Menu
Menu
The Research
Here’s Research Backing Up 5 Foundational Claims Behind Our Process
1. You will discover and learn about your own preferences in a long term partner by going through our introduction process.
a). Real Interactions Help Discover What You Actually Want
- Across three studies, the authors examined how ideal partner preferences relate to romantic interest. They found that when people evaluate partners abstractly (e.g., on paper or in profiles), their stated ideals can predict their evaluations. However, once people actually meet a potential partner face‑to‑face, their stated ideals often stop predicting attraction and desire to pursue a relationship. This indicates that real‑time interaction (expressions, tone, behavior) reshapes what people feel and teaches them what truly matters in a partner.
- Reference: Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2011). When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the process of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
b). Ideal Partner Preferences are Shaped by Actual Interactions
- This large‑scale review and empirical test aggregated data from dozens of studies examining whether people’s stated ideals for a partner predict their evaluations of real partners they have actually met (from speed‑dating partners to long‑term relationships). Overall, the authors conclude that ideal partner preferences show limited predictive validity once a person is evaluating someone they have met face‑to‑face. Experience with real partners plays a much stronger role. This supports the idea that actual interaction is where people learn what they truly value in a long‑term partner.
- Reference: Eastwick, P. W., et al. (2024). A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
c). People Often Don’t Know What They Want Until They See It
- In this study, participants described the kind of personality they believed they wanted in a romantic partner and then reported on the actual traits of their current partner. The correlations between ideals and the real partner’s traits were modest, suggesting that people often end up with partners who do not match what they originally claimed to want on paper. Real‑life relationships, formed through interaction, seem to teach people what actually works for them, as opposed to what they imagine in the abstract
- Reference: Dijkstra, P., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2008). Do people know what they want: A similar or a complementary partner? Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), 595–602.
d). Your Ideal Partner Looks Different in Real Life
- This study tested whether people’s self-reported ‘ideal partner’ preferences (e.g., physical attractiveness, earning potential) match the traits that actually inspire attraction during real-life meetings. Participants completed surveys about their ideal partner, then attended real speed-dating events. Despite men saying looks mattered more and women saying income mattered more, these differences disappeared in real-life attraction: both sexes were drawn to the same general factors once they met in person. Moreover, people’s stated ideals failed to predict who they actually liked. This means that individuals often do not truly know what drives their attraction — real chemistry overrides mental checklists. The authors concluded that people may lack introspective awareness of what influences their romantic judgments, echoing earlier psychological research by Nisbett & Wilson (1977).
- Reference: Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94*(2), 245–264. Link: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245
2. Exchanging profiles before a real introduction does more harm than good.
a). Profiles Don’t Predict Compatibility
- A comprehensive review of online dating research concluded that static profiles provide very limited predictive value for actual romantic compatibility. Real-time cues—voice, expressions, responsiveness—are far more important for assessing chemistry and long‑term fit.
- Reference: Finkel, E. J., et al. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*.
b). Attraction to Profile Pictures Does Not Correlate to Real Life Attraction
- Research shows that the kind of attraction people think they’ll feel when viewing pictures is very different from the kind of attraction they actually feel when meeting someone in real life. In one study, people’s stated preferences for physical looks only predicted who they liked in photos, while their unconscious, natural reactions predicted who they connected with during real interactions. In other words, photos trigger surface judgments, but genuine chemistry often appears only through live conversation. That’s why we focus on real, guided introductions instead of pre-judging through pictures and profiles — because true compatibility and attraction reveals itself in person, not on paper.
- Reference: Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Finkel, E. J., & Johnson, S. E. (2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: Predictive validity in different contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 993-1011.
c). The Warren Harding Error: Why Profiles Mislead
- Malcolm Gladwell uses the ‘Warren Harding Error’ to show how people make poor decisions when relying on superficial or static information—such as a resume or photo. Profiles create this same error by making people select partners based on curated, low-information snapshots instead of genuine behavior.
- Reference: Gladwell, M. (2005) *Blink*, Chapter on the Warren Harding Error.
d). Profiles Cause Cognitive Overload
- Gladwell explains how providing too much unrelated or low-quality information harms decision-making. Profiles flood users with irrelevant details, while a short real-time meeting gives clear, emotionally-relevant signals.
- Reference: Gladwell, M. (2005). *Blink*. Discussions of decision paralysis and information overload.
3. Offering a small number of curated introductions is superior to a large number of profiles.
There’s a great book on this called “The Paradox of Choice” by Barry Schwartz (2004). Here are some foundational research based findings from this book
a). Choice Overload Reduces Decision Quality
- Schwartz’s core argument is that when people are given too many choices, they become overwhelmed, anxious, and less satisfied with their decisions. In matchmaking, profiles create an illusion of endless options, which leads to indecision and unrealistic expectations. Limiting choices to real-time video introductions helps clients focus on meaningful connection rather than endless browsing.
b). The Problem of Maximizers vs. Satisficers
- Schwartz explains that ‘maximizers’ exhaustively search for the best possible option, which leads to regret and chronic dissatisfaction. Matrimonial apps and profiles create maximizers by giving users infinite profile scrolling through. Video-first matchmaking forces people into the healthier mindset of ‘satisficing’—evaluating a real human being rather than chasing a perfect fantasy profile.
c). More Options Increase Anxiety and Self-Blame
- When people have many choices and things don’t work out, Schwartz shows they tend to blame themselves, thinking they could have chosen better. This emotional drain is common in app-based courtship. Islambrella’s curated, video-first system reduces unnecessary options and helps clients feel calmer and more confident about evaluating real interactions instead of second-guessing profile decisions.
d). The Illusion of Freedom Creates Paralysis
- Schwartz argues that more choice gives the illusion of freedom but actually paralyzes people. In dating apps, endless profiles make people fear committing to any one option. Video-based introductions restore structure: one real human at a time, real conversation, and real cues that guide decision-making.
e). Regret Increases as Options Increase
- Schwartz demonstrates that when individuals choose from many options, their levels of regret greatly increase. Profiles encourage ‘grass is greener’ thinking. Face to face introductinos reduce regret because clients evaluate real compatibility instead of imagining better theoretical matches.
f). Too Many Choices Lower Satisfaction
- A key finding in the book is that satisfaction drops when choice increases because people become more critical and less appreciative. Islambrella’s curated, guided Zoom introductions create a healthier emotional experience where clients judge based on *human interaction* instead of endless comparison shopping.
g). Real Constraints Improve Happiness
- Schwartz argues that people are often happier when their options are gently constrained. Constraints focus the mind, clarify values, and reduce pressure. By replacing profiles with scheduled virtual introductions, Islambrella provides productive boundaries that support clarity, emotional comfort, and sincere engagement.
4. Assessing one match at a time is optimal.
a). Better Attention & Emotional Processing in Sequential Encounters
- Cognitive science research shows sequential presentation deepens emotional processing and focus. When choices are encountered one at a time, individuals form more stable impressions and evaluate more authentically.
- Reference: Kahneman, D. General cognitive theory on sequential emotional processing.
b). Sequential Mate Encounter is Optimal
- This study models mate choice as a sequential decision process where individuals evaluate potential mates one at a time. This reflects real-world patterns in human mate search and demonstrates that sequential evaluation supports optimal decision-making and reduces overload. Sequential matching mirrors natural mate encounter structure. (+)
- Reference: Henshaw, J. M., Jones, A. G., & Arnqvist, G. (2018). Finding the one: optimal choosiness under sequential mate encounter. Journal of Evolutionary Biology.
c). Sequential vs. Simultaneous Choice
- Research on choice bracketing reveals that simultaneous choice encourages over-comparison and mental diversification, leading to indecision and lower satisfaction. Sequential choice—evaluating one option at a time—reduces regret and leads to more thoughtful decisions. Islambrella’s one-by-one matching aligns with this structure.
- Reference: Read, D., Loewenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (1999). Choice bracketing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.
5. A face to face zoom introduction is a superior method to assess potentials.
a). Thin-Slice Judgments & Nonverbal Accuracy
- This foundational meta-analysis showed that people can make remarkably accurate judgments about personality, competence, and likability based on only a few seconds of nonverbal behavior. This supports the idea that body language, micro‑expressions, posture, and movement provide information a written profile cannot.
- Reference: Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences. *Psychological Bulletin*.
b). Nonverbal Behavior in Virtual Communication
- This research demonstrated that video communication allows for transmission of emotional cues that are completely missing in text-based or profile-based interactions. These cues—especially tone, expression, and timing—are essential for interpreting warmth, humor, and sincerity.
- Reference: Derks, D., Fischer, A. H., & Bos, A. E. (2008). The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication. *Computers in Human Behavior*.
c). The Role of Vocal Tone in Person Perception
- This research emphasized that voice reveals emotional states, confidence, warmth, and social intentions. These cues significantly alter how people judge likability and compatibility—factors absent from text profiles and messaging
- Reference: Scherer, K. R. (2003). Vocal communication of emotion. *Speech Communication*.
d). High Impression Accuracy Over Video Calls
- This study found that individuals meeting over brief video calls formed impressions nearly as accurate as those formed during in‑person interactions. This accuracy did not occur when participants only had access to written descriptions.
- Reference: Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2013). Targeted accuracy in first impressions. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*.