Gender Gating? Addressing the Impact of Congestion on the User Experience for Women in Online Matrimonial Matching Platforms

References

• Adomavicius G, Tuzhilin A (2005) Toward the next generation of recommender systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Trans. Knowledge Data Engrg. 17(6):734–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agrawal A (2015) Cyber-matchmaking among Indians: Re-arranging marriage and doing ‘kin work’. South Asian Popular Culture 13(1):15–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson M, Vogels EA, Turner E (2020) The virtues and downsides of online dating. Pew research center report. Accessed March 2, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/06/the-virtues-and-downsides-of-online-dating/.Google Scholar
• Angrist JD, Pischke J-S (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, 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
• Ball I, Kattwinkel D (2019) Probabilistic verification in mechanism design. Proc. ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 389–390.Google Scholar
• Banerjee A, Duflo E, Ghatak M, Lafortune J (2013) Marry for what? Caste and mate selection in modern India. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 5(2):33–72.Crossref, 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
• Bartling B, Fehr E, Schmidt KM (2012) Screening, competition, and job design: Economic origins of good jobs. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(2):834–864.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blackwell M, Iacus S, King G, Porro G (2009) CEM: Coarsened exact matching in Stata. Stata J. 9(4):524–546.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bruch EE, Newman MEJ (2018) Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Sci. Adv. 4(8):eaap9815.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burtch G, Carnahan S, Greenwood BN (2018) Can you gig it? An empirical examination of the gig economy and entrepreneurial activity. Management Sci. 64(12):5497–5520.Link, Google Scholar
• Dawson G, Watson R, Boudreau M-C, Pitt L (2016) Knowledge-centric examination of signaling and screening activities in the negotiation for information systems consulting services. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 17(2):77–106. Google Scholar
• Desai S, Andrist L (2010) Gender scripts and age at marriage in India. Demography 47(3):667–687.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhamija G, Roychowdhury P (2020) Age at marriage and women’s labour market outcomes in India. J. Internat. Development 32(3):342–374.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
• Fong J (2023) Search, selectivity, and market thickness in two-sided markets: Evidence from online dating. Preprint, submitted June 29, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3458373.Google Scholar
• Fradkin A (2017) Search, matching, and the role of digital marketplace design in enabling trade: Evidence from Airbnb. Preprint, March 23, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2939084.Google Scholar
• Ghose A, Ipeirotis PG, Li B (2014) Examining the impact of ranking on consumer behavior and search engine revenue. Management Sci. 60(7):1632–1654.Link, 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
• Harrison DA, Price KH, Bell MP (1998) Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Acad. Management J. 41(1):96–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitsch GJ, Hortacsu A, Ariely D (2010) Matching and sorting in online dating. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(1):130–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoff K, Stiglitz JE (1990) Introduction: Imperfect information and rural credit markets—Puzzles and policy perspectives. World Bank Econom. Rev. 4(3):235–250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang F, Cappelli P (2010) Applicant screening and performance-related outcomes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(2):214–218.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):47–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jung J, Lim H, Lee D, Kim C (2022) The secret to finding a match: A field experiment on choice capacity design in an online dating platform. Inform. Systems Res. 33(4):1248–1263.Link, Google Scholar
• Kanoria Y, Saban D (2021) Facilitating the search for partners on matching platforms. Management Sci. 67(10):5990–6029.Link, Google Scholar
• Karmegam SR, Gopal A, Waguespack D (2023) On breaking the iron cage of caste and family: Arranged marriages, platforms, and the inversion of status. Preprint, submitted April 12, 2023, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.Google Scholar
• Karmegam SR, Waguespack DM, Gopal A (2020) Status (dis)advantage: Stakeholder diversity and deviation in group norms in online matrimonial platforms. Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2020), Paper 1846 (Association for Information Systems, Atlanta).Google Scholar
• Kaur R, Dhanda P (2014) Surfing for spouses: Marriage websites and the ‘new’ Indian marriage. Marrying in South Asia: Shifting Concepts, Changing Practices in a Globalising World (Orient Blackswan, New Delhi), 271–292.Google Scholar
• Killewald A (2016) Money, work, and marital stability: Assessing change in the gendered determinants of divorce. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 81(4):696–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lehmann D, Siebzehner B (2009) Power, boundaries and institutions: Marriage in ultra-orthodox Judaism. Eur. J. Sociol. 50(2):273–308.Crossref, 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
• Mohammed S, Angell LC (2004) Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. J. Organ. Behav. 25(8):1015–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mukhopadhyay M (2012) Matchmakers and intermediation: Marriage in contemporary Kolkata. Econom. Politics Weekly 47(43):90–99.Google Scholar
• Nian T, Hu Y, Chen C (2021) Examining the impact of television-program-induced emotions on online word-of-mouth toward television advertising. Inform. Systems Res. 32(2):605–632.Link, Google Scholar
• Oster E (2019) Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 37(2):187–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Overby E, Forman C (2015) The effect of electronic commerce on geographic purchasing patterns and price dispersion. Management Sci. 61(2):431–453.Link, Google Scholar
• Rao PM, Balasubrahmanya MH (2017) The rise of IT services clusters in India: A case of growth by replication. Telecomm. Policy 41(2):90–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romanyuk G, Smolin A (2019) Cream skimming and information design in matching markets. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 11(2):250–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum PR (2007) Interference between units in randomized experiments. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 102(477):191–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenfeld MJ, Thomas RJ (2012) Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 77(4):523–547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shimer R, Smith L (2001) Matching, search, and heterogeneity. Topics Macroeconomics 1(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singh S, Shekhar C, Bankole A, Acharya R, Audam S, Akinade T (2022) Key drivers of fertility levels and differentials in India, at the national, state and population subgroup levels, 2015–2016: An application of Bongaarts’ proximate determinants model. PLoS One 17(2):e0263532.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slater D (2013) Love in the Time of Algorithms: What Technology Does to Meeting and Mating (Current, New York).Google Scholar
• Subramanian H, Overby E (2017) Electronic commerce, spatial arbitrage, and market efficiency. Inform. Systems Res. 28(1):97–116.Link, Google Scholar