1. Introduction

Personality traits are widely assumed to influence romantic outcomes. In both scientific literature and commercial dating services, the Big Five personality model is often used to predict relationship satisfaction and partner compatibility. However, most existing research has focused on established relationships or early-stage attraction in speed-dating or online contexts. Much less is known about the predictive value of personality traits in real-life, human-guided matchmaking processes.

Professional matchmaking services offer a distinctive context in which trained matchmakers introduce clients based on interviews, compatibility assessments, and client preferences. Unlike online platforms, matchmaking typically involves no prior photo exchange, focuses on long-term goals, and provides guidance throughout the dating process. This structured and personal environment raises the question: Do Big Five personality traits predict who will form a successful romantic relationship through professional matchmaking?

This entry presents a summary of an empirical study that tested this question, using data from 1,704 Dutch clients enrolled in a long-term matchmaking program. The findings challenge the assumption that personality traits, as measured by standardized self-report instruments, significantly affect early-stage relationship outcomes in real-world matchmaking.

2. Theoretical Background: Big Five Traits and Romantic Relationship Formation

The Big Five model comprises five broad personality dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. These traits have been associated with numerous interpersonal behaviors and are often thought to influence romantic compatibility and partner choice.

In the context of speed dating and online attraction, certain traits—particularly Extraversion and Openness—have been linked to positive first impressions and greater dating success. Extraverts are typically more socially assertive and expressive, which may enhance their appeal in rapid-interaction settings. Open individuals are often described as intellectually curious and emotionally expressive, qualities that foster connection in exploratory encounters.

In long-term romantic relationships, traits such as Conscientiousness and low Neuroticism have been consistently linked to relationship stability, conflict resolution, and partner satisfaction. These traits may help individuals navigate emotional stress, cooperate during difficult periods, and maintain commitment. However, the relevance of these traits in the initiation of romantic relationships—especially in curated, non-visual introductions—has been less studied.

3. Matchmaking as a Context for Studying Relationship Formation

Unlike online dating, where visual cues and brief textual descriptions drive partner selection, matchmaking relies on in-depth personal interviews and compatibility judgments made by professionals. Clients describe what they seek in a partner, and matchmakers use this information—combined with clinical and intuitive expertise—to identify potential matches.

This context is particularly valuable for studying relationship formation because:

• It reduces the influence of immediate visual impressions.

• It increases control over the matching process.

• It encourages clients to reflect on long-term goals and values rather than short-term attraction.

Moreover, clients are often introduced to partners without having seen a photo in advance, which allows researchers to examine whether substantive characteristics, such as personality traits, influence relational outcomes independently of appearance-based attraction.

The study under review used a strict definition of success: a mutual decision to continue dating after three months. This early-stage marker, while not indicating long-term commitment, is theorized to reflect the initial formation of attachment bonds and is a practical, observable milestone in the matchmaking process.

4. Method and Sample

The study included 1,704 participants (51.2% women, 48.8% men; mean age = 62.5 years) who enrolled in a professional matchmaking program in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2021. The sample was diverse in terms of age (ranging from 27 to 96 years), with a majority identifying as White and non-religious.

All participants completed the NEO-FFI, a 60-item self-report instrument assessing the Big Five traits. The questionnaire was administered either online or via mail, depending on participant preference. Data on relationship outcome—whether the participant was in a relationship with the matched partner after three months—were collected through follow-up contact.

Participants who postponed their search, dropped out, or dated for less than three months were excluded from analysis. The study used a binary logistic regression model, including age, gender, and education as covariates.

5. Results: No Predictive Effect of Personality Traits

The primary logistic regression analysis revealed that none of the Big Five traits significantly predicted relationship formation after three months of dating. Control variables (age, gender, education) also did not contribute significantly to the model. The explained variance was negligible (Nagelkerke R² = .01), and odds ratios for all predictors hovered around 1.00.

These findings suggest that personality traits, as measured at the outset of the matchmaking process, did not meaningfully predict relational success. This contradicts the hypothesis that higher Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness—or lower Neuroticism—would be associated with greater success in matchmaking.

6. Interpretation and Possible Explanations

There are several possible explanations for the absence of predictive effects:

1. Trait invisibility: In the early phases of dating, particularly in settings with guided introductions and non-visual selection, traits may not be readily observable or salient.

2. Compensatory social behavior: Individuals may adapt their communication style or behavior during dating, regardless of dispositional traits. For example, introverts can learn to initiate conversation, and neurotic individuals may regulate anxious behaviors in structured contexts.

3. Matchmaker filtering: Because matchmakers already screen and coach clients, the sample may consist of individuals whose personality traits fall within a functional range, reducing variability.

4. Trait irrelevance for early-stage bonding: Initial romantic decisions may rely more on motivation, shared values, and mutual responsiveness than on abstract traits. Qualities like emotional availability or relational goals may be more decisive.

5. Contextual suppression: The curated nature of matchmaking may suppress natural variation in expression of traits. Social scripts and matchmaker guidance could mask trait-related differences.

7. Implications for Practice and Research

These findings have both theoretical and practical implications. From a scientific standpoint, they suggest that the predictive power of Big Five traits is limited in certain real-world romantic settings. Models of relationship initiation should expand to include:

• Attachment styles

• Motivational readiness

• Situational context

• Interpersonal dynamics beyond trait frameworks

For matchmaking professionals, the study supports a move away from standardized personality tests as matching criteria. Instead, efforts may be better invested in:

• Exploring clients’ relationship history

• Understanding their values and goals

• Coaching in communication and emotional awareness

This does not mean personality is irrelevant, but rather that broad traits may not translate into observable outcomes in the early phases of guided romantic connection.

8. Strengths and Limitations

This study was one of the largest to investigate relationship formation in a real-world matchmaking setting. Its strengths include:

• A large, diverse sample

• High ecological validity

• Clear, behaviorally defined outcomes

• Use of a well-validated personality instrument

However, limitations must be acknowledged:

• The sample primarily consisted of older adults, which may limit generalizability.

• Cultural and contextual factors (e.g., Dutch norms, professional guidance) may not apply elsewhere.

• The study could not assess dyadic trait interactions, as only one partner per match was typically included in the sample.

Future studies might address these limitations by incorporating dyadic data and examining how trait interactions or similarity influence outcomes.

9. Conclusion

The assumption that personality traits predict romantic relationship formation does not hold in professionally guided matchmaking settings. Despite strong theoretical links between personality and interpersonal success, the Big Five traits failed to predict whether clients would be in a relationship three months after being matched.

This underscores the importance of context in romantic processes. In environments emphasizing compatibility, human guidance, and shared goals, traits may play a lesser role than motivation, responsiveness, and interactional fit.