True in search of true love, looking for that imperceptible happiness, are you waiting for the “right” person to come, or do you find yourself in the room for the least boy or girl, hoping that everything will work out? Do you skip your options, hoping to “trade” at the next opportunity, or do you invest in your relationship based on cost-benefit analysis?
Choosing a mate for something so fundamental to our existence remains one of mankind’s longest mysteries. It has been the subject of intense psychological research for decades, forming countless hypotheses as to why we choose whom we choose.
“Choosing an Ate partner is really difficult, especially for people,” says Dan Conroy-Beam, an assistant professor of psychology and brain science at UC Santa Barbara and author of a journal article. An overview of personality և social psychology“And there are a lot of people who have come up with abstract ideas about how this can happen.”
One line of thinking, for example, assumes that we value potential partners on the inner threshold of preferred qualities `the” minimum threshold “they must meet to be considered a potential partner.
“And we learn where that minimum bar is based and how other people treat us,” he said. Another model describes the dating market, which is similar to the European social dances of the 18th centuryt: century
“One side is approaching the other, they are starting a temporary relationship,” Conro-Beam said. “And basically you stay in the relationship until you get a better offer, everyone runs away to their partners at once for better partners.”
But these models of partner selection, like them, do not capture the nuances of choosing a real-life partner, Conro-Beam said.
“When you have a system that’s as complex as human mating markets, verbal models are sometimes not a good way to understand what’s going on,” he said. Competitive desires and social dynamics play a big role in the choice of a partner, he explained, adding layers of complexity, moving parts that can not be captured or quantified.
And what can to store many levels of human-like details և complexity? The next best thing is computer modeling. To advance the understanding of partner selection, Ro Conroy-Beam has developed a new approach called ‘couple modeling’, which essentially tests mate selection models against real-life pattern հատկ properties ահ priorities.
“The real advantage we have here is that we go from these verbal models to clear computational models,” he said. “We directly model people’s real choices. “We are pushing the boundaries of doing this in our heads because we have computers that can track all the very complex interactions that take place.”
The process begins with measuring the true characteristics and preferences of several hundred couples who have chosen a real-life partner. This data is divided into simulated examples of each person – “avatar agents” who have the same characteristics and desires as their human counterparts, except in the simulation world, where they are alone.
“We’re breaking them down and throwing all those little agents on the market,” said Conroy-Beam, who received research support from the National Science Foundation’s Early Career Program. “Then we run different algorithms, see which ones do the best job, putting them back together with an agent representing their real partner.”
The algorithms represent different models of partner selection that dictate the rules by which agents can interact based on model predictions. In addition to the aspiration threshold model (minimum bar) և Gale-Shapley algorithm (stable pair optimization), the team also used the Kalick-Hamilton model (KHM), which assumes that people choose partners for their attractiveness և a new model. Conroy-Beam proposed to be called “Resource Distribution Model” (RAM).
“It thinks about choosing a partner in terms of investing limited resources,” he said. “So you get so much time, so much money, so much energy that you can give to potential partners. And so your question as a partner is, “Who deserves most of those limited resources?”
The Conroy-Beam model, it turns out, proved to be the most accurate, matching exactly 45% of the pairs in the modeling market in the very first couple modeling operations. What makes the resource allocation model work so well?
“There are a number of differences between other RAM models,” he said. “Other models treat attraction as switch off, but RAM allows attraction gradients. It also includes reciprocity. “The more your partner pursues you, the more you pursue them,” he said. In second place was the Gale-Shapley algorithm, followed by the aspiration threshold model, then KHM (attractiveness). Random pairings came last.
It is still early days for modeling a couple. After all, said Conro-Beam, 45% right is still 55% wrong. For the first transfer, however, 45% Accuracy: Surprisingly, according to the study, people in this group also report having a higher quality relationship (more satisfied, more committed, more love, less jealousy) than people from poorly matched couples.
Conroy-Beam և and his team at the UCSB Math Choice Lab will continue to refine their models, which he calls “really rough outlines” to increase accuracy. They hope to conduct a longer-term long-term study to determine whether accurately predicted couples differ in longevity.
“We hope to do it across cultures, as we will involve same-sex couples in the near future,” he said. “We also have plans for the next few years to try to apply it to single people to predict their future relationships.”
Reference. “Ple ugy simulation. A novel approach to the evaluation of human partner selection models “by Daniel Conroy-Beam, January 7, 2021 An overview of personality և social psychology,
DOI: 10.1177% 2F1088868320971258:
This research was supported by the NSF Early CAREER Award 1845586.