Role: Research Lead
Background
For years, OkCupid has received customer support feedback from single people that they don’t want to see people in non-monogamous relationships, and from non-monogamous people who don’t want to see people who are only interested in monogamy. Additionally, while we had many non-monogamous features, many of them were broken. We wanted to design a solution that would both solve the CS pain point and improve the broken features that exist. It was necessary to understand how a variety of users view non-monogamy and interact with the current monogamy features to contextualize the generalizability of these pain points and anticipate ecosystem impacts of design changes. Throughout this study, I revealed to stakeholders the ways in which online dating clashes with identity and the impact this clash can have on a user-generated content platform.
Research Questions
Part 1: Understanding non-monogamy on OkCupid
How are different types of users using our monogamy and non-monogamy options?
What are the different use cases for monogamy and non-monogamy options?
Part 2: Testing non-monogamy design changes
How do users across the Monogamy spectrum react to the redesigned features?
How do users across the Monogamy spectrum behave when met with the redesigned features?
Do users understand how our new monogamy system works?
Approach
Part 1: Understanding non-monogamy on OkCupid
Remote interviews with current users with varying views of non-monogamy
Part 2: Testing non-monogamy design changes
Moderated testing with current users who openly identified as non-monogamous
Unmoderated testing with a mix of users and non-users within the general population.
Findings
In part one, I found that many users have different definitions of non-monogamy and their relationships to the concept depending on their own definition. As a result, I conceptualized clusters of viewpoints and behaviors on a spectrum of non-monogamy personas. I also found that the main CS pain point actually related to users on the far ends of these spectrums, while there are people within the middle that are not affected by this pain point. At the same time, the study revealed that this middle population was using their settings in vastly diverse ways. Thus we could not quantify how large it was to understand how design changes aimed to solve our major CS pain point, but limit the functionality for this group, might affect the larger ecosystem.
28 year old “Mostly non-monogamous” user persona from LA
Why did you remove "Non-monogamous" as your relationship type?
Essentially, I didn’t want to be pigeon-holed...Right now I practice solo polyamory, but I would be open to monogamy if they weren’t interested depending on the circumstances.
In part 2, I tested this proposed design and found that a binary design in which monogamous and non-monogamous people self-selected into two different groups would likely have negative affects on the overall ecosystem. When faced with a choice to identify as either non-monogamous or monogamous, people across the spectrum weren’t sure what to choose either because they didn’t want to limit their options or because they didn’t want to commit to an identity. They explained they would switch settings often, rendering the division itself meaningless and causing more frustration for our users experiencing the key CS pain point.
Impact
We reshaped the designs so users didn’t have to make a binary choice about their identity that might limit their pool of potential profiles. Our design instead encouraged users across the spectrum to describe their attitudes towards non-monogamy in a way that felt more affirming and less deterministic. We also allowed users to opt-out of seeing people who don’t want their preferred relationship type.