Original image

11 Results from Studies About Online Dating

Original image

With more and more people relying on online dating to meet a partner, the act of online dating also gets studied more and more. Here are 11 revelations from recent studies.

1. 81 percent of people lie about their height, weight, or age in their online dating profiles.

This phenomenon was observed in a study conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The researchers weighed and measured subjects in addition to checking their driver’s licenses for their actual ages, then looked at their subjects’ online dating profiles. Women tended to claim that they were 8.5 pounds lighter than they actually were. Men lied by less—only two pounds—but rounded up their height by a half inch more often. People lied the least when it came to age.

2. People who have the word “love” in their profiles are more likely to find love.

This year, the dating site PlentyofFish conducted a study in which scientists examined word choice in all 1.2 million dating profiles on the site. In addition to the observation that those who used the word “love” more were more successful in finding it, the researchers discovered that men benefitted from using the words “heart,” “children,” “romantic,” and “relationship.”

3. Men spend 50 percent less time reading online dating profiles than women.

In 2012, the research company AnswerLab conducted a study in which they used a Tobii X1 Light Eye Tracker, which recorded the eye movements of subjects who were reading online dating profiles from and By doing this, they were able determine where men and women were actually looking while reading online dating profiles. As it happens, men spend 65 percent more time looking at the pictures in the profile than women do.

4. Race and class are the most important factors to online daters.

In September, BuzzFeed ran an experiment in which one of their writers built a mock-Tinder with stock photos. She found that when someone viewed the person in the Tinder profile picture as “working-class,” they would swipe “yes” 13 percent of the time. But, when they considered the person “middle-class,” they swiped “yes” between 36 and 39 percent of the time. The study also found that people preferred a potential partner to be of mixed or ambiguous race instead of a blatantly different race than their own. OkCupid co-founder, Christian Rudder, confirmed her findings. He noted, “When you’re looking at how two American strangers behave in a romantic context, race is the ultimate confounding factor.”

A recent study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences does note that this phenomenon isn’t as bad as it might seem. According to the researchers at the University of California San Diego, the majority of heterosexuals on OKCupid did contact people of another race or at least answer messages from them.

5. The algorithms can’t predict whether two people are compatible.

A group of U.S. psychology professors collaborated on a report, describing the faults of online dating, which was published in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest in 2012. The dating sites wouldn't share their specific algorithms with the researchers, but the professors stated that the sites couldn’t predict whether a relationship would last just because two people had similar interests and personalities. According to Professor Eli Finkel, who worked on the report, "We reviewed the literature and feel safe to conclude they do not [work]."

6. One-third of online daters never go on dates with people they meet online.

This surprising statistic comes from a survey conducted in late 2013 by the Pew Research Center. Even more surprising, this is actually a significantly lower number than it used to be. In 2005, over half of people with online dating profiles never went on an in-person date with someone they had met on the site.

7. Women who don’t drink receive 24 percent fewer messages than women who do.

PlentyOfFish put together graphics describing the most “desirable singles of 2014,” based on what they observed heterosexual online daters liked in the opposite sex; the site claimed that women are more likely to get messages if they are Catholic, have a dog, earn more than $25,000, and don’t have a masters degree. Men get more messages if they are Christian, brunette, high-earners, and PhDs.

8. 30 percent of women consult with a friend about their profile. Only 16 percent of men do.

This accounts for a total of 22 percent of people with online dating profiles who ask a friend “to help them create or review their profile,” according to the Pew Research Center.

9. Couples who meet online are more likely to break up.

A recent study that claims couples who met on dating sites are less likely to get married has been getting a lot of traction on the Internet. Researchers from Stanford University and Michigan State University surveyed more than 4000 people and they learned that breakups were more common in couples who met online versus offline. They claim that the phenomenon holds true for both married and unmarried couples.

10. On the flip side: Couples who meet online are less likely to divorce.

Obviously this phenomenon needs to be studied a little more. A 2013 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that 35 percent of the 20,000 people who responded to a survey met their spouse online. The study also contradicts the Stanford and Michigan State study by claiming that couples who met online have a 6 percent separation and divorce rate whereas couples who met offline have an 8 percent rate. (It’s worth noting that the study was funded by eHarmony.)

11. Online dating saves people $6400.

If you believe that people do marry sooner when they use online dating, then you can also believe that online dating saves you money. A group of researchers at ConvergEx Group calculated that couples who meet online get married after 18.5 months, on average. Couples who don’t meet online, on the other hand, wait an average of 42 months before marrying. ConvergEx group factored in $130 per week for dates, making total cost $23,660 versus $12,803. If the pair is splitting bills, that’s around $6400 each saved before marriage.

This Edible Water Blob Could Change Hydration Forever

It can be tough to get your recommended daily intake of water, but one innovation is making it easier than ever to keep a bottle, or blob, of H2O on hand. Ooho!—an inexpensive, biodegradable "water bottle" that’s paving the way for the future of hydration—first came to the public's attention in 2013.

Created by Rodrigo García González, Guillaume Couche, and Pierre Paslier of Skipping Rocks Lab in London, the orb (which Fast Company once described as looking like a silicone implant) is created by taking a frozen ball of water, then covering it in layers of membrane made from seaweed extract. The process is a riff on a culinary technique called spherification, which is appropriate given that the gelatinous coating is edible.

Back in 2015, Ooho! received a $22,500 sustainability award from the EU, and now it looks like these water blobs could be ready for tossing into your bag on the way out the door in the near future. Designboom reports that the company will begin testing out their water bubbles at major sporting events in 2018.

Ooho! does have serious potential when it comes to environmental efforts: In America alone, 50 billion plastic bottles are used annually, and the spherical Ooho! packaging could one day bump petroleum-based plastic from store shelves. But if the idea of biting into a water blob weirds you out, don’t worry, it’s not a must.

"At the end of the day you don’t have to eat it," Paslier told The Guardian. "But the edible part shows how natural it is. People are really enthusiastic about the fact that you can create a material for packaging matter that is so harmless that you can eat it."

So natural in fact, that you can even make them yourself at home—though, to be honest, the tap might be easier in that case.

To see what it’s like to hydrate with Ooho!, check out the video below.

An earlier version of this article appeared in 2015.

Original image
Lesser-Known Weapons of World War II
Original image

Believe it or not, the massive machine in the picture above was actually a cannon. Designed by the Nazis, the Vergeltungswaffe 3 was built directly into a hill and designed to shoot artillery shells across the English Channel, blasting from France directly into London. While it was able to fire shells up to 58 miles, the whole thing was a failure—which is precisely why you've probably never heard of the Vergeltungswaffe 3.

But that’s not the only odd weapon to come out of World War II. People from all walks of life—dentists, psychologists, and more—came together to come up with some crazy, unorthodox, and sometimes wildly successful weapons to win the war.


A bat bomb canister. Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

While Charlemagne probably never said “Let my armies be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky,” militaries throughout history have used that general idea—including during World War II.

One of the most famous winged weapons is bat bombs, a plan dreamt up by Lytle Adams after a visit to New Mexico's Carlsbad Caverns, where thousands of the animals roost. The dentist (and friend to Eleanor Roosevelt) heard about Pearl Harbor, thought back to his vacation, and had an idea: Put tiny explosives on bats and set them loose in an enemy city. When they found areas of the city to hide in, Adams reasoned, the military could explode the bombs and start thousands of fires in hard-to-reach parts of buildings. The fire would spread throughout the city uncontrollably, leading to a victory for the Allies. (Adams—who actually went back to Carlsbad Caverns to capture some bats for testing of his plan—would later defend his idea by saying that while the fire would have been economically and physically devastating to the city, it would be nowhere near as destructive as an atomic bomb). The military actually tested Adams’s idea, and it worked almost too well: While testing, the bat bombs accidentally burned down a hangar (and a general’s car). It wasn’t long after that the project was cancelled, presumably to focus on the atomic bomb.cancelled, presumably to focus on the atomic bomb.

Bats weren’t the only weaponized animals the United States was working on at the time. Famed psychologist B. F. Skinner was working on training pigeons to steer objects (mostly missiles), but he couldn’t get anyone interested in his project. But a few months after Pearl Harbor was attacked, a man named Victor showed up.

Victor wanted to put dogs in anti-submarine torpedoes, where the canine, using its amazing hearing, would hear faint sounds from the enemy submarine and steer the torpedo toward it. No one—including Skinner—was interested in Victor’s idea, but Victor began presenting Skinner’s pigeon idea to potential donors as proof that his dog idea wasn’t actually that crazy. One donor, General Mills (the cereal company), was interested in the pigeons.

Here's how it worked: The pigeons would look at an image on a screen and be trained to peck on a target, like a ship. If the image started moving off center, the pigeon would tap on the new location, and the missile would change course to keep the ship in the center of its sights. The birds performed beautifully, acing every test that Skinner could throw at them—even in front of military brass. But, according to Skinner, the military commanders couldn’t get over lingering concerns about the practicalities of using pigeons.“The spectacle of a living pigeon carrying out its assignment, no matter how beautifully, simply reminded the committee of how utterly fantastic our proposal was,” the scientist said.

Militaries around the world didn’t just focus on winged creatures as weapons during World War II. While Victor was eccentric, the Soviets did attempt to put bombs on dogs to blow up tanks. But only one exploding animal was massively successful—and not in the way governments had intended.

British agents had a plan to pack the carcasses of rats with plastic explosives and leave them near boilers in German industrial centers and on ships. When the rats were found, the British believed, whoever discovered the carcass would throw it on the fire, which would cause the bomb inside to explode with devastating consequences. But the Germans discovered a shipment of the rats before they could be used. The mission wasn’t exactly a failure, though: The Germans assumed that they had caught only one of any number of such shipments and started training their recruits to look for the dangerous rat bombs that they believed the Brits were planting. Suddenly, every rat became a potential explosive, causing “an extraordinary moral effect,” according to the special operations executive (SOE). “The trouble caused to them was a much greater success to us than if the rats had actually been used.”


“Dear Fish,” the letter began. “I wonder if you could do a drawing for me of an explosive slab of chocolate.” It’s a rather strange opening to a letter, made even stranger because it was from Lord Victor Rothschild of MI5 to an artist named Laurence Fish.

The letter was sent in response to reports that the Germans were working on peculiar ways to assassinate Winston Churchill, chief among them a bomb coated in a thin layer of chocolate that would explode and kill everyone in the room when someone broke off a piece to eat. Rothschild wanted Fish to create the drawing to warn people what to look out for when it came to explosive sweets.

But exploding chocolate wasn’t the only potentially dangerous everyday item Rothschild and Fish were concerned about. Other designs Fish drew included exploding mess tins, Thermos flasks, and motor oil cans. Agents on both sides also worked to create fake coals that contained small amounts of TNT and a detonator. When the fire consumed the exterior, the detonator would go off and the TNT would go boom. The exploding coals were made but don’t appear to have ever been used. Britain’s MI5 also cooked up a plan to sell booby-trapped souvenirs. “Native agents” would pose as vendors to sell exploding woodwork to Japanese sailors boarding ships (it’s unclear if they were ever made or used, though).

The Germans did almost get to the Brits with a bit of exploding food. In 1940, three men were discovered with bombs in cans marked "peas" on the Irish coast. The saboteurs claimed they were for Buckingham Palace, but British intelligence officers discounted that because the bombs were so primitive; they believed that the bombs were just prototypes.


In 1942, the Allies attacked the German-occupied port of Dieppe in France. It became a notorious disaster for the Allies, in no small part because their tanks and such got stuck on the beaches.

According to the Imperial War Museums, the Allies were determined to keep that from happening during D-Day. And to make sure it didn’t, Major-General Percy Hobart was tasked with coming up with a series of vehicles that would win the day. They were so strange they'd come to be dubbed "Hobart's Funnies."

One of the first vehicles to hit the shore was the Sherman Duplex Drive, or DD. Commanders were concerned that a landing craft with several tanks onboard would be destroyed and knew they needed a backup. So the Allies built a Sherman DD tank outfitted with a propeller and a canvas flotation aid. The original plan was to release the buoyant tanks around two to three miles away from shore; the tank would then move up to the beach and secure the position for the following landers. The Allies went through with that plan at Omaha Beach, but the majority of the tanks sank. But they had much more success at other beaches where the tanks were released later. The design itself was so successful that it was used for many more water crossings throughout the remainder of the European campaign.

Another vehicle used during D-Day was called the Crab. This modified Sherman tank was equipped with an arm that had a spool of chains on it. The vehicle would roll up to an obstacle and an operator would turn on the arm, causing the chains to spin at 140 RPMs, detonating mines and obliterating barbed wire for the following invasion force. (The tank itself was fully functional when the flail wasn’t moving.)

Then there was the “Bobbin” (above). To prevent vehicles from getting stuck on the sands of Normandy, the vehicle had a giant bobbin—like the kind you’d see on a sewing machine—of matting 10 feet wide and over 200 feet long that it rolled out to effectively lay carpet on the beach. This meant that following heavy vehicles wouldn’t get bogged down in the sand. The laying out of the carpet also told troops and vehicles which areas had been cleared of mines.


More from mental floss studios