Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 219 views

    Dating 101: Your Guide To Happiness in Life

    Uploaded by

    Fanny Sylvia C.
    Dating 101 provides lessons on dating markets, preferences, and finding a partner. It discusses complexities in identifying preferences and eliciting information from people. Controlled dating studies look at preferences. The document also discusses choosing to look for "the one" vs someone nice.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dating 101: Your Guide To Happiness in Life

    Uploaded by

    Fanny Sylvia C.
    219 views25 pages
    Dating 101 provides lessons on dating markets, preferences, and finding a partner. It discusses complexities in identifying preferences and eliciting information from people. Controlled dating studies look at preferences. The document also discusses choosing to look for "the one" vs someone nice.

    Original Title

    Dating Part 1

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dating 101 provides lessons on dating markets, preferences, and finding a partner. It discusses complexities in identifying preferences and eliciting information from people. Controlled dating studies look at preferences. The document also discusses choosing to look for "the one" vs someone nice.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    219 views25 pages

    Dating 101: Your Guide To Happiness in Life

    Uploaded by

    Fanny Sylvia C.
    Dating 101 provides lessons on dating markets, preferences, and finding a partner. It discusses complexities in identifying preferences and eliciting information from people. Controlled dating studies look at preferences. The document also discusses choosing to look for "the one" vs someone nice.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 25

    Dating 101

    your guide to happiness in life


    lesson 1. what are dating markets?
    • men+women, women+women, men+men
    (and other permutations, but we will only study
    heterosexual couples today.)
    • not much research done on dating so not
    too many models…
    (more marriage models)
    • complex preferences
    – as with all human-psych research:
    do people know what they want?
    lesson 2: girls are confusing
    (guys are too)

    identifying preferences is very important.

    eliciting preference information from both


    yourself and others is very difficult.

    thus, we look at preferences from controlled


    dating studies.
    lesson 3: is there someone for me?

    Choose a side

    Looking for “the one” Looking for


    someone nice

    (super selective) (less selective)


    How It Works
     Users provide information about
    demographics, socioeconomic situation,
    physical characteristics, personality,
    lifestyle, views, and a photo
     Search for matches by age range and
    geographic location, view profiles, and
    send messages (if a paid member)
    Motivations For Joining
    40%
    35%
    30%
    25%
    20%
    Men
    15% Women
    10%
    5%
    0%
    Long-Term Just Looking, Casual Sex
    Relationship Curious
    Who Sends E-Mails?
    60%

    50%

    40%

    30%
    Men
    20% Women

    10%

    0%
    Long Term Just Looking, Casual Sex
    Relationship Curious
    Physical Characteristics
     Self-Reported Attractiveness Ratings:
    Very Above Average Below
    Good Average Average
    Men 19% 49% 29% 3%

    Women 24% 48% 26% 2%

     27.5% of users posted photos


    Modeling Framework
     Adachi Search Model:
     Threshold Rule: U(m,w) > v(m)
     A(m, w) = Indicator function of crossing the 
    threshold
     Expected Utility of Man Meeting Woman = 
    U(mutual match) + U(mismatch)
     EUM(m, w) = UM(m,w)AM(m, w)AW(m, w) + v(m)(1 − 
    AW(m,w))AM(m,w) + v(m)(1 − AM(m,w)) 
     Solve for equilibrium reservation utilities
     More than one set of equilibrium results
    Modeling Framework
     Gale-Shapley Model:
     A matching μ is stable if there is no man m 
    and woman w such that UM(m,w) > UM(m, 
    μ(m)) and UW(w,m) > UW(w, μ(w))
     2 extremes using the deferred­acceptance 
    algorithm: men­optimal and women­optimal
    Modeling Framework
     As search costs become negligible,
    Adachi and Gale-Shapley Models provide
    identical results
     Are there search costs and costs to
    sending e-mails in online dating?
    Partner Choice
     Regardless of
    the browser’s
    attractiveness,
    the probability of
    sending an e-
    mail increases
    with the
    attractiveness of
    the photo
    Reply Rates
     71% of men’s e-mails
    are rejected, 56% of
    women’s
     Responses increase
    with attractiveness of
    sender
     More attractive men
    and women are
    pickier, but a man in
    the lowest quintile can
    get a response from a
    woman in the highest
    with 20% p
    Outcome Regression Approach
     Assumptions:
     Homogeneous preferences: all men (women)
    agree on women’s (men’s) rankings
     All profiles will be equally sampled during
    searches
     Can segment the single index into groups, regress
    number of e-mails a user receives from group g on all
    user attributes
     Incidence rate ratio: premium or penalty for a specific
    attribute
     exp(θj)= E(Y|xA) / E(Y|xB)
    Outcome Regression: Results
     R2m=28%, R2w=44%
     Stated dating goals
    affect men’s outcomes
    but not women’s
     Looks have the strongest explanatory power
     Photos improve outcome
     Positive correlation between self-description & outcome
     Ideal height & BMI ranges, as well as hair color
     Income increases outcome for men (>$50,000) but
    not for women
     Women especially prefer equivalent education levels
     Men in legal, military, fire fighting, or medical careers
    receive more e-mails
    Outcome Regression: Results
    Discrete Choice Estimation
     Assume heterogeneous preferences
     UM(m,w) = UM(Xm,Xw;θM) + errormw 
    = xβM + |xw−xm||+αγ+M +  |xw−xm||−αγ−M + ∑ ∏{dmk=1 and 
    dwl=1}øklM + errormw
     Fixed­effects Logit Model:

     Random­effects Probit Model

     Logit assumes U is non­linear (α>1) while Probit 
    assumes reservation values are independent of 
    covariates
     Logit puts more weight on attribute levels, Probit on
    heterogeneity
    Discrete Choice: Results
     Results confirm Outcome Regression results

    Regressor Men - Men - Women - Women -


    Logit Probit Logit Probit
    Looks Rating .5630 .2774 .5432 .2647
    “Very Good” Looks Rating .5995 .3299 .5276 .2790
    “Above Average” Looks Rating .3769 .1937 .1871 .0968

    “Other Looks” Looks Rating .3718 .0312 .0903 .0941


    Height Difference (+) .0013 -.1120 -.0100 .0309
    Height Difference (-) -.0108 -.0154 -.0420 -.2155
    BMI -.3826 -.2423 .1285 .1182
    Income ($1000) .0068 .0033 .0171 .0071
    Discrete Choice: Tradeoffs
    Predicting Match Structures
     Is the structure of matches different in online
    versus traditional dating?
    – Dating vs Marriage
    – Sample size not representative of population
     Gale-Shapley Predictions
    – Men optimal and women optimal matchings are
    equivalent
    – Keyword matchings also provide similar results
    – Thus, online dating is a close approximation for the
    online dating website
    “Unobservables”
     Observable attributes only account for
    part of the preferences
     The unobservable could
     Represent noise in users’ behavior
    (mistakes in sending e-mails)
     Represent shared interests
    Ethnic Preferences

     All ethnicities discriminate against other


    ethnicities, despite stated preferences
     When simulating matching without
    ethnicity as a factor, there is still some
    endogamy but not as high as initially
    Online Dating
     Is it more efficient to appeal to a broad
    membership, or to niche groups (ethnic,
    religious, age, etc.)?
     Should matches be provided based on
    interests and characteristics, or should
    users search based on preferences?
    Online Dating Sites
    Membership Goals Communication
    Size
    eHarmony > 2 million Serious Guided or Open
    Relationships Communication

    Match.com > 15 million Dating & E-Mails, Instant


    Relationships Messages, “Wink”

    American > 3 million Dating, E-Mails, E-Cards, or


    Singles Romance, “Flirt”
    Friendship
    LavaLife > 2 million Dating/Relation Messages, Instant
    ships, Intimate Messages, “Smile”
    Encounters
    Online Dating Sites
    Matching Specifications

    eHarmony Matches based on Age, Ethnicity, Religion,


    personality test & Education, Income,
    preferences Height, Smoking, Drinking
    Match.com Search (preferences & Age, Ethnicity, Education,
    keywords), Mutual & Relationship Status, Body
    Reverse Matches Type, Smoking Drinking
    American Search (preferences) Age, Relationship Status,
    Singles Ethnicity, Height,
    Smoking
    LavaLife Search (preferences) Age, Ethnicity, Religion,
    Income, Children, Body
    Type, Height, Smoking,
    Drinking, Interests

    You might also like