Effects of Market Size and Competition in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from Online Dating

References

• 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
• 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 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
• Buchholz N (2022) Spatial equilibrium, search frictions, and dynamic efficiency in the taxi industry. Rev. Econom. Stud. 89(2):556–591.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chernev A, Böckenholt U, Goodman J (2015) Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. J. Consumer Psych. 25(2):333–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chu J, Manchanda P (2016) Quantifying cross and direct network effects in online consumer-to-consumer platforms. Marketing Sci. 35(6):870–893.Link, Google Scholar
• Cortés P, Pan J, Pilossoph L, Zafar B (2021) Gender differences in job search and the earnings gap: Evidence from business majors. NBER working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Cullen Z, Farronato C (2021) Outsourcing tasks online: Matching supply and demand on peer-to-peer internet platforms. Management Sci. 67(7):3985–4003.Link, Google Scholar
• Diamond P (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
• Farronato C, Fong J, Fradkin A (2023) Dog eat dog: Balancing network effects and differentiation in a digital platform merger. Management Sci. 70(1):464–483.Link, 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 (2017) Search, matching, and the role of digital marketplace design in enabling trade: Evidence from Airbnb. Working paper, Boston University, Boston.Google Scholar
• Frechette GR, Lizzeri A, Salz T (2019) Frictions in a competitive, regulated market: Evidence from taxis. Amer. Econom. Rev. 109(8):2954–2992.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gan L, Li Q (2016) Efficiency of thin and thick markets. J. Econometrics 192(1):40–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halaburda H, Piskorski MJ, Yıldırım P (2018) Competing by restricting choice: The case of matching platforms. Management Sci. 64(8):3574–3594.Link, Google Scholar
• Hitsch G, Hortaçsu A, Ariely D (2010a) Matching and sorting in online dating. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(1):130–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitsch G, Hortaçsu A, Ariely D (2010b) What makes you click? Mate preferences in online dating. Quant. Marketing Econom. 8(2010):393–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 79(6):995–1006.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamenica E (2008) Contextual inference in markets: On the informational content of product lines. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(5):2127–2149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kanoria Y, Saban D (2021) Facilitating the search for partners on matching platforms. Management Sci. 67(10):5990–6029.Google Scholar
• Kuksov D, Villas-Boas JM (2010) When more alternatives lead to less choice. Marketing Sci. 29(3):507–524.Link, Google Scholar
• Lee S, Niederle M (2014) Propose with a rose? Signaling in internet dating markets. Experiment. Econom. 18(4):731–755.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
• Liu T, Wan Z, Yang C (2021) The efficiency of a dynamic decentralized two-sided matching market. Working paper, Tsinghua University, Beijing.Google Scholar
• McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, Van Haselen R, Griffin M, Fisher P (2007) The Hawthorne effect: A randomised, controlled trial. BMC Medical Res. Methodology 7(1):30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mortensen DT (1982) The matching process as a noncooperative bargaining game. McCall JJ, ed. The Economics of Information and Uncertainty (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 233–258.Google Scholar
• Natan O (2024) Choice frictions in large assortments. Working paper, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
• Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2007) Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Quart. J. Econom. 122(3):1067–1101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plott CR, Smith VL (2008) Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, vol. 1 (Elsevier, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
• Rios I, Saban D, Zheng F (2023) Improving match rates in dating markets through assortment optimization. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 25(4):1304–1323.Link, Google Scholar
• Rochet J-C, Tirole J (2003) Platform competition in two-sided markets. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 1(4):990–1029.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossi M (2023) Competition and reputation in an online marketplace: Evidence from Airbnb. Management Sci., ePub ahead of print April 17, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4758.Google Scholar
• Sahni NS, Nair HS (2020) Sponsorship disclosure and consumer deception: Experimental evidence from native advertising in mobile search. Marketing Sci. 39(1):5–32.Link, Google Scholar
• Tucker C, Zhang J (2010) Growing two-sided networks by advertising the user base: A field experiment. Marketing Sci. 29(5):805–814.Link, Google Scholar