Date: 20 May 2010
What makes you click?—Mate preferences in online dating
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
We estimate mate preferences using a novel data set from an online dating service. The data set contains detailed information on user attributes and the decision to contact a potential mate after viewing his or her profile. This decision provides the basis for our preference estimation approach. A potential problem arises if the site users strategically shade their true preferences. We provide a simple test and a bias correction method for strategic behavior. The main findings are (i) There is no evidence for strategic behavior. (ii) Men and women have a strong preference for similarity along many (but not all) attributes. (iii) In particular, the site users display strong same-race preferences. Race preferences do not differ across users with different age, income, or education levels in the case of women, and differ only slightly in the case of men. For men, but not for women, the revealed same-race preferences correspond to the same-race preference stated in the users’ profile. (iv) There are gender differences in mate preferences; in particular, women have a stronger preference than men for income over physical attributes.
Note that previous versions of this paper (“What Makes You Click?—Mate Preferences and Matching Outcomes in Online Dating”) were circulated between 2004 and 2006. Any previously reported results not contained in this paper or in the companion piece Hitsch et al. (2010) did not prove to be robust and were dropped from the final paper version.
Adachi, H. (2003). A search model of two-sided matching under nontransferable utility. Journal of Economic Theory, 113, 182–198.CrossRef
Banerjee, A. V., Duflo, E., Ghatak, M., & Lafortune, J. (2009). Marry for what? Caste and mate selection in modern India. Manuscript (MIT)
Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81(4), 813–846.CrossRef
Biddle, J. E., & Hamermesh, D. S. (1998). Beauty, productivity, and discrimination: Lawyers’ looks and lucre. Journal of Labor Economics, 16(1), 172–201.CrossRef
Browning, M., Chiappori, P.-A., Weiss, Y. (2008). The economics of the family. http://www.tau.ac.il/~weiss/fam_econ/.
Burdett, K., & Coles, M. G. (1997). Marriage and class. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(1), 141–168.CrossRef
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRef
Buss, D. M. (1995). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.CrossRef
Choo, E., & Siow, A. (2006). Who marries whom and why. Journal of Political Economy, 114 (1), 175–201.CrossRef
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408–423.CrossRef
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245–264.CrossRef
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J., Richeson, J. A., Son, D., & Finkel, E. J. (2009). Is love colorblind? Political orientation and interracial romantic desire. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1258–1268.CrossRef
Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest: The science of beauty. New York: Doubleday Books.
Finkel, E. J., & R. F. Baumeister (2010). Attraction and rejection. In R. F. Baumeister & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2, 673–697.CrossRef
Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2008). Racial preferences in dating. Review of Economic Studies, 75, 117–132.CrossRef
Gillis, J. S., & Avis, W. E. (1980). The male-taller norm in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 396–401.CrossRef
Goldberger, A. S. (1983). Abnormal selection bias. In S. Karlin, T. Amemiya, & L. A. Goodman (Eds.), Studies in econometrics, time series, and multivariate statistics. New York: Academic.
Hamermesh, D. S., & Biddle, J. E. (1994). Beauty and the labor market. American Economic Review, 84(5), 1174–1194.
Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–162.CrossRef
Heckman, J. J. (1990). Varieties of selection bias. American Economic Review, 80(2), 313–318.
Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review, 100(1), 130–163.CrossRef
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.CrossRef
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–133.
Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.CrossRef
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390–423.CrossRef
Lee, S. (2009). Marriage and online mate search services: Evidence from South Korea. manuscript (University of Maryland).
Little, R. J. A. (1985). A note about models for selectivity bias. Econometrica, 53(6), 1469–1474.CrossRef
Maisey, D. S., Vale, E. L. E., Cornelissen, P. L., & Tovée, M. J. (1999). Characteristics of male attractiveness for women. Lancet, 353, 1500.CrossRef
Nettle, D. (2002). Women’s height, reproductive success and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in modern humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 269, 1919–1923.CrossRef
Newey, W. K., Powell, J. L., & Walker, J. R. (1990). Semiparametric estimation of selection models: Some empirical results. American Economic Review, 80(2), 324–328.
Pawlowski, B., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Lipowicz, A. (2000). Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature, 403, 156.
Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Gate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-run romantic partners? Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12(3), 1–21.CrossRef
Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1074–1080.CrossRef
Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(38), 15011–15016.CrossRef
Tovée, M. J., Reinhardt, S., Emery, J. L., & Cornelissen, P. L. (1998). Optimum body-mass index and maximum sexual attractiveness. Lancet, 352, 548.CrossRef
Wong, L. Y. (2003). Structural estimation of marriage models. Journal of Labor Economics, 21(3), 699–727.CrossRef
- What makes you click?—Mate preferences in online dating
Quantitative Marketing and Economics
Volume 8, Issue 4 , pp 393-427
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Mate preferences
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, 5807 South Woodlawn Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA
- 2. Department of Economics, University of Chicago, 1126 East 59th Street, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA
- 3. Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 1 Towerview Drive, Box 90120, Durham, NC, 27708-0120, USA