↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets

Overview of attention for article published in Science Advances, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 6,887)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
Title
Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets
Published in
Science Advances, August 2018
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.aap9815
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth E. Bruch, M. E. J. Newman

Abstract

Romantic courtship is often described as taking place in a dating market where men and women compete for mates, but the detailed structure and dynamics of dating markets have historically been difficult to quantify for lack of suitable data. In recent years, however, the advent and vigorous growth of the online dating industry has provided a rich new source of information on mate pursuit. We present an empirical analysis of heterosexual dating markets in four large U.S. cities using data from a popular, free online dating service. We show that competition for mates creates a pronounced hierarchy of desirability that correlates strongly with user demographics and is remarkably consistent across cities. We find that both men and women pursue partners who are on average about 25% more desirable than themselves by our measures and that they use different messaging strategies with partners of different desirability. We also find that the probability of receiving a response to an advance drops markedly with increasing difference in desirability between the pursuer and the pursued. Strategic behaviors can improve one's chances of attracting a more desirable mate, although the effects are modest.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,054 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 185 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 24%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Student > Master 16 9%
Other 42 23%
Unknown 23 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 31 17%
Psychology 31 17%
Computer Science 14 8%
Engineering 11 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 5%
Other 54 29%
Unknown 35 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1931. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2021.
All research outputs
#2,663
of 18,438,151 outputs
Outputs from Science Advances
#34
of 6,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62
of 289,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Advances
#1
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,438,151 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 119.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.