.
But I wanted to write and perform my own music.” With the release of “Just A Boy” and her album due in a few months, Jean—who recently did acoustic showcases in L.
A., New York and San Francisco and plans to tour next year–is fulfilling her lifelong dream.
Compatibility tests are the foundation of many online matchmaking services, but psychometric support for their use is ambiguous or unavailable.
Perhaps legendary filmmaker Terrence Malick knew this when he worried aloud and said in his last interview in the 1970s, “From this point on. That could trip me up.” Malick wasn’t referring to detectives — though cinephiles possibly could have used some in the ‘80s and ‘90s.
In light of these trends, it is not surprising that there is an apparent increase in the use and societal acceptance of so-called compatibility tests offered by online matchmaking services (Houran et al., 2004).
Compatibility testing typically refers to a method of pairing unfamiliar people for long-term, romantic relationships based on the demographics, stated personal preferences, and personality profiling of individuals within a candidate pool.
Wilson and Cousins have shown that heterosexual couples scores on this test show significant and positive correlation (average r = .31, p The WRCI is based on the principle of homogamy (similarity of partners characteristics), as opposed to the principle of complementarity (dissimilarity) of partners characteristics.
As reviewed by Wilson and Cousins (2003a, 2003b), and recently echoed in new research by Luo and Klohnen (2005), cross-sectional and longitudinal research both suggest that similarity (birds of a feather flock together) is a better predictor of relationship quality than complementarity (opposites attract).