Managing Congestion in a Matching Market via Demand Information Disclosure

References

• Abramova O, Baumann A, Krasnova H, Buxmann P (2016) Gender differences in online dating: What do we know so far? A systematic literature review. Proc. 49th Hawaii Internat. Conf. System Sci. (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ), 3858–3867.Google Scholar
• Allon G, Bassamboo A, Çil 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
• Arnosti N, Johari R, Kanoria Y (2021) Managing congestion in matching markets. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 23(3):620–636.Link, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Braverman M, Kanoria Y, Shi P (2020) Clearing matching markets efficiently: Informative signals and match recommendations. Management Sci. 66(5):2163–2193.Link, Google Scholar
• Banerjee AV (1992) A simple model of herd behavior. Quart. J. Econom. 107(3):797–817.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bapna R, Umyarov A (2015) Do your online friends make you pay? A randomized field experiment on peer influence in online social networks. Management Sci. 61(8):1902–1920.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
• Benson A, Sojourner A, Umyarov A (2020) Can reputation discipline the gig economy? Experimental evidence from an online labor market. Management Sci. 66(5):1802–1825.Link, Google Scholar
• Bimpikis K, Elmaghraby WJ, Moon K, Zhang W (2020) Managing market thickness in online business-to-business markets. Management Sci. 66(12):5783–5822.Link, Google Scholar
• Blackhart GC, Fitzpatrick J, Williamson J (2014) Dispositional factors predicting use of online dating sites and behaviors related to online dating. Comput. Human Behav. 33:113–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bojd B, Yoganarasimhan H (2022) Star-cursed lovers: Role of popularity information in online dating. Marketing Sci. 41(1):73–92.Link, Google Scholar
• Bruch EE, Newman MEJ (2018) Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Sci. Adv. 4(8):eaap9815.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bryan CJ, Walton GM, Rogers T, Dweck CS (2011) Motivating voter turnout by invoking the self. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(31):12653–12656.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burdett K, Shi S, Wright R (2001) Pricing and matching with frictions. J. Political Econom. 109(5):1060–1085.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burtch G, Ramaprasad J (2016) Assessing and quantifying local network effects in an online dating market. Preprint, submitted October 11, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2848515.Google Scholar
• Cai H, Chen Y, Fang H (2009) Observational learning: Evidence from a randomized natural field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(3):864–882.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen MK, Sheldon M (2015) Dynamic pricing in a labor market: Surge pricing and the supply of Uber driver-partners. Working paper, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
• D’Angelo JD, Toma CL (2017) There are plenty of fish in the sea: The effects of choice overload and reversibility on online daters’ satisfaction with selected partners. Media Psych. 20(1):1–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Denyer S, Gowen A (2018) Too many men. Washington Post (April 18), https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/too-many-men/.Google Scholar
• Dimoka A, Hong Y, Pavlou PA (2012) On product uncertainty in online markets: Theory and evidence. MIS Quart. 36(2):395–426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Einav L, Farronato C, Levin J (2016) Peer-to-peer markets. Annual Rev. Econom. 8:615–635.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
• 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 (2015) Search frictions and the design of online marketplaces. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frost JH, Chance Z, Norton MI, Ariely D (2008) People are experience goods: Improving online dating with virtual dates. J. Interactive Marketing 22(1):51–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grembi V, Nannicini T, Troiano U (2016) Do fiscal rules matter? Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 8(3):1–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hancock JT, Toma C, Ellison N (2007) The truth about lying in online dating profiles. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 449-452.Google Scholar
• Heyman J, Ariely D (2004) Effort for payment: A tale of two markets. Psych. Sci. 15(11):787–793.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
• Hong Y, Wang C, Pavlou PA (2015) Comparing open and sealed bid auctions: Evidence from online labor markets. Inform. Systems Res. 27(1):49–69.Link, 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
• Huang N, Burtch G, Gu B, Hong Y, Liang C, Wang K, Fu D, Yang B (2019) Motivating user-generated content with performance feedback: Evidence from randomized field experiments. Management Sci. 65(1):327–345.Link, Google Scholar
• Huston TL (1973) Ambiguity of acceptance, social desirability, and dating choice. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 9(1):32–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imai K, Ratkovic M (2014) Covariate balancing propensity score. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Ser. B. Statist. Methodology 76(1):243–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jin GZ, Leslie P (2003) The effect of information on product quality: Evidence from restaurant hygiene grade cards. Quart. J. Econom. 118(2):409–451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jung J, Bapna R, Ramaprasad J, Umyarov A (2019) Love unshackled: Identifying the effect of mobile app adoption in online dating. MIS Quart. 43(1):57–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kader GD, Perry M (2007) Variability for categorical variables. J. Statist. Ed. 15(2):1–16.Google Scholar
• Levy J, Markell D, Cerf M (2019) Polar similars: Using massive mobile dating data to predict synchronization and similarity in dating preferences. Frontiers Psych. 10:1–28.Google Scholar
• Li J, Netessine S (2020) Higher market thickness reduces matching rate in online platforms: Evidence from a quasi-experiment. Management Sci. 66(1):271–289.Link, Google Scholar
• Luo S (2017) Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and consequences. Soc. Personality Psych. Compass 11(8):1–14.Google Scholar
• Luo X, Andrews M, Song Y, Aspara J (2014) Group-buying deal popularity. J. Marketing 78(2):20–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ogury (2019) Dating app study ’19—How lovers “match” in a mobile-first world. Accessed June 17, 2022, https://ogury.com/perspectives/research-and-insights/dating-app-study-how-lovers-match-in-a-mobile-first-world/.Google Scholar
• Petrongolo B, Pissarides CA (2001) Looking into the black box: A survey of the matching function. J. Econom. Lit. 39(2):390–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roggeveen AL, Grewal D, Gotlieb J (2006) Does the frame of a comparative ad moderate the effectiveness of extrinsic information cues? J. Consumer Res. 33(1):115–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenfeld MJ (2017) Marriage, choice, and couplehood in the age of the Internet. Sociol. Sci. 4:490–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenfeld MJ, Thomas RJ, Hausen S (2019) Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116(36):17753–17758.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salganik MJ, Dodds PS, Watts DJ (2006) Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311(5762):854–856.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwartz CR (2013) Trends and variation in assortative mating: Causes and consequences. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 39(1):451–470.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shanteau J, Nagy GF (1979) Probability of acceptance in dating choice. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 37(4):522–533.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sorensen AT (2007) Bestseller lists and product variety. J. Indust. Econom. 55(4):715–738.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Statista (2019) Outlooks: Worldwide online dating. Accessed June 17, 2022, https://www.statista.com/outlook/372/100/online-dating/worldwideGoogle Scholar
• Stinson DA, Cameron JJ, Robinson KJ (2015) The good, the bad, and the risky: Self-esteem, rewards and costs, and interpersonal risk regulation during relationship initiation. J. Soc. Personal Relationships 32(8):1109–1136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tadelis S, Zettelmeyer F (2015) Information disclosure as a matching mechanism: Theory and evidence from a field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(2):886–905.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tucker C, Zhang J (2011) How does popularity information affect choices? A field experiment. Management Sci. 57(5):828–842.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ugander J, Karrer B, Backstrom L, Kleinberg J (2013) Graph cluster randomization: Network exposure to multiple universes. Proc. 19th ACM SIGKDD Internat. Conf. Knowledge Discovery Data Mining (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 329-337.Google Scholar
• Whyte S, Chan HF, Torgler B (2018) Do men and women know what they want? Sex differences in online daters’ educational preferences. Psych. Sci. 29(8):1370–1375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wright R, Kircher P, Julien B, Guerrieri V (2019) Directed search and competitive search: A guided tour. J. Econom. Lit. 59(1):90–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xie Y, Cheng S, Zhou X (2015) Assortative mating without assortative preference. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112(19):5974–5978.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang J (2010) The sound of silence: Observational learning in the U.S. kidney market. Marketing Sci. 29(2):315–335.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Li B, Luo X, Wang X (2019) Personalized mobile targeting with user engagement stages: Combining a structural hidden Markov model and field experiment. Inform. Systems Res. 30(3):787–804.Link, Google Scholar
• Zheng A, Hong Y, Pavlou PA (2016) Matching in two-sided platforms for IT services: Evidence from online labor markets. Preprint, submitted September 16, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2838720.Google Scholar
• Zhu F, Zhang X (2010) Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: The moderating role of product and consumer characteristics. J. Marketing 74(2):133–148.Crossref, Google Scholar