Norval D. Glenn
 University of Texas at Austin

Efforts to promote stable and high quality marriages fall into two broad categories, consisting of those aimed at (a) getting the right persons mated in the first place and (b) maintaining and improving existing marriages.  Until the past two or three decades, persons and groups interested in promoting marital success extensively employed both kinds of efforts.  Emphasis on promoting good marital choices was evident in marriage preparation courses and in social scientific research on marital choice, while efforts to improve existing marriages were to a large extent through conventional marriage counseling.

 In contrast to this earlier attention to both kinds of methods to promote good marriages, in the pro-marriage movements that emerged in the 1990s, emphasis on the importance of good initial matching seems rather weak.  The primary concern is with teaching married couples good relationship skills and how to deal with conflict constructively.  Even the proponents of marriage preparation education in the secondary schools seem more interested in imparting relationship skills than in teaching students how to choose spouses wisely.  Some of the more enthusiastic advocates of relationship skills education apparently believe that almost any couple with enough mutual attraction to consider marriage can achieve marital success with sufficient motivation, effort, and access to the right kind of training.

Why pro-marriage activists' show less than intense concern about promoting good marital choices is not readily apparent.  Possible reasons include that (a) many people have become convinced by new evidence that problems in marriages are more likely to result from poor relationship skills than from poor initial matching, and (b) the activists lack confidence that anything very effective can be done to improve marital choices.  Or, many of them may be concerned that increased public discussion of the importance of good marital matching would tend to undermine marital stability by exacerbating the already widespread tendency for married persons to reconsider their marital choices.

Whatever the reasons for the lack of emphasis on marital choice may be, this neglect is hard to justify.  Although stressing the ill effects of poor marital matching might have some unintended negative consequences on existing marriages, and although the importance of good initial matching relative to other influences on marital success is debatable, to my knowledge no authority on marriage has ever claimed that good matching is not important.  Even if virtually any heterosexual pair with good skills and mutual attraction can have a reasonably good marriage, an equally skilled but optimally matched couple can almost certainly have a better one with less effort.

 It is time, therefore, for pro-marriage activists to give more attention to promoting good marital choices, not by de-emphasizing other efforts to improve and sustain marriages but by a modest reallocation of energy, time, and resources.  The purpose of this essay is to instigate such a change.

The Nature and Importance of Optimal Matching

 In view of the fact that virtually everyone agrees that good marital matching is important, giving reasons for its importance may seem superfluous.  However, understanding of the how and why of the importance is often not very sophisticated, being based on little more than the notion that spouses should have similar interests and values.  Even academic discussions of the suitability of spouses to one another often seem to be based on the assumption that good matches could be made with such information as that yielded by personality tests, interest inventories, and assessments of values.  Of course, such information can to some degree predict which persons will marry, and among those who do, which ones will have successful marriages.  However, the predictive power of such information is not very high, and by itself it can provide only limited insight into what constitutes a good marital match.  I have devised a simple theory and conceptual scheme, an abbreviated version of which I present here, that goes beyond simple compatibility and homogamy to specify more completely the nature of optimal matching.

The most popular theories of marital choice devised by social scientists all use the concept of marriage market and draw a rough analogy between the search for a suitable spouse and the search for goods and services in the economic marketplace.1  According to these theories, just as consumers try to get as much in the way of desirable goods and services as they can, given the amount of money they have to spend, persons searching for spouses try to get mates who are as desirable as possible, given what the searching persons have to offer on the marriage market.

At least in any one subculture in one society at one point in time, there is considerable agreement about what makes a person a desirable husband or wife, and thus it is useful to conceive of general marital desirability, or a person's average desirability to persons of the opposite sex who are on the marriage market.2  However, the agreement on standards of desirability is far from perfect, so it is also useful to conceive of person-specific marital desirability, or a person's desirability to a specific other person of the opposite sex.  What a person on the marriage market tries to maximize, of course, is the person-specific desirability (to himself or herself) of the person he or she marries.

 I need not deal here with the characteristics that are the basis of marital desirability, except to point out that they go beyond the obvious ones such as physical appearance, earning ability, character, and personality.  They of course include relationship skills and other traits that are subject to deliberate change; thus efforts to improve existing marriages are attempts to increase the person-specific desirability of the spouses to one another.  Some of the characteristics that make a person desirable to a specific person of the opposite sex are intangibles not well understood by the attractee or by anyone else.

Although marital desirability is not amenable to precise measurement, for theoretical purposes it is useful to assume that it can be measured on an eleven-point scale, varying from ten for the highest desirability to zero for the lowest.  If there were no variation in standards of desirability, if there were equal numbers of men and women on the market, if the distribution of desirability were the same for males and females, and if everyone had complete knowledge of everyone else's characteristics, the tens would all end up married to tens, the nines to nines, and so forth, with the zeroes being left to one another.  Fortunately, the lack of perfect agreement on standards prevents such a harsh system of mating.  Even many of the persons with very low general marital desirability have fairly high person-specific desirability to a few persons of the opposite sex.  With ideal functioning of the market, most people should be able to acquire spouses whose person-specific desirability to them is at least moderately higher than their own general marital desirability.  Among persons of rather low general desirability, those whose standards are most nearly unique are the ones most likely to be able to marry persons highly desirable to them.

The most stable and successful marriages are likely to be those in which the spouses are substantially more desirable to one another than they are to most other people.  An example would be spouses who are both threes in general desirability but eights to one another.  These persons are likely to appreciate one another, and neither will have abundant desirable alternatives to lure them out of, or to lessen their commitment to, their present marriage.  Conversely, those marriages in which the spouses are more desirable to many others than to one another are unlikely to succeed.  A marriage with intermediate prospects for success, and one rather likely to occur, is one in which the spouses are about as desirable to one another as they are to most other people.

A second and related requirement for a good marital match is that each spouse should get about as much in the way of person-specific desirability in a spouse as is possible given what he or she has to offer on the market.  Those who marry before adequately testing their marital desirability may settle for someone less desirable than they are able to attract.  When such persons realize that they have "undersold" themselves on the marriage market, as will almost inevitably happen eventually, dissatisfaction and withdrawal of commitment are likely, especially under current conditions.
Another useful conceptual distinction is between real marital desirability and apparent marital desirability.  The former is how desirable a mate the person will really be, while the latter is how desirable it appears the person will be on the basis of incomplete knowledge of his or her characteristics.  Initial screening on the marriage market occurs on the basis of apparent desirability, of course, but so does the final decision to marry, because real marital desirability can be assessed precisely only after marriage.  The higher the ratio of real to apparent desirability of each spouse when the decision to marry is made, the greater is the probability of marital success.

Conditions Conducive to Optimal Matching

 A primary requirement for good initial marital matching is the opportunity for those "on the market" to get to know a large number and variety of prospective spouses, and to get to know them well enough to assess their desirability on the basis of more than just their most obvious and readily observable characteristics.  Without extensive knowledge of persons of the opposite sex who are on the market, a person is unlikely ever to find and connect with one of the most suitable prospects.  Furthermore, without sufficient "circulation" in the market, the person will not adequately test his or her own desirability.

A common obstacle to sufficient circulation in the marriage market and to linking up with one of the most suitable prospects is premature entanglement. This occurs when a relationship with one prospect reaches a point at which ending the relationship is very difficult and when the person lacks knowledge of how desirable that prospect is relative to other prospects he or she could attract.

Entanglement must eventually occur of course if the person is to move toward marriage, and from that time on, the selection process is no longer a matter of mentally lining up prospects, comparing them, and selecting one from the lineup.  Rather, one can then only decide to continue the relationship or withdraw from it, and if the opportunity to marry develops, to take advantage of that opportunity or not do so.  At that point, the main comparison made is with opportunities the person thinks he or she will or would have in the future.  Unless the person chosen perfectly fits the chooser's image of an ideal spouse, or unless the chooser has an illusion of such a fit, the decision to marry reflects a pessimistic assessment of future opportunities.  The more realistic this assessment is, the better the marital match will be.  Ideally, the person making the decision will have gained enough knowledge of self and others through experience on the marriage market, and through pre-market heterosexual experiences, to make a realistic assessment.

Persons on the marriage market are of course highly motivated to make the market function well, but this motivation does not always lead the seekers of spouses to act wisely and rationally to achieve their ends.  For instance, although the good match is one that maximizes the desirability of spouses to one another in the long run and not just at the time of marriage, persons searching for mates may focus unduly on short-term considerations and thus on ephemeral rather than enduring characteristics of prospective mates.  Furthermore, some enduring characteristics may elicit feelings of infatuation or intense feelings of romantic love but fail to contribute much to long-term desirability.

Given the fallibility of the judgement of persons searching for mates, the best choices are likely to be made by persons substantially influenced by friends and family members, who often can be more objective and rational about the choice than the persons themselves.  Of course, the influence of these other persons is likely to improve the selection process only if the others have good judgement and sufficient knowledge of the prospects being considered.

Some Current Obstacles to Good Marital Matching

Just how well marriage markets in the United States now function is unknown.  Although it should be possible to study the processes of marital choice in such a way as to assess the adequacy of the marital matching that results from them, such research has not been done.  There are reasons to think, however, that the markets are not functioning very well and that poor marital matches are common.  There is little reason to believe that optimal matching has been the usual outcome of the mating process anytime in recent decades, and some recent changes may have lowered the probability of that outcome.

Arguably the most consequential of the several recent changes that have affected how marital matching typically occurs is the increase in the average age of the persons involved.  In just one decade, from 1980 to 1990, the percentage of men who married who were under age 20 declined from 8.5 to 4.3 and the comparable percentage for women went from 21.1 to 10.6.3  The percentage of persons who married who were under age 25 dropped from 44.2 to 29.0 for men and from 58.2 to 39.9 for women.  In 1990, 27.4 percent of the men and 21.0 of the women who married were age 35 or older, compared with 19.7 percent and 13.8 percent, for men and women respectively, a decade earlier.  These changes, which started in the 1970s and have continued since 1990, to a large extent reflect an increase in the percentage of brides and grooms entering second and subsequent marriages.  In 1970, neither spouse in 68.6 percent of the marriages had been previously married, but by 1988, that percentage had declined to 54.1.  (More recent data are not available, but the percentage was virtually stable during the eighties and has probably changed little since then.)  The increase in the average age of marrying persons also reflects an increase in the median age of persons entering first marriages, which went from 22.5 for men and 20.6 for women in 1970 to 26.8 and 25.0, for men and women respectively, in 1997.4

On balance, these changes may have tended to increase the quality of marital matching; the marriages of very young persons are notoriously unsuccessful, on the average, and there are several reasons for thinking that poor matching contributes substantially to these poor outcomes.

Consider, for instance, that among persons on the threshold of adulthood, both the characteristics that form the basis for their own marital desirability and their standards for evaluating the desirability of others tend to be very changeable.  To illustrate, to the 17-year-old woman just completing high school, the popular high school athlete may seem highly desirable, even if he lacks the characteristics valued in the adult world that would make him a desirable husband.  Persons' own desirability and their standards of desirability never become absolutely fixed but tend to stabilize in the first few years of adulthood.  Obviously, marriages formed while these characteristics are still changing rapidly are not likely to be very good matches in terms of the maximization of the long-term desirability of the spouses to one another.  Even if these characteristics are reasonably stable, persons who marry early are unlikely adequately to test their desirability on the marriage market.

While the decline in very early marriages has almost certainly been beneficial, the increase in persons on the marriage market who are older than their middle twenties probably has not contributed to better marital matching.  The data on age at marriage and divorce suggest that prospects for marital stability are enhanced little or not at all by postponing marriage beyond the middle to late twenties.5  There is evidence that prospects for achieving highly successful marriages may be diminished by postponing first marriage beyond ages 22-23 in the case of women and 24-25 in the case of men6--possibly in part because conditions are typically less conducive to optimal matching at the older ages.

Conditions conducive to effective "circulation," as that term is defined above, are probably better in secondary schools and colleges and universities than in any other setting in which most persons are likely to find themselves.  In the recent past, a substantial proportion of the persons who ended their education with high school graduation married persons they met in school, and many who went to college met their spouses there.  I know of no evidence on the topic, but the increase in the average age at first marriage has very likely been accompanied by a decline in marriages of persons who met in school or college.  Once one goes into the adult world of work, opportunities to meet interesting and desirable persons of the opposite sex are likely to decline substantially.  Social contacts on the job are often superficial and impersonal and with persons who are not of the right age and/or marital status to be prospective spouses.  There are major obstacles, including anti-fraternization rules, to romantic involvement with work associates, especially those above or below oneself in the organizational hierarchies.  For many employed persons on the marriage market, the search for a spouse is restricted to leisure time, and that time is often quite limited for ambitious young adults starting their careers.  Therefore, the movement away from school or college into full-time employment almost certainly exerts some negative influence on the effectiveness of mate selection processes.

Another reason why postponement of marriage may lead to poorer marital matching is that the early stages of adulthood are characterized by movement--both geographic and social--away from parents, other kin, and long-time friends, and thus the longer marriage is postponed, the less likely it is that those persons most likely to exert positive influences on marital choice will do that.  Movement away from one's geographic and social origins before a mate is selected lessens the probability that the one married will be a long-term acquaintance and must to some extent increase the risk of marrying someone whose apparent marital desirability is substantially higher than his or her real desirability.

An important recent trend associated with the increase in the average age of those who marry is the increase in the proportion of people who cohabit while they are on the marriage market.  Among some of the more liberal and secular portions of the American population, cohabitation has become a normal and expected stage of the mate selection process.  Many students of marriage have encouraged this change, because they believe, in the language I introduce above, that it should lessen the ratio of apparent to real marital desirability at the time of marriage.  According to this point of view, it is desirable for couples to test their compatibility, to see how they get along while living together, before they decide to marry.

However, research on cohabitation during the past decade has rather conclusively refuted the view that premarital cohabitation is an effective means to prevent inappropriate marital matches.7  It probably does prevent some marriages that should not occur, but the divorce rate for couples who have cohabited before marriage is substantially higher than that for couples who have not cohabited.  This difference, almost all scholars who have addressed the topic agree, is partially spurious; persons with values and attitudes not conducive to marital success are more likely to cohabit before marriage than others.  More controversial is the view of several scholars that habits and patterns of relating developed during cohabitation have detrimental effects on marriage.

An additional reason for the negative relationship between premarital cohabitation and marital stability may be that although cohabitation prevents some inappropriate marital matches, it leads to others.  As I point out above, in a well-functioning marriage market, persons seeking spouses gain as much knowledge of prospective spouses as possible while avoiding premature entanglement.  That entanglement inhibits obtaining knowledge about alternative prospects and initiates pressures toward marriage that are hard to resist, even if one discovers that the prospect is not as desirable as one had thought.  In the case of young adults living together, these pressures often come from parents and other kin--an instance of pernicious influence from persons whose influence is likely to be typically beneficial.  For lovers, "breaking up is hard to do" under any circumstances and is likely to be especially difficult when they are living together.  Sometimes it may be so difficult that it is easier to marry, and to convince oneself that the match is not as bad as it really is.  Traditionally, the momentum toward marriage was so strong that it was very difficult to stop only after the announcement of an engagement, a milestone likely to be passed after much more deliberation than that which usually precedes the decision to cohabit.

The effects on the quality of marital matches of the increase in previously married persons on the marriage market are not clear but are unlikely to be on balance positive.  These persons face the selection process with more experience and maturity than they had when they first married, but it is not clear that they are necessarily better equipped on the average than other marriage market participants to make wise judgements and choices.  They are likely to be unusually free of influences from kin and long-term friends, and their experiences with marriage that may contribute to wisdom may also leave them cynical and fearful of commitment.

The situation of single parents on the marriage market is crucially different from that of other participants, and different in ways likely to diminish their chances of making good marital matches.  The most obvious handicap is that single parents have relatively little time and energy to spend searching for spouses.  Perhaps equally important is that the parent and his/her child or children are on the market as a package; anyone considering marrying a single parent is contemplating taking on two roles--spouse and step-parent--and is likely to evaluate the characteristics of the prospective step-child or step-children as well as those of the prospective spouse.  This added complexity makes good marital matching inherently harder to achieve.  Furthermore, the child or children of the single parent may participate, if only subtly, in the selection process.  Whereas the influence of kin on marital choice should usually be beneficial, the influence of those lacking mature judgement may not be.  Emotional attachment of children to a parent's prospective spouse may lead to premature entanglement, especially when there is cohabitation.

Whatever recent trends in the influences affecting the quality of marital choices may have been, there are strong reasons for believing that a large percentage of marital matches are falling far short of being optimal and that many people are finding it difficult to connect with appropriate mates.  Although evidence from social scientific research on the adequacy of the functioning of marriage markets is lacking, informal evidence suggests a rather dismal picture.  Commercial dating services have proliferated in recent years, the volume of personal advertisements in newspapers has apparently increased, and many people are resorting to the internet to connect with potential mates, in spite of the lack of protection from deception and exploitation that medium provides.  This suggests widespread unmet needs--perhaps even widespread desperation--for effective pathways to good marital matches.

Can Anything Be Done to Promote Good Marital Matches?

 It is relatively easy to identify probable barriers to optimal marital matching in contemporary American society, but it is hard to identify ways to remove or lower those obstacles.  Many of the adverse conditions seem intractable, and many of the apparently negative trends seem inevitable and irreversible.  It is thus understandable that most attempts to improve mating processes have been aimed at individuals and not at the conditions under which they seek spouses.

The most widely advocated means of improving marital choices is through education, including marriage preparation courses and premarital counseling.  Although there are limits to the extent to which formal courses and counseling can impart wisdom and good judgement, a great deal more could be done through these means to promote good marital choices than is being done.  For instance, while the Catholic Church has a rather good record of requiring and encouraging premarital education and counseling, the Protestant denominations, as a whole, have done far less well.  Marriage preparation courses in the public schools are rare and almost certainly generally of poor quality when they are offered.  Functional marriage and family courses at the college level attract a small but not insignificant proportion of college students, but if the textbooks available for adoption for such courses indicate their substance, they give little guidance for marital choice.8  The potential for formal education and counseling to contribute to good marital matching is considerable but apparently largely unfulfilled.  Obviously, there are opportunities for pro-marriage scholars and activists to try to reach that potential.  They could, for instance, prepare or commission the preparation of educational materials on marital choice that would be sounder and more effective than those now available.9

The most important education about marriage and marital choice, however, is almost certainly informal and through such influences as those from parents, siblings, other kin, friends, and exposure to the mass media.  There is little that activists can do to change the nature of many of these influences, but they can to some extent improve the quality of those from the media.  Some exemplary work of this nature has been done, including especially the report on cohabitation written by David Popenoe and Barbara Whitehead and issued by the National Marriage Project.10  This report received widespread attention in the media and helped dispel the popular belief that the odds for marital success can be substantially improved by using cohabitation as a test for compatibility.

It is of course very important to help persons be wise and rational participants in marriage markets, but a greater potential for improving marital matching may lie in changing the way the markets operate and the conditions under which persons seek mates.  Wisdom and good judgement cannot have their greatest effects if, for instance, those who possess those qualities have limited opportunities to meet and get to know prospective spouses and if their social networks do not exert positive influences on their activities and interactions that may lead to marriage.  To repeat a point I make above, if there is inadequate circulation in marriage markets, the persons who could form the best matches are unlikely ever to connect.

There has been no systematic research to assess how well the institutional mechanisms for mate selection are working, and no one has done an inventory of what religious and other organizations are doing to facilitate the circulation that is necessary for good marital matching.  Sponsorship of such research is an obvious first step that could be undertaken by pro-marriage activists, and social scientists interested in marriage should plan and propose such research.  We do not need formal studies of mate selection processes, however, to know that they are not working as well as they should and could.

There are some good models of what could be done to facilitate good marital matches.  For instance, some religious organizations, including a good many Jewish congregations, do an exemplary job of providing opportunities for unmarried people to get to know one another under favorable conditions.  The activities and arrangements for circulation provided by the Jewish organizations probably have some continuity with the traditional Jewish matchmakers, and they reflect to some extent a desire to promote religious and ethnic endogamy.  Without such traditions and motivations, Christian congregations and organizations would be expected to do less well, which, it seems to me, is the case.

It is of course easier to exhort than to implement effective programs; organizations interested in facilitating good marital matches face formidable obstacles to achieving their goal.  The singles activities they promote are susceptible to the same kind of stigma that has plagued singles clubs in recent decades, namely, the image that they attract mainly losers.  When matchmaking is the only or the most explicit purpose of an activity, a "meat market" atmosphere tends to emerge, and there is a risk of attracting exploitative participants.  The main traditional advantage of seeking spouses at churches has been that there is where persons of good character and high morals are likely to be found.  This advantage is diminished when there is attraction to church activities only for the purpose of making social contacts.

In view of such problems, it is clear that good intentions are not sufficient; there needs to be a sharing of knowledge by persons and organizations that have tried to implement programs to promote optimal matching.  A great deal of such sharing may occur informally, but there appears to be little literature on the topic.  This is another area in which pro-marriage activists and scholars could contribute.

The promotion of good marriage market circulation is in part educational, because many participants lack full knowledge of the activities in their communities that provide good opportunities to meet potential spouses.  Pro-marriage activists could compile directories of the relevant organizations and distribute calendars of their activities.  Reporting information on the sex ratios of the memberships of the organizations might help to rectify imbalances in the numbers of men and women.

Business organizations and other employers could take steps to facilitate good marital matches among their employees, though whether it is in their interest to do so is arguable.  Much has been written about the need for family-friendly policies and practices on the part of employers, and some such policies have been implemented.  However, these policies generally do nothing to promote family formation among unmarried employees and fail to benefit those who are both unmarried and childless.  Indeed, efforts to relieve married persons from unwanted evening and weekend work often overburden single employees and interfere with their social lives and thus their search for spouses.  Furthermore, discouragement of work place romances by employers may go well beyond what is necessary to prevent sexual harassment and promote fairness and efficiency.  And when employers sponsor social and recreational activities for their employees, they do not always take the needs of single employees into account, for instance by trying to give those who work in different departments opportunities to get to know one another.

I could continue with suggestions for ways to promote good marital matching, but my purpose here is to encourage discussion of the topic rather than to provide a blueprint for action.  My ideas are embryonic, and I do not know what methods would be most effective.  I am confident, however, that if pro-marriage scholars and activists were to turn their collective imagination to the topic, the quality of matching, and thus prospects for marital success, could be measurably improved.


     1.  The simple theory and conceptual scheme presented here draw indirectly on the various "exchange" theories of marital choice in the literature, the most influential being in, or based on, the theories presented in Peter M. Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York:  Wiley, 1964; George C. Homans, Social Behavior:  Its Elementary Forms, New York:  Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1961; and J. W. Thibaut and H. H. Kelley, The Social Psychology of Groups, New York:  Wiley, 1959.
     There of course are many rather than just one marriage market in a country, most of which are based largely on locality.  The fact that their boundaries are indefinite poses problems for research but need not concern me here.
     2.  Just who is and is not "on the market" is not entirely clear.  Some people go on the market only after they encounter a particularly attractive prospect, and even married persons may be tentatively on the market.  See Bernard Farber, "The Future of the American Family:  A Dialectical Account,"  Journal of Family Issues Volume 8, 1987, pp. 431-433.
     3.  U. S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:  1999, Page 111, Table 158.
     4.  U. S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P20-506,  "Marital Status and Living Arrangements:  March 1998 (Update)."
     5.  Norval D. Glenn and Michael Supancic, "The Social and Demographic Correlates of Divorce and Separation in the United States:  An Update and Reconsideration," Journal of Marriage and the Family, Volume 46, 1984, pp. 564-575; and more recent unpublished analyses of data from the General Social Surveys.
     6.  Analyses of data from the General Social Surveys show that persons who married at these ages were more likely to be in stable and successful first marriages than persons who married at older ages.  Of course, this relationship could be spurious rather than causal, that is, the same influences could lead to late marriage and lowered prospects for marital success.
     7.  David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Should We Live Together?  What Young Adults Need to Know about Cohabitation Before Marriage:  A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research, New Brunswick, NJ:  The National Marriage Project.
     8.  For a critique of some of the books, see Norval D. Glenn, "A Critique of Twenty Family and Marriage and the Family Textbooks," Family Relations, Volume 46, 1997, pp. 197-208.
     9.  An abundance of trade books and popular magazine articles give advice about how to find and connect with good potential spouses, which is evidence that many people feel a need for education on the topic.  However, these materials, while occasionally insightful, are of very uneven quality, and with few exceptions are not based on sound research or sophisticated theory.
     10.  Popenoe and Whitehead, op cit.

Back to Articles page

To Smart Marriages Home Page

Application Log
  CategoryMessageTime Spent (s)Cumulated Time Spent (s)
  Application Showing content page for URL key: matchmaking.glenn 0.000000 0.000000