So, Who Likes You? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment

References

• 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
• Blake T, Coey D (2014) Why marketplace experimentation is harder than it seems: The role of test-control interference. Proc. Fifteenth ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (Association for Computing Machinery, Palo Alto, CA), 567–582.Google Scholar
• Bruch EE, Newman MEJ (2018) Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Sci. Adv. 4(8):9815.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burtch G, Ghose A, Wattal S (2016) Secret admirers: An empirical examination of information hiding and contribution dynamics in online crowdfunding. Inform. Systems Res. 27(3):478–496.Link, Google Scholar
• Buss DM, Schmitt DP (1993) Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psych. Rev. 100(2):204–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cacioppo JT, Cacioppo S, Gonzaga GC, Ogburn EL, VanderWeele TJ (2013) Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110(25):10135–10140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Canaday A, Ross E (2017) Singles in America: Match releases largest study on U.S. single population. Match.com (February 6). Accessed April 30, 2018, http://match.mediaroom.com/2017-02-06-Singles-in-America-Match-Releases-Largest-Study-on-U-S-Single-Population.Google Scholar
• Chin A (2019) Regression adjustments for estimating the global treatment effect in experiments with interference. J. Causal Inference 7(2):20180026.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conway JR, Noe N, Stulp G, Pollet TV (2015) Finding your soulmate: Homosexual and heterosexual age preferences in online dating. Personal Relationships 22(4):666–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deng A, Xu Y, Kohavi R, Walker T (2013) Improving the sensitivity of online controlled experiments by utilizing pre-experiment data. Proc. Sixth ACM Internat. Conf. Web Search Data Mining (Rome, Italy), 123–132.Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Ashmore RD, Makhijani MG, Longo LC (1991) What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psych. Bull. 110(1):109–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eastwick PW, Finkel EJ (2008) Sex difference in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 94(2):245–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiore AT, Taylor LS, Mendelsohn GA, Hearst M (2008) Assessing attractiveness in online dating profiles. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems, 797–806.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
• Forman C, Ghose A, Wiesenfeld B (2008) Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: The role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Inform. Systems Res. 19(3):291–313.Link, Google Scholar
• Fradkin A (2015) Search frictions and the design of online marketplaces. In The Third Conference on Auctions, Market Mechanisms and Their Applications (AMMA, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Gobrogge KL, Perkins PS, Baker JH, Balcer KD, Breedlove SM, Klump KL (2007) Homosexual mating preferences from an evolutionary perspective: Sexual selection theory revisited. Arch. Sexual Behav. 36(5):717–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitsch GJ, Hortaçsu A, Ariely D (2010) Matching and sorting in online dating. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(1):130–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holtz D, Aral S (2020) Limiting bias from test-control interference in online marketplace experiments. Preprint, submitted April 25, https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.12162.Google Scholar
• Kalmijn M (1998) Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Rev. Sociol. 24(1):395–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kohavi R, Thomke S (2017) The surprising power of online experiments. Harvard Bus. Rev. (September–October Issue), https://hbr.org/2017/09/the-surprising-power-of-online-experiments.Google Scholar
• Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psych. Bull. 126(3):390–423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGloin R, Denes A (2018) Too hot to trust: Examining the relationship between attractiveness, trustworthiness, and desire to date in online dating. New Media Soc. 20(3):919–936.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy SC, von Hippel W, Dubbs SL, Angilletta MJ Jr, Wilson RS, Trivers R, Barlow FK (2015) The role of overconfidence in romantic desirability and competition. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 41(8):1036–1052.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piskorski MJ (2014) A Social Strategy: How We Profit from Social Media (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google 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.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudder C (2014) Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity—What Our Online Lives Tell Us About Our Offline Selves (Broadway Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Russell K (2020) The best dating sites and apps. The Telegraph (September 17), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/the-20-best-online-dating-websites.Google Scholar
• Shi L, Viswanathan S (2020) Optional verification and signaling in online matching markets: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Preprint, submitted May 6, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3572818.Google Scholar
• Taylor SJ, Muchnik L, Aral S (2022) Identity effects in social media. Nature Human Behav. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google 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.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zwilling M (2013) How many more online dating sites do we need? Forbes Magazine (March 1), https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinzwilling/2013/03/01/how-many-more-online-dating-sites-do-we-need/#218cdfd77882.Google Scholar