One-Way Mirrors in Online Dating: A Randomized Field Experiment

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2301

References

  • 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.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bakos JY (1997) Reducing buyer search costs: Implications for electronic marketplaces. Management Sci. 43(12):1676–1692.LinkGoogle 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.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Becker GS (1973) A theory of marriage: Part I. J. Political Econom. 81(4):813–846.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Burdett K, Coles MG (1997) Marriage and class. Quart. J. Econom. 112(1):141–168.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Burtch G, Ghose A, Wattal S (2013) An empirical examination of the antecedents and consequences of contribution patterns in crowd-funded markets. Inform. Systems Res. 24(3):499–519.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ellison N, Heino R, Gibbs J (2006) Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. J. Comput.-Mediated Comm. 11(2):415–441.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fiore AT, Taylor LS, Zhong X, Mendelsohn GA, Cheshire C (2010) Who’s right and who writes: People, profiles, contacts, and replies in online dating. 47th Hawaii Internat. Conf. System Sci. (HICSS) (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC), 1–10.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gale D, Shapley LS (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Amer. Math. Month. 69(1):9–15.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gelles D (2011) Inside Match.com. Financial Times (July 29), http://on.ft.com/mZSt7K.Google Scholar
  • Goldfarb A, Tucker CE (2011) Privacy regulation and online advertising. Management Sci. 57(1):57–71.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hall JA, Carter S, Cody MJ, Albright JM (2010) Individual differences in the communication of romantic interest: Development of the flirting styles inventory. Comm. Quart. 58(4):365–393.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Harris TM, Kalbfleisch PJ (2000) Interracial dating: The implications of race for initiating a romantic relationship. Howard J. Comm. 11(1):49–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Henningsen DD (2004) Flirting with meaning: An examination of miscommunication in flirting interactions. Sex Roles 50(7–8):481–489.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hitsch GJ, Hortaçsu A, Ariely D (2010) Matching and sorting in online dating. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(1):130–163.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Holmes RM, Tewksbury R, Holmes ST (1998) Hidden jpgs: A functional alternative to voyeurism. J. Popular Culture 32(3):17–29.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Joinson A (1998) Causes and implications of disinhibited behavior on the Internet. Gackenbach J, ed. Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications (Academic Press, San Diego), 43–60.Google Scholar
  • Kalmijn M (1998) Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Rev. Sociol. 24:395–421.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kling R, Lee YC, Teich A, Frankel MS (1999) Assessing anonymous communication on the Internet: Policy deliberations. Inform. Soc. 15(2):79–90.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Maccoby EE, Jacklin CN (1974) The Psychology of Sex Differences, Vol. 1 (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).Google Scholar
  • McDevitt RC (2012) The Internet lowers inhibitions: Implications for the long tail. Working paper, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
  • Miller AR, Tucker C (2009) Privacy protection and technology diffusion: The case of electronic medical records. Management Sci. 55(7):1077–1093.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Mortensen DT, Pissarides CA (1999) New developments in models of search in the labor market. Ashenfelter O, Card D, eds. Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3B (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 2567–2627.Google Scholar
  • Pachankis JE, Goldfried MR (2006) Social anxiety in young gay men. J. Anxiety Disorders 20(8):996–1015.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Paumgarten N (2011) Looking for someone: Sex, love, and loneliness on the Internet. New Yorker (July 4), http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/04/110704fa_fact_paumgarten.Google Scholar
  • Piskorski MJ (2014) A Social Strategy: How We Profit from Social Media (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pocock SJ (2013) Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK).CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Reis HT, Aron A, Clark MS, Finkel EJ (2013) Ellen Berscheid, Elaine Hatfield, and the emergence of relationship science. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 8(5):558–572.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Romanosky S, Telang R, Acquisti A (2011) Do data breach disclosure laws reduce identity theft? J. Policy Anal. Management 30(2):256–286.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Roth AE, Sotomayor MAO (1992) Two-Sided Matching: A Study in Game-Theoretic Modeling and Analysis, Economic Society Monograph 18 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
  • Rudder C (2014) Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One’s Looking) (Crown, New York).Google Scholar
  • Slater D (2013) Love in the Time of Algorithms: What Technology Does to Meeting and Mating (Penguin, New York).Google Scholar
  • Smith L (2006) The marriage model with search frictions. J. Political Econom. 114(6):1124–1144.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Solove DJ (2004) The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age (New York University Press, New York).Google Scholar
  • Suler J (2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsych. Behav. 7(3):321–326.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Taylor LS, Fiore AT, Mendelsohn G, Cheshire C (2011) Out of my league: A real-world test of the matching hypothesis. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 37(7):942–954.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Weick KE, Kiesler CA (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, Vol. 2 (Random House, New York).Google Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.