IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/popmgt/v31y2022i8p3320-3336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information design of matching platforms when user preferences are bidimensional

Author

Listed:
  • Jinzhao Du
  • Ying Lei

Abstract

Companies that provide a two‐sided platform for users to proactively seek a match face great challenges in increasing matching efficiency and ensuring match quality. This paper examines how information designs can be used to improve matching outcomes when users derive utility from a match's vertical attribute (i.e., quality) and its horizontal attribute (i.e., idiosyncratic fit). We consider a game‐theoretic model in which competing senders propose matching requests to competing receivers and users on the two sides are differentiated both horizontally and vertically. We first demonstrate that users' preference for the vertical attribute intensifies competition and hurts matching efficiency, and to avoid competition a sender may switch from a close receiver to a distant receiver even when the weight that he places on a match's horizontal closeness increases. Second, we examine four information designs in which one type of information from one side of the market is withheld. Designs that withhold either side's vertical information increase the number of matches, with the improvement from withholding receivers' information being greater. By contrast, designs that withhold either side's horizontal information can cause all requests to concentrate on one receiver and lead to the most severe match failure. Third, an increase in matching volume comes at the expense of certain users' welfare, as withholding one side's vertical information can hurt not only high‐quality users on both sides but also the low‐quality users on the opposite side. Although withholding one side's horizontal information may increase the matching volume under certain conditions, it can be Pareto dominated by a design that withholds one side's vertical information. Fourth, when strategic user pricing is involved, it not only redistributes user welfare but also corrects for matching distortion. Finally, in contrast to the result when strategic pricing is absent, when strategic pricing is present the platform withholding one side's vertical information can benefit all users on the opposite side, while withholding one side's horizontal information can benefit all users on the same side.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinzhao Du & Ying Lei, 2022. "Information design of matching platforms when user preferences are bidimensional," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(8), pages 3320-3336, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:popmgt:v:31:y:2022:i:8:p:3320-3336
    DOI: 10.1111/poms.13753
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13753
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/poms.13753?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kfir Eliaz & Ran Spiegler, 2016. "Search Design and Broad Matching," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(3), pages 563-586, March.
    2. Geoffrey Parker & Marshall Van Alstyne, 2018. "Innovation, Openness, and Platform Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3015-3032, July.
    3. Comola, Margherita & Fafchamps, Marcel, 2018. "An experimental study on decentralized networked markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 567-591.
    4. Ron Berman & Zsolt Katona, 2020. "Curation Algorithms and Filter Bubbles in Social Networks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 296-316, March.
    5. Steven Tadelis & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2015. "Information Disclosure as a Matching Mechanism: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(2), pages 886-905, February.
    6. Heidrun Hoppe & Benny Moldovanu & Emre Ozdenoren, 2011. "Coarse matching with incomplete information," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 47(1), pages 75-104, May.
    7. Lesley Chiou & Catherine Tucker, 2012. "How Does the Use of Trademarks by Third-Party Sellers Affect Online Search?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 819-837, September.
    8. Pierre-André Chiappori & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana-Domeque, 2012. "Fatter Attraction: Anthropometric and Socioeconomic Matching on the Marriage Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 120(4), pages 659-695.
    9. Ganesh Iyer & Zsolt Katona, 2016. "Competing for Attention in Social Communication Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(8), pages 2304-2320, August.
    10. Becker, Gary S, 1973. "A Theory of Marriage: Part I," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(4), pages 813-846, July-Aug..
    11. Gleb Romanyuk & Alex Smolin, 2019. "Cream Skimming and Information Design in Matching Markets," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 250-276, May.
    12. Hanna Halaburda & Mikołaj Jan Piskorski & Pınar Yıldırım, 2018. "Competing by Restricting Choice: The Case of Matching Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(8), pages 3574-3594, August.
    13. Ilse Lindenlaub, 2017. "Sorting Multidimensional Types: Theory and Application," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(2), pages 718-789.
    14. Andrei Hagiu & Bruno Jullien, 2011. "Why do intermediaries divert search?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(2), pages 337-362, June.
    15. Dmitri Kuksov, 2007. "Brand Value in Social Interaction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1634-1644, October.
    16. Joana Pais & Ágnes Pintér & Róbert F. Veszteg, 2020. "Decentralized matching markets with(out) frictions: a laboratory experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 212-239, March.
    17. Lin Tian & Asoo J. Vakharia & Yinliang (Ricky) Tan & Yifan Xu, 2018. "Marketplace, Reseller, or Hybrid: Strategic Analysis of an Emerging E‐Commerce Model," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 27(8), pages 1595-1610, August.
    18. Pierre-André Chiappori & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana-Domeque, 2020. "Erratum: Fatter Attraction: Anthropometric and Socioeconomic Matching on the Marriage Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(12), pages 4673-4675.
    19. Gary Bolton & Ben Greiner & Axel Ockenfels, 2013. "Engineering Trust: Reciprocity in the Production of Reputation Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 265-285, January.
    20. Gordon Burtch & Yili Hong & Ravi Bapna & Vladas Griskevicius, 2018. "Stimulating Online Reviews by Combining Financial Incentives and Social Norms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2065-2082, May.
    21. Roth, Alvin E, 1984. "The Evolution of the Labor Market for Medical Interns and Residents: A Case Study in Game Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 92(6), pages 991-1016, December.
    22. Farajallah, Mehdi & Hammond, Robert G. & Pénard, Thierry, 2019. "What drives pricing behavior in Peer-to-Peer markets? Evidence from the carsharing platform BlaBlaCar," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 15-31.
    23. Pei-Yu Chen & Yili Hong & Ying Liu, 2018. "The Value of Multidimensional Rating Systems: Evidence from a Natural Experiment and Randomized Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4629-4647, October.
    24. Michael Ostrovsky & Michael Schwarz, 2010. "Information Disclosure and Unraveling in Matching Markets," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 34-63, May.
    25. Hector Chade & Jan Eeckhout & Lones Smith, 2017. "Sorting through Search and Matching Models in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(2), pages 493-544, June.
    26. Yifan Dou & Marius F. Niculescu & D. J. Wu, 2013. "Engineering Optimal Network Effects via Social Media Features and Seeding in Markets for Digital Goods and Services," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 164-185, March.
    27. Anthony Dukes & Lin Liu, 2016. "Online Shopping Intermediaries: The Strategic Design of Search Environments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 1064-1077, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yan, Xiaoyu & Liu, Weihua & Tang, Ou & Hou, Jiahe, 2024. "When will an overconfident entrant in the two-sided market do more good than harm?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Veli Safak, 2020. "Matching Multidimensional Types: Theory and Application," Papers 2006.14243, arXiv.org.
    2. T. Tony Ke & Monic Sun & Baojun Jiang, 2024. "Peer-to-Peer Markets with Bilateral Ratings," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(5), pages 1081-1101, September.
    3. Pierre-André Chiappori & Bernard Salanié, 2016. "The Econometrics of Matching Models," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(3), pages 832-861, September.
    4. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner & Guillaume Vandenbroucke, 2017. "Family Economics Writ Large," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1346-1434, December.
    5. Fernihough, Alan & Ó Gráda, Cormac & Walsh, Brendan M., 2015. "Intermarriage in a divided society: Ireland a century ago," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-14.
    6. Arnaud Dupuy & Alfred Galichon, 2014. "Personality Traits and the Marriage Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1271-1319.
    7. Jérôme Adda & Paolo Pinotti & Giulia Tura, 2025. "There’s More to Marriage Than Love: The Effect of Legal Status and Cultural Distance on Intermarriages and Separations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 133(4), pages 1276-1333.
    8. Wei Zhou & Zidong Wang, 2020. "Competing for Search Traffic in Query Markets: Entry Strategy, Platform Design, and Entrepreneurship," Working Papers 20-12, NET Institute.
    9. Aoyagi, Masaki & Yoo, Seung Han, 2022. "Matching strategic agents on a two-sided platform," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 271-296.
    10. Dan Anderberg & Jesper Bagger & V. Bhaskar & Tanya Wilson, 2019. "Marriage market equilibrium, qualifications, and ability," CESifo Working Paper Series 7570, CESifo.
    11. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock & Frederic Vermeulen, 2017. "Household Consumption When the Marriage Is Stable," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(6), pages 1507-1534, June.
    12. Jens Foerderer & Nele Lueker & Armin Heinzl, 2021. "And the Winner Is …? The Desirable and Undesirable Effects of Platform Awards," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1155-1172, December.
    13. Coles, M & Francesconi, M, 2013. "Equilibrium Search and the Impact of Equal Opportunities for Women," Economics Discussion Papers 9010, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    14. James Banks & Iris Kesternich & James P. Smith, 2021. "International differences in interspousal health correlations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1152-1177, May.
    15. Nikhil Agarwal & Eric Budish, 2021. "Market Design," NBER Working Papers 29367, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Barban, Nicola & De Cao, Elisabetta & Oreffice, Sonia & Quintana-Domeque, Climent, 2021. "The effect of education on spousal education: A genetic approach," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    17. Axel Anderson & Lones Smith, 2024. "The Comparative Statics of Sorting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(3), pages 709-751, March.
    18. Ong, David & Wang, Jue, 2015. "Income attraction: An online dating field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 13-22.
    19. Nicola Barban & Elisabetta De Cao & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana-Domeque, 2016. "Assortative Mating on Education: A Genetic Assessment," Working Papers 2016-034, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    20. Job Boerma & Aleh Tsyvinski & Alexander P. Zimin, 2022. "Bunching and Taxing Multidimensional Skills," Papers 2204.13481, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2025.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:popmgt:v:31:y:2022:i:8:p:3320-3336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1937-5956 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.