The Relation Between Big Five Personality Traits and Relationship Formation Through Matchmaking

Abstract

Previous research has linked Big Five personality traits—agreeableness, openness to experience, neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness—to relationship initiation in speed dating and relationship quality in long-term relationships. However, little is known about their role in matchmaking, where a matchmaker selects potential partners based on individual preferences and guides the dating process. This study examined whether the Big Five personality traits predict relationship formation in a matchmaking context. The sample included 1704 participants (48.5% men, 51.5% women; mean age = 62.5 years) living in the Netherlands. Personality was measured at baseline using the NEO-FFI questionnaire. Relationship formation success was defined as being in a relationship for at least three months. None of the Big Five traits predicted matchmaking success. Personality traits did not significantly predict relationship success in professionally guided matchmaking, suggesting that personality may play a limited role in this particular dating context.

1. Introduction

For heterosexual couples in the United States, online dating has become the most common way to form romantic connections, surpassing introductions through friends (Rosenfeld et al., 2019). The commercial online dating industry is valued at billions of dollars and impacts millions of people each year (Finkel et al., 2012). Matchmaking was historically characterized by real-life interactions and facilitated by religious and community leaders (Finkel et al., 2012; Sprecher et al., 2008). In contemporary contexts, however, it is typically offered as a secular and personalized service. This kind of matchmaking—offline, i.e., in real life, guided by a professional matchmaker—seems to be on the rise again, largely driven by dissatisfaction with online dating (Hill, 2023; Sharabi, 2024). This resurgence indicates a growing interest in more personalized, human-guided romantic experiences. Unlike the algorithmic systems often used in online dating, matchmaking promises compatibility grounded in shared values and intentional selection processes (Golker & Senior, 2021; Knudson, 2017; Sharabi, 2024; Shepherd, 2016). However, research on matchmaking remains relatively underexplored compared to studies on other dating services, such as online dating and speed dating (Knudson, 2017). Specifically, it is unclear which factors predict successful relationship formation through matchmaking. This study focused on personality traits as predictors of matchmaking outcomes.

Matchmaking is a personalized process in which a matchmaker selects potential partners based on individual preferences and needs, rather than relying on algorithmic matching systems. During an initial interview, clients communicate the characteristics they seek in a mate, enabling matchmakers to offer personalized suggestions and guidance (Golker & Senior, 2021; Sharabi, 2024). Matchmakers prioritize relational values, life goals, and compatibility factors such as family orientation, communication style, and lifestyle preferences. Traits such as shared humor, openness to compromise, and emotional availability are often emphasized as indicators of relational potential, rather than relying solely on standardized personality measures. Moreover, although matchmakers have access to client photographs to assist in the matching process, clients are typically introduced to potential partners without seeing a photograph beforehand. This approach encourages clients to focus more on substantive qualities predictive of long-term relationship success (Buston & Emlen, 2003; Todd et al., 2007). Unlike speed dating, where immediate, observable attributes such as physical attractiveness often dominate partner selection (Chopik & Johnson, 2021; Joel et al., 2017; Todd et al., 2007), matchmaking emphasizes compatibility and a deeper relational fit over initial attraction.

Relationship formation through matchmaking differs from both long-term relationships, where a shared history and emotional intimacy are already present, and fast-paced dating formats such as speed dating, where partner decisions are often based on immediate impressions. The early phase of dating, particularly the first three months, is considered a critical period in which attachment bonds can begin to form (Heffernan et al., 2012; Fagundes & Schindler, 2012; Watkins et al., 2022). In initial encounters, individuals tend to rely on surface-level cues such as physical appearance and perceived social charisma. This is especially true in speed dating, where decisions must be made within minutes, often amplifying the influence of concrete, perceptual features over more abstract qualities. In contrast, structured dating environments like matchmaking—where the process begins with written profiles, followed by guided communication and face-to-face meetings—may encourage individuals to attend to more enduring characteristics such as shared values, personality fit, and relationship goals earlier in the acquaintance process (Fletcher & Kerr, 2010; Lee et al., 2008). These contextual differences may influence the psychological processes involved in partner evaluation and thus shape the role that broad personality traits play in early relationship formation. This contextual distinction provides a compelling basis for examining whether Big Five traits—extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism—predict success in the unique setting of professional matchmaking. Accordingly, this study investigated whether personality traits assessed at the start of the matchmaking process would predict successful relationship formation after three months of dating.

1.1. Big Five Personality Traits

Personality traits, as defined by the Big Five model (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism), can influence partner selection, as they are linked to individual differences in perception (Jonason & Sherman, 2020; Serfass & Sherman, 2013). Prior research suggests that personality’s role in romantic outcomes is context-dependent (Weidmann et al., 2023). In speed dating, traits like extraversion and openness to experience predict initial attraction (e.g., Back et al., 2010; Dufner et al., 2013), while in long-term relationships, conscientiousness and low neuroticism are linked to relationship satisfaction and relationship stability (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016; Sayehmiri et al., 2020; Weidmann et al., 2023). Conversely, studies on online dating show that personality traits have limited predictive value for dating success, defined as initial attraction and the intention to pursue a relationship (Finkel et al., 2012; Joel et al., 2017). Given these previous mixed findings, we aimed to examine whether broad personality traits predict matchmaking outcomes.

The process of fledgling relationship formation, particularly when guided through matchmaking, involves an interaction between individual dispositions and structural elements. While personality traits shape initial reactions and expectations, the matchmaking format moderates how these traits are expressed and evaluated. In this matchmaking context, demographic factors such as gender and age may influence partner preferences and the interpretation and social relevance of personality signals in early-stage relational dynamics. Previous research suggests that men and women tend to prioritize different characteristics in a partner (Buss, 1989; Zentner & Mitura, 2012), and that personality traits—such as neuroticism or agreeableness—may have different effects depending on gendered expectations and dating behaviors (Eastwick et al., 2011; Finkel et al., 2012; Jonason & Sherman, 2020). To account for these gendered dynamics, we additionally explored whether the predictive value of the Big Five traits differed for men and women.

To summarize, the main aim of this study was to examine whether broad personality traits predict matchmaking outcomes. Drawing on prior research from speed dating and long-term relationship studies, we hypothesized that extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness would be positively associated with matchmaking success, whereas neuroticism would be negatively associated. Agreeableness, given its inconsistent associations across studies, was included as an exploratory predictor. Below, we outline the theoretical rationale for each hypothesis, organized by trait.

1.2. Extraversion

Research on speed dating has revealed an impact of Big Five personality traits on initial attraction and partner selection. In particular, extraversion seems to predict dating success. Extraverted individuals are often perceived as attractive and socially adept during speed dating encounters (Back et al., 2010; Dufner et al., 2013). Levy et al. (2019) found that extraversion was positively associated with the number of matches on dating apps, suggesting that this trait may be advantageous in online dating. The openness, enthusiasm, and social skills of extroverts (Costa & McCrae, 1992) might positively influence first impressions.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). 

Higher levels of extraversion are positively associated with successful relationship formation in a matchmaking context.

1.3. Openness to Experience

Openness to experience can lead to engaging conversations and a positive first impression (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2004). Individuals open to new experiences are often perceived as interesting and exciting (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Open individuals’ curiosity and adaptability may enhance their receptiveness to diverse partner characteristics and new relational experiences. Openness to experience has been linked to satisfaction in long-term relationships (Sayehmiri et al., 2020; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2011).

Hypothesis 2 (H2). 

Higher levels of openness to experience are positively associated with successful relationship formation in a matchmaking context.

1.4. Conscientiousness

Although less research has focused on conscientiousness in speed dating, studies suggest that conscientious individuals are often perceived as reliable and responsible (Back et al., 2010). This could create a positive first impression, as these traits are often associated with relationship stability and commitment (Engel et al., 2002; Sternberg, 1986; Sternberg, 1998). Conscientious individuals are often reliable, committed, and loyal (Caspi et al., 2005), which are important qualities for building stable and lasting relationships (Gottman & Gottman, 2017). Indeed, long-term couples high in conscientiousness appear to be more satisfied with their marital life (Chopik & Lucas, 2019; Sayehmiri et al., 2020).

Hypothesis 3 (H3). 

Higher levels of conscientiousness are positively associated with successful relationship formation in a matchmaking context.

1.5. Agreeableness

Agreeableness can sometimes be perceived negatively as a lack of assertiveness or as being overly compliant in the speed dating context, particularly in Western cultures (Hornsey et al., 2015; Urbaniak & Kilmann, 2006). However, agreeable individuals are often attentive, understanding, and focused on their partner’s needs (Graziano & Tobin, 2009). These qualities contribute to a positive atmosphere and strong emotional bonds in long-term relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Hypothesis 4 (H4). 

Higher levels of agreeableness are positively associated with successful relationship formation in a matchmaking context.

1.6. Neuroticism

Individuals high in neuroticism may appear nervous or anxious during speed dating (Caspi et al., 2005), which can negatively impact first impressions (White et al., 2004). Individuals high in neuroticism may struggle with managing stress and conflict in relationships (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2004), leading to dissatisfaction and instability (Chopik & Lucas, 2019; Fisher & McNulty, 2008; Donnellan et al., 2007; Holmberg et al., 2013; Sayehmiri et al., 2020). Neuroticism’s association with emotional instability and heightened interpersonal sensitivity may undermine relationship-building.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). 

Higher levels of neuroticism are negatively associated with successful relationship formation in a matchmaking context.

In addition to these hypotheses, we explored whether gender moderates the association between personality traits and matchmaking success.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

■

Sampling procedure

The participants were single individuals living alone who applied to a matchmaking agency intending to find a long-lasting romantic relationship. Recruitment for the study occurred during the regular registration activities of the matchmaking program, which included a home visit by the matchmaker for an in-depth interview. During this interview, clients were informed about the study and invited to participate. Those who agreed to participate provided verbal consent and later received an email with a link to the computerized questionnaire including an online consent to confirm their participation. Participants without an email address received the questionnaire and consent form by regular mail.

The exclusion criteria for the matchmaking program included age (18 years and younger) and diagnosed mental health conditions that, based on the matchmaker’s expertise, would significantly hinder the ability to maintain a healthy relationship. No additional inclusion or exclusion criteria applied to participation in the study.

■

Participant characteristics

Of the 1993 individuals who agreed to participate in this study, 1925 completed the initial questionnaires, 64 participants quit the program prematurely, 154 postponed matchmaking for personal reasons, and 46 dated the proposed partner for less than three months. After the exclusion of participants who did not complete the questionnaires, those who quit or postponed the matching program, and those who had been dating for less than three months (see outcome measure), a total of 1704 participants were included in the final analysis, of whom 51.2% were women and 48.8% were men. The mean age was 62.5 years (SD = 12.35), ranging from 27 to 96 years. Regarding education, 44.8% had completed secondary education or lower, 39.0% held an undergraduate degree, and 16.3% had an academic degree or higher. Most participants (87.7%) reported no religious affiliation, 10.3% were active smokers, the mean height was 170.6 cm (SD = 7.3 cm), 12.8% had children living at home, and 28.4% had children who had moved out. The majority of the participants identified as white (97.7%).

■

Power Analysis

An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the required sample size for a logistic regression model with eight predictors (five core predictors: the Big Five personality traits; three control variables: age, gender, and educational level). The power analysis was performed using the Python module statsmodels.stats.power (Seabold & Perktold, 2010). The parameters included a medium effect size (f² = 0.10), a significance level of α = 0.05, and a desired power of 80% (1 − β = 0.80). The results indicated that a minimum sample size of 566 participants was required.

2.2. Procedure

■

Study design

This study assessed the predictive value of the Big Five personality traits for fledgling relationship formation—i.e., early-stage relationships that have not yet fully stabilized or resulted in formal commitment—in a matchmaking context, using a longitudinal design. The participants completed the Big Five Personality questionnaire at the start of the matchmaking program. The outcome measure (successful or unsuccessful relationship formation) was assessed at three months. The researchers did not participate in the matchmaking process to ensure unbiased data collection.

■

Matching Procedure

The maximum duration of the matchmaking program in this study was 15 months. To find a promising match, the matchmaker regularly consulted with other matchmakers in the network. If a match was found, the matchmaker proposed a potential partner to the client and advised them to meet each other three times. After this dating period, the client and matchmaker evaluated the participant’s acquaintance with the proposed partner by phone or email. After six weeks of dating, both participants received an email asking if they liked each other or would rather have another match proposal. Three months after the initial introduction, both participants received a follow-up email asking whether they considered themselves to be in a committed relationship with the proposed partner. If both reported being in a relationship, the match was classified as successful. Participants who reported a successful match no longer received new partner proposals. This three-month threshold is supported by research showing that attachment bonds typically begin to form during the early stages of dating (Fagundes & Schindler, 2012; Heffernan et al., 2012; Watkins et al., 2022).

2.3. Materials

■

Big Five Personality

The Big Five Personality dimensions were assessed using the validated Dutch NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) (Hoekstra et al., 1996). This questionnaire comprises 60 self-descriptive statements—12 per trait—rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), with 28 items reverse-worded. Example items include “I often feel tense and jittery” (neuroticism) and “I am outgoing and sociable” (extraversion). The NEO-FFI is a widely validated instrument and was administered in Dutch, using the officially translated and validated version. The NEO-FFI showed high reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.75 to 0.83 in the initial validation study (McCrae & Costa, 2010). In the current sample the reliability of the Big Five personality scales, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was acceptable to good: neuroticism (α = 0.75), extraversion (α = 0.76), openness to experience (α = 0.72), agreeableness (α = 0.74), and conscientiousness (α = 0.77).

■

Outcome measurement

The outcome measure in this study was fledgling relationship formation—defined as early-stage relationships that had not yet stabilized or resulted in formal commitment. Success in fledgling relationship formation was assessed via self-report during a follow-up conducted three months after the initial matchmaker introduction, based on whether participants considered themselves to be in a committed relationship. A match was classified as successful if both clients reported being in a committed relationship at follow-up. If one or both clients reported not being in a relationship, the match was classified as unsuccessful. Clients who had been dating for less than three months at the time of follow-up were excluded from the analysis, as their outcome status could not yet be determined.

3. Data Analysis

To examine whether the Big Five personality traits predicted fledgling relationship formation (coded as 1 = in a relationship after 3 months of dating, 0 = not in a relationship) a logistic regression was performed. The model included three covariates: age (continuous), gender (coded as 1 = male and 2 = female), and education level (coded as 1 = lower secondary or below, 2 = undergraduate degree, and 3 = academic degree). These covariates were included alongside the five standardized Big Five personality traits (agreeableness, openness to experience, neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness).

To explore whether gender moderated the association between personality traits and fledging relationship formation, a second logistic regression analysis was performed with the covariates, the Big Five personality traits, and interaction terms including each personality trait × gender (i.e., neuroticism × gender, extraversion × gender, etc.), as well as an age × gender interaction. Interaction terms were computed as product terms between the standardized predictors and the gender variable (for the Big Five traits) and between age and gender for the age × gender interaction.

Model fit was assessed using the Hosmer–Lemeshow test and Nagelkerke R². All analyses were conducted on complete cases (N = 1704). Statistical assumptions, such as normality and homoscedasticity, were checked and met for the variables used in the regression. Analyses were conducted in SPSS version 29, effect sizes were interpreted as recommended by Cohen (1988), and results were interpreted against a significance threshold of 5%. Before the analyses, the data were examined for the accuracy of data entry and missing values. Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses were used to explore the data.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the Big Five personality scores in the full sample (N = 1704).

Predictors	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Dev.
Agreeableness	31.00	60.00	47.84	5.20
Openness	19.00	57.00	39.35	6.14
Neuroticism	12.00	54.00	28.04	6.04
Extraversion	21.00	58.00	43.31	5.57
Conscientiousness	24.00	60.00	48.40	5.22
Age	27	96	62.54	12.35

Note. Scores range from 12 to 60. Higher scores indicate stronger expression of each trait. No extreme outliers or skewed distributions were observed; descriptive statistics were within expected ranges.

shows descriptive statistics of the Big Five personality scores.

Of the 1704 participants, 826 were men (48.5%) and 878 were women (51.5%). Of these participants, 1355 (79.5%) reported being in a relationship three months after the initial contact. The success rates were 82.2% for men and 77.0% for women.

4.2. Correlations

Most of the Big Five personality traits were significantly correlated with each other (see

Table 2. Correlations among Big Five Traits, education level, and age.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Neuroticism	—
2. Extraversion	−0.43 **	—
3. Agreeableness	−0.39 **	0.28 **	—
4. Conscientiousness	−0.41 **	0.43 **	0.29 **	—
5. Openness	−0.20 **	0.13 **	0.25 **	0.02	—
6. Education Level	−0.20 **	0.05	0.15 **	0.06	0.42 **	—
7. Age	−0.07 **	0.02	0.03	−0.02	0.04	0.03	—
8. Gender	−0.02	0.08 **	0.31 **	−0.02	0.31 **	0.13 **	−0.04

Note. Pearson correlations are reported. Correlations involving gender (coded 1 = male, 2 = female) represent point-biserial correlations. Education level was coded as 1 = lower secondary or below, 2 = undergraduate degree, and 3 = academic degree. ** p < 0.001.

). Neuroticism was negatively correlated with the other four traits, while the remaining traits were all positively intercorrelated.

4.3. Logistic Regression: Main Effects

The model with success in fledgling relationship formation as the dependent variable and age, gender, education, and the Big Five personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness) as independent variables was not statistically significant, χ²(8) = 12.19, p = 0.143. The Nagelkerke R² was 0.01, and the Hosmer–Lemeshow test indicated no significant lack of fit, χ²(8) = 6.71, p = 0.568. See

Table 3. Logistic regression predicting matchmaking success.

Predictor	B	SE	Wald	p	Exp(B)	95% CI Exp(B)
Age	0.01	0.01	1.03	0.311	1.01	[0.99; 1.02]
Gender	−0.26	1.34	3.80	0.051	0.77	[0.95; 1.00]
Education	−0.05	0.09	0.34	0.558	0.95	[0.79; 1.13]
Agreeableness	−0.04	0.07	0.25	0.614	0.96	[0.84; 1.10]
Openness	−0.06	0.07	0.74	0.390	0.94	[0.82; 1.08]
Neuroticism	0.04	0.08	0.36	0.551	1.05	[0.90; 1.21]
Extraversion	0.09	0.07	1.53	0.216	1.09	[0.95; 1.26]
Conscientiousness	0.02	0.07	0.10	0.750	1.02	[0.89; 1.17]
Intercept	1.54	0.41	13.99	<0.001	4.68

Note. The Big Five traits were standardized (z-scores). Gender was coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. The constant represents the log-odds of matchmaking success when all predictors are zero.

.

None of the Big Five personality traits, nor the covariates (age, gender, and education level), significantly predicted matchmaking success, as indicated by non-significant p-values and odds ratios (Exp(B)) close to 1.00. The 95% confidence intervals for all predictors include 1.00, suggesting that even if small effects exist, they are unlikely to be practically meaningful. The model accounted for 1% of the variance in relationship outcomes (Nagelkerke R² = 0.01).

4.4. Interaction Model and Gender-Specific Effects

A second logistic regression analysis was conducted in which all predictors and interaction terms were entered simultaneously. This model included age, gender, education level, the Big Five traits, and interaction terms between each trait and gender, as well as an age × gender interaction. The model, including all predictors and interaction terms, was not statistically significant, χ²(14) = 21.43, p = 0.091. The Nagelkerke R² was 0.02, and the Hosmer–Lemeshow test indicated no significant lack of fit, χ²(8) = 13.00, p = 0.112.

Among the interaction terms, only the effect of neuroticism × gender reached statistical significance. The age × gender interaction was not significant, suggesting that the predictive value of age did not differ substantially between men and women. See

Table 4. Logistic regression model with gender interactions.

Predictor	B	SE	Wald	p-Value	Exp(B)	95% CI
Age	−0.01	0.02	0.48	0.491	0.99	[0.96; 1.02]
Education	−0.04	0.09	0.18	0.672	0.96	[0.80; 1.15]
Gender	−0.90	0.64	1.99	0.158	0,41	[0.12; 1.42]
Agreeableness	−0.26	0.23	1.28	0.259	0.77	[0.49; 1.21]
Openness	−0.13	0.22	0.34	0.558	0.88	[0.58; 1.34]
Neuroticism	−0.47	0.24	3.89	0.048	0.63	[0.49; 1.00]
Extraversion	0.18	0.23	0.61	0.434	1.20	[0.76; 1.88]
Conscientiousness	0.10	0.24	0.18	0.668	1.11	[0.70; 1.76]
Gender × Agreeableness	0.15	0.15	1.10	0.294	1.17	[0.88; 1.55]
Gender × Openness	0.04	0.13	0.09	0.770	1.04	[0.80; 1.34]
Gender × Neuroticism	0.34	0.15	5.23	0.022	1.41	[1.05; 1.89]
Gender × Extraversion	−0.06	0.14	0,18	0.668	0.94	[0.71; 1.24]
Gender × Conscientiousness	−0.05	0.14	0.13	0.719	0.95	[0.72; 1.26]
Age × Gender	0.01	0.01	1.06	0.303	1.01	[0.99; 1.03]
Intercept	2.48	0.99	6.30	0.012	11.91

Note. The Big Five traits were standardized (Z-scores). Gender was coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. Interaction terms were computed as product terms between gender and standardized trait scores.

.

Stratified analyses showed no significant effects of neuroticism on matchmaking success for either men or women. However, among women, the association was marginally positive (B = 0.17, p = 0.06), whereas no such trend was observed among men (B = −0.13, p = 0.14).

Overall, within this sample, no significant relationships were found between age, gender, education, the Big Five personality traits, and success in the matchmaking process.

5. Discussion

This study investigated whether Big Five personality traits, assessed at the start of a professional matchmaking program, predict fledgling relationship formation. Success in fledgling relationship formation was defined as both partners reporting, three months after the initial matchmaker introduction, that they were in a committed relationship. In contrast to some prior studies on personality and romantic relationship initiation, none of the Big Five traits significantly predicted relationship formation in this real-life context. While small associations were observed, they did not reach statistical significance in the main analyses.

Prior speed-dating research has shown that Big Five traits can predict initial romantic choices, particularly traits like extraversion and openness, which tend to dominate in situations that rely on first impressions and rapid decision-making (Back et al., 2010; Dufner et al., 2013; Todd et al., 2007). In these contexts, individuals evaluate potential partners based on immediately observable characteristics, such as attractiveness, sociability, or self-confidence. Our findings, however, align more closely with studies on online dating and structured matchmaking, which report a limited predictive value of personality traits for relationship initiation (Finkel et al., 2012; Joel et al., 2017).

One possible explanation lies in the way different dating contexts shape the evaluation process. According to Construal Level Theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010), individuals adjust their judgments depending on the psychological distance of a decision: when that distance increases, they rely less on concrete features (“low-level construals”) and more on abstract qualities (“high-level construals”), such as long-term compatibility. In speed dating, impressions are formed in person and on the spot, encouraging immediate, surface-level evaluations. By contrast, professional matchmaking introduces a stepwise process: candidates are presented via written profiles, then connected through mediated communication, and only later meet in person. This structure invites high-level construals earlier in the process, which may diminish the relevance of static personality traits in favor of more emergent, context-sensitive impressions. Although matchmakers have access to client photos, participants do not see each other’s pictures before the introduction. As a result, superficial cues may carry less weight than in other dating formats, and actual relational dynamics may become more central to success. This interpretation is supported by recent findings suggesting that personality traits are not expressed uniformly across situations, and that their predictive power diminishes in structured social environments with clear behavioral scripts (Nasello et al., 2024).

A noteworthy finding from the exploratory analyses was the interaction between neuroticism and gender, suggesting that the predictive value of this trait differed between men and women. This finding, while exploratory, aligns with prior research suggesting that emotional traits may be perceived differently depending on gender roles (Jonason & Sherman, 2020). This small interaction effect may tentatively reflect gender differences in how neurotic traits manifest or are perceived in early-stage romantic contexts. For example, higher levels of neuroticism in men may be more likely to evoke perceptions of emotional instability or insecurity, which could reduce their appeal as a long-term partner. Among women, similar levels of neuroticism may be less penalized or differently interpreted. Given the modest effect size and low overall explained variance, this finding should be interpreted with caution.

This study’s focus on fledgling relationships may have limited the ability to detect the influence of neuroticism and conscientiousness. These traits are likely to have a stronger impact on relationship quality over time, particularly when couples face stressors like new parenthood, illness, or financial difficulties (Donnellan et al., 2007; Solomon & Jackson, 2014). For instance, a partner high in neuroticism might struggle with emotional regulation during conflict, while a conscientious partner might approach challenges with a proactive and solution-oriented mindset. The effects of these traits might become more pronounced after couples have cohabitated for a longer period and experienced various life challenges.

Our findings align with the conclusions of Finkel et al. (2012) and Joel et al. (2017), who argue that personality traits and self-reported preferences are minimally predictive of success in online dating. Successful dating and relationship formation might be determined more by observable behaviors than by underlying personality structures. According to prior research, relationship initiation and development may involve a partner’s willingness to try new activities, tolerate novelty and ambiguity, and explore (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2004). These behaviors can be exhibited by individuals with diverse personalities, and, conversely, people with similar personalities may behave differently due to variations in self-regulation and social skills. For instance, both introverted and extroverted individuals can learn to project confidence, and anyone can develop better listening skills, regardless of personality traits. Stavrova and Ehlebracht’s (2015) longitudinal study supports this notion, demonstrating that prosocial behavior increases both the desirability of hypothetical partners and the actual acquisition of romantic partners, even after accounting for personality traits. If applicable to the current context, this suggests that enhancing dating and relationship skills might be a more effective route to relationship formation than focusing on personality traits.

6. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

6.1. Strengths

The current study has several important strengths. First, this study was adequately powered to detect even small effects. The fact that the Big Five personality traits did not predict matchmaking success is thus unlikely to be due to insufficient statistical power.

Second, the age range of the participants, with a mean age of 62 years, can be considered a strength of the current study. Given that finding a suitable partner can be particularly challenging for older adults (Ajrouch et al., 2005; McPherson et al., 2001; McWilliams & Barrett, 2012; Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012), and that most previous research on dating has primarily focused on young adults (McWilliams & Barrett, 2012), this study provides a valuable contribution to the literature on relationship formation in later life.

Another strength is the unambiguous outcome measurement. The success of the matchmaking was measured based on whether the participants had a partner with whom they were together for at least three months and with mutual intentions to stay together. This measure has great practical importance, as it is based on the actual choice of the participant, rather than just their ideal partner preferences. This is important since previous research showed that the ideal partner preferences of individuals are poor predictors of real partner choices (Eastwick et al., 2011; Todd et al., 2007; Valentova et al., 2016).

6.2. Limitations

Several limitations of the present study should be noted. To enhance clarity, they are grouped into three thematic domains.

The first limitation concerns measurement limitations. Relationship success was operationalized as both partners reporting, three months after the initial matchmaker introduction, that they were in a committed relationship. While this criterion aligns with prior research on early attachment formation (Heffernan et al., 2012; Fagundes & Schindler, 2012), it does not capture broader indicators such as relational satisfaction, emotional closeness, or communication dynamics. In addition, this study focused exclusively on broad personality traits. Other factors—such as social competence, attachment orientation, dating motivation, or past relationship history—may also play a significant role in early romantic outcomes (Finkel & Eastwick, 2015; Eastwick et al., 2011). Future research would benefit from multidimensional outcome measures and more comprehensive predictor models.

The second limitation concerns design and sample characteristics. This study relied on individual-level data, precluding the examination of dyadic dynamics or partner effects. Compatibility is often shaped by the interplay between both individuals’ traits and behaviors (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016; Klohnen & Luo, 2003). Moreover, while the focus on an older demographic (M = 62.5 years) offers a valuable contribution to an underrepresented group in dating research, it may limit generalizability to younger cohorts who may approach dating with different priorities and expectations (Ajrouch et al., 2005; McWilliams & Barrett, 2012).

The third limitation concerns generalizability. The sample was relatively homogeneous: all participants were heterosexual, predominantly white, and based in the Netherlands, with limited religious diversity. Sociocultural backgrounds and religious orientations may affect dating behaviors and expectations (Milevsky et al., 2011; Engelberg, 2011). Furthermore, the structured nature of professional matchmaking, with curated introductions, no photos, and guided follow-up, differs markedly from unstructured or app-based dating contexts. Individuals who opt into matchmaking may also differ in motivation and self-awareness. These factors may limit the generalizability of the findings to more diverse or informal dating environments.

7. Conclusions

While personality may influence initial attraction and long-term relationships, our study showed no predictive value of the Big Five traits for matchmaking success after three months of dating. These findings have practical implications for modern dating, whether through professional services or through informal channels. The way romantic connections are initiated appears to shape how individuals evaluate potential partners. Structured formats like matchmaking may emphasize shared values and long-term compatibility, whereas fast, visually driven settings—such as dating apps or speed dating—tend to highlight superficial traits. Supporting a shift toward more intentional, value-based partner evaluation—through coaching, platform design, or user guidance—may foster more meaningful and enduring relationships in a culture increasingly shaped by immediacy and an abundance of choice.