Close
Funny Bone Story Time today i learned (til) vintage science

Is Love Truly Blind? An Analysis of the Popular Dating Show

April 19, 2024

\

From its initial debut on Netflix in 2020, Love is Blind has captured audiences and secured itself as one of the most popular dating reality shows of the 21st century. What makes Love Is Blind different from other popular dating shows is that the contestants date and propose to their prospective partner from behind a wall, without every seeing each other. It isn’t until they solidify their engagement that the contestants are able to see what their partners look like. Another difference between Love Is Blind other reality shows? Love Is Blind takes itself extremely seriously. The hosts, Nick and Vanessa Lachey, are notorious for referring to their show as “an experiment”. Instead of a hypothesis for this “experiment” the hosts simply repeat the leading question: “Is love truly blind?”.

In this article, I attempt to analyze Love Is Blind as an experiment from a scientific perspective, in an effort to answer the question, “does the inability to see your partner during a dating stage increase the viability of a long term relationship compared to a typical dating scene where both parties can see one another?”. To do this, I will compare Love Is Blind another popular reality dating show, Love Island. In Love Island, contestants are not only able to see each other, but they are encouraged to judge their fellow contestants by their physical appearances. We can compare the outcomes of each of these shows to conclude which dating strategy is more effective in forming successful, lasting relationships.

Because this is an experiment, we will need to analyze our variables. It is imperative to account for the major differences between these shows, and note that our comparison will be far from perfect. For one, Love Is Blind is a marriage-focused show. Contestants (allegedly) sign up for the show in hopes of finding a husband or wife. Most of the contestants on Love Is Blind are in positions in their life where they are ready to commit to long-term relationships. This is much different than Love Island, which engages in a culture of flirtatiousness, changing partners, and employs a cast of younger contestants, who are less likely to want to pursue a long-term relationship. Love Is Blind is unique in that it involves such a large cast of singles from both sexes, and follows multiple couples’ pursuit of marriage. There are no shows quite like Love Is Blind, which makes it difficult to assess it as a true experiment. An ideal scenario would involve recreating the show perfectly, but with face-to-face dating instead of blind dating. Of course this is impossible, so our comparison to Love Island, is the next best option. To eliminate cross-cultural variables, we will be analyzing the slightly less popular US version of Love Island.

I will now present the data that I collected from each reality show. To start, Love Is Blind has been running for 6 seasons, each with 30 contestants. Out of these 180 contestants, 61 contestants have become engaged on

the show, or 31 couples (One contestant was engaged twice to two different partners). Out of these 31 couples, 20 couples broke up on the show, 9 couples are still together, and 2 couples married each other on the show, but eventually broke up. This adds up to a 29% long-term success rate out of all the couples engaged on the show, and an overall 10% success rate out of all the contestants over all 6 seasons.

In comparison, Love Island, US has taken place over 5 seasons, each with 25 contestants, for a total of 125 contestants over the whole show. Out of these contestants, 15 couples have continued to date after the show. Out of these 15 couples, only three are currently together. This adds up to 20% chance that a couple formed on the show will stay together, and an overall success rate of 4.8%. This number is also likely generous, as Love Island typically introduces new contestants in the middle of seasons, some seasons almost doubling in cast size before the end.

Based on these numbers, it is clear that Love Is Blind is more successful than Love Island at forming lasting relationships. In fact, Love Is Blind’s statistics of forming 9 married couples after only a 6 season runtime is unprecedented in dating shows. No other show comes close to Love is Blind in the sheer number of successful relationships formed. Even marriage-focused shows like The Bachelor pale in comparison to the success rate of Love is Blind. After 28 seasons of the Bachelor, and 20 seasons of The Bachelorette, only 9 couples from the shows are still together to this day. This means that if you are the “Bachelor” or the “Bachelorette” you have an approximate 18.75% chance of forming a lasting relationship during your time on the show. While this is better than the 10% success rate of Love Is Blind, it isn’t much better. Considering the fact that the bachelors and bachelorettes are dating 25-30 potential partners, and have no competition, it makes sense that there would be a decently high success rate. Additionally, most seasons of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette end in an engagement, so it would be reasonable to expect more than 9 lasting couples after 48 seasons.

Given the data and considering the variables, it seems evident that Love Is Blind has an impressively high success rate compared to similar reality dating shows. Love is Blind has an overall success rate of more than 2x that of Love Island, US. While it does have an 8.75% lower success rate than The Bachelor/Bachelorette franchise, the average contestant on Love Is Blind has an unprecedentedly high chance of finding love than the average contestant on these shows. It seems very probable that the factor contributing to this high likelihood of success is the blind-dating style. There is evidence in support of blind dating that suggests that deeper, and more lasting bonds are formed when physical appearance is taken out of the equation. It is also possible that age, sociodemographic factors, time frame, and casting decisions could also be contributing to the show’s success. Whatever the reason, there is absolutely evidence that blind dating can lead to a comparatively high relationship success rate in a reality TV format. In other words, there is evidence that love is, (or certainly can be) blind.

 

 

Sources

 

Delbyck, Cole. “Which Couples Are Still Together from Every Season of Love Is Blind?” Netflix Tudum, Netflix Tudum, 28 Mar. 2024, www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/love-is-blind-who-is-still-together-every-season.

“Love Is Blind (TV Series).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Apr. 2024, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Is_Blind_(TV_series).

“Love Island (American TV Series).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Apr. 2024, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Island_(American_TV_series).

Siwak, Miranda. “Love Island USA Couples: Who Are Still Together and Who Broke Up?” Us Weekly, 29 Mar. 2024, www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/pictures/love-island-usa-couples-who-are-still-together-and-who-broke-up/.

“Stop Swiping, Start Talking: The Rise and Rise of the Blind Dating App.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 8 Nov. 2022, www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/nov/08/stop-swiping-start-talking-the-rise-and-rise-of-the-blind-dating-app.

 

 

 

 

 

 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Hidden Figures Beyond: The First Black PhD in Chemistry, Marie Maynard Daly
today i learned (til)
We need to talk about the women founders of modern science: Meet Ada Lovelace
Cybersecurity Hub
today i learned (til)
GNU Privacy Guard (GPG) and the Protection of Sensitive Genetic Data
today i learned (til)
Meat vs Metal

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.