Competing by Restricting Choice: The Case of Matching Platforms

References

• Abramitzky R, Delavande A, Vasconcelos L (2011) Marrying up: The role of sex ratio in assortative matching. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 3(3):124–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ambrus A, Argenziano R (2009) Asymmetric networks in two-sided markets. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 1(1):17–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Kanoria Y, Leshno JD (2017) Unbalanced random matching markets: The stark effect of competition. J. Political Econom. 125(1):69–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Woodard CJ (2009) The architecture of platforms: A unified view. Gawer A, ed. Platforms, Markets and Innovation, 19–44.Crossref, 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
• Becker GS (1973) A theory of marriage: Part I. J. Political Econom. 81(4):813–846.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyd D, Lankford H, Loeb S, Wyckoff J (2013) Analyzing the determinants of the matching of public school teachers to jobs: Disentangling the preferences of teachers and employers. J. Labor Econom. 31(1):83–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandenburger AM, Nalebuff BJ (1996) Co-Opetition (Currency Doubleday, New York).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
• Buss DM, Barnes M (1986) Preferences in human mate selection. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 50(3):559–570.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Calvó-Armengol A, Zenou Y (2005) Job matching, social network and word-of-mouth communication. J. Urban Econom. 57(3):500–522.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casadesus-Masanell R, Ghemawat P (2006) Dynamic mixed duopoly: A model motivated by Linux vs. Windows. Management Sci. 52(7):1072–1084.Link, Google Scholar
• Casadesus-Masanell R, Hałaburda H (2014) When does a platform create value by limiting choice? J. Econom. Management Strategy 23(2):258–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casadesus-Masanell R, Hervas-Drane A (2010) Peer-to-peer file sharing and the market for digital information goods. J. Econom. Management Strategy 19(2):333–373.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casadesus-Masanell R, Zhu F (2010) Strategies to fight ad-sponsored rivals. Management Sci. 56(9):1484–1499.Link, Google Scholar
• Damiano E, Li H (2007) Price discrimination and efficient matching. Econom. Theory 30(2):243–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Damiano E, Li H (2008) Competing matchmaking. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 6(4):97–126.Google Scholar
• Eastwick PW, Eagly AH, Finkel EJ, Johnson SE (2011) Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in predictive validity. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 101(5):993–1011.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Economides N, Katsamakas E (2006) Two-sided competition of proprietary vs. open source technology platforms and the implications for the software industry. Management Sci. 52(7):1057–1071.Link, Google Scholar
• Ellison G, Fudenberg D (2003) Knife-edge or plateau: When do market models tip? Quart. J. Econom. 118(4):1249–1278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellison G, Fudenberg D, Mobius M (2004) Competing auctions. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 2(1):30–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Figueredo AJ, Sefcek JA, Jones DN (2006) The ideal romantic partner personality. Personality Individual Differences 41(3):431–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gomes R, Pavan A (2016) Many-to-many matching and price discrimination. Theoret. Econom. 11(3):1005–1052.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hagiu A (2014) Strategic decisions for multisided platforms. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 55(2):71–80.Google Scholar
• Hendel I, Nevo A, Ortalo-Magné F (2009) The relative performance of real estate marketing platforms: MLS versus FSBOMadison.com. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(5):1878–1898.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
• Hoppe HC, Moldovanu B, Ozdenoren E (2011) Coarse matching with incomplete information. Econom. Theory 47(1):75–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyengar S, Wells R, Schwartz B (2006) Doing better but feeling worse: Looking for the “best” job undermines satisfaction. Psych. Sci. 17(2):143–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1985) Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Amer. Econom. Rev. 75(3):424–440.Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1994) Systems competition and network effects. J. Econom. Perspect. 8(2):93–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khurana R (2004) Book review of Headhunters: Matchmaking in the Labor Market by William Finlay and James E. Coverdill, Cornell University Press, 2002. J. Econom. Literature 42(1):208–209.Google Scholar
• MacDonald G, Ryall M (2004) How do value creation and competition determine whether a firm appropriates value? Management Sci. 50(10):1319–1333.Link, Google Scholar
• McAfee RP (2002) Coarse matching. Econometrica 70(5):2025–2034.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, Hałaburda H, Smith T (2009) eHarmony. HBS Case 709-424, Harvard Business School, Boston.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
• Schwartz B, Ward A (2004) Doing better but feeling worse: The paradox of choice. Linley PA, Joseph S, eds. Positive Psychology in Practice (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ), 86–104.Crossref, Google Scholar