The Secret to Finding a Match: A Field Experiment on Choice Capacity Design in an Online Dating Platform

References

• Adachi H (2003) A search model of two-sided matching under nontransferable utility. J. Econom. Theory 113(2):182–198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allon G, Bassamboo A, Cil EB (2012) Large-scale service marketplaces: The role of the moderating firm. Management Sci. 58(10):1854–1872.Link, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Walker D (2011) Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Sci. 57(9):1623–1639.Link, Google Scholar
• Arch EC (1993) Risk-taking: A motivational basis for sex differences. Psych. Rep. 73(1):3–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyle M, Henderson M (1985) The Anatomy of Relationships: And the Rules and Skills Needed to Manage Them Successfully (David & Charles, Heinemann, London).Google Scholar
• Arnosti N, Johari R, Kanoria Y (2021) Managing congestion in matching markets. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 23(3):620–636.Link, Google Scholar
• Azar J, Marinescu I, Steinbaum M (2020) Labor market concentration. J. Human Resources 1218-9914R1.Google Scholar
• Bakos JY (1997) Reducing buyer search costs: Implications for electronic marketplaces. Management Sci. 43(12):1676–1692.Link, Google Scholar
• Bapna R, Ramaprasad J, Shmueli G, Umyarov A (2016) One-way mirrors in online dating: A randomized field experiment. Management Sci. 62(11):3100–3122.Link, Google Scholar
• Basu A, Bhaskaran S, Mukherjee R (2019) An analysis of search and authentication strategies for online matching platforms. Management Sci. 65(5):2412–2431.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Baum-Snow N, Pavan R (2012) Understanding the city size wage gap. Rev. Econom. Stud. 79(1):88–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belo R, Li T (2018) Referral programs for platform growth: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Working paper, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
• Beshears J, Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC (2008) How are preferences revealed? J. Public Econom. 92(8–9):1787–1794.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bruch E, Newman M (2018) Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Sci. Adv. 4(8):eaap9815.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bruch E, Feinberg F, Lee KY (2016) Extracting multistage screening rules from online dating activity data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(38):10530–10535.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burtch G, Ramaprasad J (2016) Assessing and quantifying local network effects in an online dating market. Working Paper No. 16-05, NET Institute, New York.Google Scholar
• Cachon GP, Terwiesch C, Xu Y (2008) On the effects of consumer search and firm entry in a multiproduct competitive market. Marketing Sci. 27(3):461–473.Link, Google Scholar
• Chen Y-J, Dai T, Korpeoglu CG, Körpeoğlu E, Sahin O, Tang CS, Xiao S (2020) Om forum—Innovative online platforms: Research opportunities. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 22(3):430–445.Link, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Lit. 47(2):448–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cullen Z, Farronato C (2020) Outsourcing tasks online: Matching supply and demand on peer-to-peer Internet platforms. Management Sci. ePub ahead of print October 7, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3730.Google Scholar
• Diamond PA (1982) Aggregate demand management in search equilibrium. J. Political Econom. 90(5):881–894.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diehl K, Poynor C (2010) Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations, and satisfaction. J. Marketing. Res. 47(2):312–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finkel EJ, Eastwick PW, Karney BR, Reis HT, Sprecher S (2012) Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psych. Sci. Public Interest 13(1):3–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiore AT, Donath JS (2004) Online personals: An overview. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (ACM, New York), 1395–1398.Google Scholar
• Fisman R, Iyengar SS, Kamenica E, Simonson I (2006) Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. Quart. J. Econom. 121(2):673–697.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fradkin A, Grewal E, Holtz D (2018) The determinants of online review informativeness: Evidence from field experiments on Airbnb. Working paper, Boston University, MA.Google Scholar
• Gustafsod PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological erspectives. Risk Anal. 18(6):805–811.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halaburda H, Jan Piskorski M, Yıldırım P (2018) Competing by restricting choice: The case of matching platforms. Management Sci. 64(8):3574–3594.Link, Google Scholar
• Hatfield E, Rapson RL (1996) Love and Sex: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA).Google Scholar
• Heino RD, Ellison NB, Gibbs JL (2010) Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating. J. Soc. Personal Relationships 27(4):427–447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitsch GJ, Hortaçsu A, Ariely D (2010a) Matching and sorting in online dating. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(1):130–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitsch GJ, Hortaçsu A, Ariely D (2010b) What makes you click?—Mate preferences in online dating. Quant. Marketing Econom. 8(4):393–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Horton JJ (2017) The effects of algorithmic labor market recommendations: Evidence from a field experiment. J. Labor Econom. 35(2):345–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Horton JJ (2019) Buyer uncertainty about seller capacity: Causes, consequences, and a partial solution. Management Sci. 65(8):3518–3540.Link, Google Scholar
• Jung J, Bapna R, Ramaprasad J, Umyarov A (2019) Love unshackled: Identifying the effect of mobile app adoption in online dating. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 43(1):47–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kanoria Y, Saban D (2021) Facilitating the search for partners on matching platforms. Management Sci. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1985) Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Amer. Econom. Rev. 75(3):424–440.Google Scholar
• Kreager DA, Cavanagh SE, Yen J, Yu M (2014) “Where have all the good men gone?” Gendered interactions in online dating. J. Marriage Family 76(2):387–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee GM, He S, Lee J, Whinston AB (2020) Matching mobile applications for cross-promotion. Inform. Systems Res. 31(3).Google Scholar
• Lenton AP, Stewart A (2008) Changing her ways: The number of options and mate-standard strength impact mate choice strategy and satisfaction. Judgment Decision Making. 3(7):501–511.Google Scholar
• Li J, Netessine S (2020) Higher market thickness reduces matching rate in online platforms: Evidence from a quasiexperiment. Management Sci. 66(1):271–289.Link, Google Scholar
• Lin K-H, Lundquist J (2013) Mate selection in cyberspace: The intersection of race, gender, and education. Amer. J. Sociol. 119(1):183–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oestreicher-Singer G, Zalmanson L (2013) Content or community? A digital business strategy for content providers in the social age. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 37(2):591–616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ong D, Wang J (2015) Income attraction: An online dating field experiment. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 111:13–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pahwa D, Starly B (2020) Network-based pricing for 3D printing services in two-sided manufacturing-as-a-service marketplace. Rapid Prototyping J. 26(1):82–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parker GG, Van Alstyne MW (2005) Two-sided network effects: A theory of information product design. Management Sci. 51(10):1494–1504.Link, Google Scholar
• Piskorski MJ, Halaburda H, Smith T (2009) eHarmony. HBS Case 709–424, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Pizzato L, Rej T, Chung T, Koprinska I, Kay J (2010) Recon: A reciprocal recommender for online dating. Proc. Fourth ACM Conf. Recommender Systems (ACM, New York), 207–214.Google Scholar
• Rayna T, Striukova L, Darlington J (2015) Co-creation and user innovation: The role of online 3D printing platforms. J. Engrg. Tech. Management 37:90–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Redwood B, Schöffer F, Garret B (2017) The 3D Printing Handbook: Technologies, Design and Applications (3D Hubs).Google Scholar
• Scharlott BW, Christ WG (1995) Overcoming relationship-initiation barriers: The impact of a computer-dating system on sex role, shyness, and appearance inhibitions. Comput. Human Behav. 11(2):191–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shi L, Viswanathan S (2018) Beauty and counter-signaling in online matching markets: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Proc. 39th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (Association of Information Systems, Atlanta).Google Scholar
• Shi L, Zhang K (2019) Your preference or mine? A randomized field experiment on recommender systems in two-sided matching markets. Proc. 40th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (Association of Information Systems, Atlanta).Google Scholar
• Shtatfeld R, Barak A (2009) Factors related to initiating interpersonal contacts on internet dating sites: A view from the social exchange theory. Interpersona 3(Suppl. 2):19–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sprecher S (2009) Relationship initiation and formation on the internet. Marriage Family Rev. 45(6–8):761–782.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Statista (2019) U.S. dating apps by audience size 2019. Accessed May 21, 2021, https://www.statista.com/statistics/826778/most-popular-dating-apps-by-audience-size-usa/.Google Scholar
• Todd PM, Penke L, Fasolo B, Lenton AP (2007) Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104(38):15011–15016.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vorauer JD, Ratner RK (1996) Who’s going to make the first move? Pluralistic ignorance as an impediment to relationship formation. J. Soc. Personal Relationships 13(4):483–506.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walster E, Aronson V, Abrahams D, Rottman L (1966) Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 4(5):508–516.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yankow JJ (2006) Why do cities pay more? An empirical examination of some competing theories of the urban wage premium. J. Urban Econom. 60(2):139–161.Crossref, Google Scholar