Data Finds that Dating Pool Size Influences User Behavior
A recent study published in Marketing Science reveals fascinating insights into how the size of the dating pool on online platforms influences user behavior. Led by Jessica Fong, a researcher at the University of Michigan, the study provides a deep dive into the dynamics of online dating, highlighting how both the number of potential matches (market size) and the number of competing users (competition size) significantly affect user decision-making.
The findings challenge conventional wisdom about online dating, suggesting that a larger user base doesn’t always mean better engagement—and may even reduce participation when users feel overwhelmed.
Key Findings: How Dating Pool Size Influences User Behavior
Fong’s study, conducted in collaboration with a leading online dating platform, reveals two major behavioral responses influenced by dating pool size:
Market Size (Number of Potential Matches): As the number of potential matches increases, users tend to become more selective. With more options available, users feel encouraged to narrow their preferences in the hope of finding an ideal partner. This can lead to prolonged decision-making and even reluctance to settle on a match.
Competition Size (Number of Competing Users): When faced with a larger number of competing users, individuals become less selective in an effort to secure matches before other competitors. This sense of urgency often makes users more open to a wider range of matches than they would otherwise consider.
These dual forces create a delicate balance between opportunity and pressure, shaping user behavior in often unpredictable ways.
Decision Fatigue and the Paradox of Choice
One of the most striking takeaways from the study is the role of decision fatigue. Contrary to expectations, larger dating pools don’t necessarily translate to higher engagement. Instead, users may experience a paradox of choice—a psychological effect where having too many options leads to anxiety, dissatisfaction, and decision paralysis.