IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v69y2023i7p3939-3957.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Ravi Bapna

    (Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455)

  • Edward McFowland

    (Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Probal Mojumder

    (Operations Management, Quantitative Methods and Information Systems Area, Indian Institute of Management Udaipur, Balicha, Udaipur, Rajasthan 313001, India)

  • Jui Ramaprasad

    (Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742)

  • Akhmed Umyarov

    (Unaffiliated)

Abstract

With one-third of marriages in the United States beginning online, online dating platforms have become important curators of the modern social fabric. Prior work on online dating has elicited two critical frictions in the heterosexual dating market. Women, governed by age-old social norms of not making the first move, are inhibited in their interactions in that they do not initiate contact with men. On the other side, men send an abundance of messages, the majority of which do not convert to matches. A key distinguishing feature of online dating versus its traditional counterpart is the ability to leave a range of digital signals not replicable in the offline world. These digital signals can impact the nature of online dating platform outcomes. In this paper, we study the impact of a feature that reveals “ who likes you ” (WLY) on engagement, the number of matches, match efficiency, and match sorting in online dating. This feature reveals the identity of the voters who have rated the focal user with a like. To causally identify the effect of this feature, we conduct a large-scale randomized control trial in collaboration with a major North American dating platform. The treatment causes women to be more proactive, sending 7.4% more messages, which is a highly desirable market improvement given that men send double the number of messages compared with women. Further, we find that the women endowed with this feature increase their matches by 14.4%, whereas men increase their matches by 11.5%. Analyzing the moderating impact of desirability—a key aspect of the WLY feature—provides us with nuanced findings. Depending on the levels of each of the two parties’ desirability, we see evidence of sorting, encouragement, and discouragement.

Suggested Citation

  • Ravi Bapna & Edward McFowland & Probal Mojumder & Jui Ramaprasad & Akhmed Umyarov, 2023. "So, Who Likes You? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3939-3957, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:69:y:2023:i:7:p:3939-3957
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.4576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4576
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4576?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. Gordon Burtch & Anindya Ghose & Sunil Wattal, 2016. "Secret Admirers: An Empirical Examination of Information Hiding and Contribution Dynamics in Online Crowdfunding," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 478-496, September.
    2. Gunter J. Hitsch & Ali Hortaçsu & Dan Ariely, 2010. "Matching and Sorting in Online Dating," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 130-163, March.
    3. Chris Forman & Anindya Ghose & Batia Wiesenfeld, 2008. "Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 291-313, September.
    4. Raymond Fisman & Sheena S. Iyengar & Emir Kamenica & Itamar Simonson, 2006. "Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence From a Speed Dating Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 673-697.
    5. David Holtz & Sinan Aral, 2020. "Limiting Bias from Test-Control Interference in Online Marketplace Experiments," Papers 2004.12162, arXiv.org.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Herrenbrueck, Lucas & Xia, Xiaoyu & Eastwick, Paul & Hui, Chin Ming, 2018. "Smart-dating in speed-dating: How a simple Search model can explain matching decisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 54-76.
    2. Lanfei Shi & Siva Viswanathan, 2023. "Optional Verification and Signaling in Online Matching Markets: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1603-1621, December.
    3. Bruze, Gustaf, 2010. "New Evidence on the Causes of Educational Homogamy," Working Papers 10-18, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    4. Zhang, Peilu & Zhang, Yinjunjie & Palma, Marco, 2018. "Social Norms and Competitiveness: My Willingness to Compete Depends on Who I am (supposed to be)," MPRA Paper 89727, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Tianshu Sun & Sean J. Taylor, 2020. "Displaying things in common to encourage friendship formation: A large randomized field experiment," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 237-271, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Ravi Bapna & Jui Ramaprasad & Galit Shmueli & Akhmed Umyarov, 2016. "One-Way Mirrors in Online Dating: A Randomized Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(11), pages 3100-3122, November.
    8. Abi Adams & Alison Andrew, 2019. "Preferences and beliefs in the marriage market for young brides," IFS Working Papers W19/05, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    9. Zeynep Uğur, 2024. "Happiness of Working Women and Homemakers in Türkiye: The Role of Social Norms and Issues in the Work and Home Domains," Journal of Economy Culture and Society, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 70(70), pages 193-212, December.
    10. Keisuke Kawata & Mizuki Komura, 2023. "Only-child matching penalty in the marriage market," Papers 2307.15336, arXiv.org.
    11. Leonardo Bursztyn & Thomas Fujiwara & Amanda Pallais, 2017. "'Acting Wife': Marriage Market Incentives and Labor Market Investments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(11), pages 3288-3319, November.
    12. Chang, Simon & Zhang, Xiaobo, 2015. "Mating competition and entrepreneurship," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 292-309.
    13. Zhang, Peilu & Zhang, Yinjunjie & Palma, Marco A., 2024. "Social roles and competitiveness: My willingness to compete depends on who I am (supposed to be)," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 125-151.
    14. Eva Raiber & Weiwei Ren & Jeanne Bovet & Paul Seabright & Charlotte Wang, 2023. "What Do Parents Want? Parental Spousal Preferences in China," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 71(3), pages 903-939.
    15. Otani, Suguru, 2025. "Nonparametric estimation of matching efficiency and elasticity in a marriage agency platform: 2014–2025," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    16. Lippmann, Quentin & Surana, Khushboo, 2025. "The evolution of partner preferences: Evidence using matrimonial ads from Canada, France, India and the United States," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    17. Ong, David & Wang, Jue, 2015. "Income attraction: An online dating field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 13-22.
    18. Pierre-André CHIAPPORI & Sonia OREFFICE & Climent QUINTANA-DOMEQUE, 2016. "Black-White Marital Matching: Race, Anthtopometrics and Socioeconomics," JODE - Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(4), pages 399-421, December.
    19. Neyt, Brecht & Vandenbulcke, Sarah & Baert, Stijn, 2019. "Are men intimidated by highly educated women? Undercover on Tinder," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    20. Wang-Sheng Lee & Terra McKinnish, 2018. "The marital satisfaction of differently aged couples," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 31(2), pages 337-362, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:69:y:2023:i:7:p:3939-3957. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.