Who Contacts Whom? Educational Homophily in Online Mate Selection

Abstract

Data from an online dating platform are used to study the importance of education for initiating and replying to online contacts. We analyse how these patterns are influenced by educational homophily and opportunity structures. Social exchange theory and mate search theory are used to explain online mate selection behaviour. Our results show that educational homophily is the dominant mechanism in online mate choice. Similarity in education significantly increases the rate of both sending and replying to initial contacts. After controlling for the opportunity structure on the platform, the preference for similar educated others is the most important factor, particularly among women. Our results also support the exchange theoretical idea that homophily increases with educational level. If dissimilarity contacting patterns are found, women are highly reluctant to contact partners with lower educational qualifications. Men, in contrast, do not have any problems to contact lower-qualified women. Studies of educational homogamy generally show that couples where women have a higher level of education are rare. Our study demonstrates that this is mainly the result of women's reluctance to contact lower qualified men.

What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app

“…In this case, filtering went beyond appearance into other identity factors, such as perceived education level and indicators of socio-economic status. Unlike traditional dating websites that often ask for height, weight, race, or education level (Hancock et al, 2007;Lin & Lundquist, 2013;Skopek et al, 2011), there are often no other indicators beyond a few photographs and a few words of text. This allows a different perspective on Tinder: Impression management is focused on that brief moment where one decides whether to swipe right or left.…”

“…Best and Delmege find that in an online dating environment that offers a 'plethora of choice … filtering strategies are adopted spontaneously and refined conscientiously by participants ' (2012, p. 253). This process is often more complex on dating websites, in which users are allowed to additionally screen potential matches on height and weight (Hancock, Toma, & Ellison, 2007), race (Lin & Lundquist, 2013), and education level (Skopek, Schulz, & Blossfeld, 2011).…”

The Economic Consequences of Social-Network Structure

“…Homophily can also affect whether information flows easily from one group to another or is instead impeded (e.g., Golub and Jackson (2012)). These effects can have pronounced implications across a range of important applications including access to employment opportunities (Granovetter (1974), Calvó-Armengol and Jackson (2004Jackson ( , 2007, Ioannides and Datcher-Loury (2004), Jackson (2007), Bayer, Ross, and Topa (2008), Beaman (2012), Gautier and Holzner (2013), Rubineau and Fernandez (2015), Battu, Seaman and Zenou (2011), Zenou (2013), social mobility (Calvó-Armengol and Jackson (2009), Munshi and Rosenzweig (2009)), marriage markets (Skopek, Schulz, and Blossfeld (2011)), health behavior (Centola (2011)), and educational achievement (Calvó-Armengol, Patacchini and Zenou (2009)). For example, in the labor market, homophily isolates workers of one ethnicity from workers of another ethnicity, which then limits the extent to which individuals in one group hear about openings and opportunities known to the other group.…”

Gender Differences in Online Dating: What Do We Know So Far? A Systematic Literature Review

“…Further, a well-established positive relationship between socio-economic status and academic achievements [11] explains the fact that educational preferences follow the same gender patterns as socioeconomic status, and are much more critical for women [56] All in all, men are much less demanding with respect to their mate's education and willingly contact women with a lower academic degree [31] [36] [60]. However, men are not attracted by women's intelligence when it surpasses their own [31].…”