What the 2024 Dating Pool Experiment Really Showed

What did Fong actually change—and what moved?

Jessica Fong’s 2024 field experiment changed what dating-platform users knew about nearby user counts. It did not add profiles to their actual pools. The publisher’s abstract for “Effects of Market Size and Competition in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from Online Dating” says users received information indicating lower bounds on the numbers of men and women near their location. On average, information about a larger opposite-side market reduced participation. Among those who did participate, larger market size increased selectivity, while more same-side competition reduced it. These are the reported directions, not a verdict on anyone’s romantic interest or character.

The distinction between the two sides matters. For a woman searching for men, men are the opposite side: potential partners in the platform market. Other women are the same side, competing for attention in that market. Fong’s experiment separately examined the effects of information about these counts on search behavior. In this context, participation means entering or taking part in the platform market; selectivity describes matching decisions among participants. Neither measure tells us whether someone is discerning about character, ready for commitment, or likely to build a lasting relationship.

The study therefore tests a focused question: how did market-count information affect average platform behavior here? It does not test what happens when an app actually gives someone more profiles to browse. Nor does it reveal why any particular user entered, withdrew, or chose selectively. The abstract notes possible mechanisms but does not establish a motive for each person. Keep that boundary in view: a larger number on an app can shape search without explaining what the man you’re dating wants, or whether his actions meet your needs.

Sources: Effects of Market Size and Competition in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from Online Dating

Why might information about a larger market deter participation?

A bigger dating market can make someone pause before she searches at all. In Jessica Fong’s field experiment, users received information about lower-bound counts of men and women near their location. The treatment changed what users knew about the market; it did not add profiles to anyone’s screen. The publisher’s abstract reports that, on average, information indicating a larger opposite-side market deterred participation. Among users who did participate, that information also led to more selective matching decisions. The study calls the first measure market participation and the second matching selectivity. Neither one measures whether a person is discerning about character or ready for a relationship. Why might a count have that effect? One possible explanation is that a larger market changes the imagined work of searching. If many alternatives seem available, someone might expect more profiles to compare, more time before choosing, or a higher standard for deciding that one option is worth pursuing. Those are plausible ways to interpret the pattern, not mechanisms established by the accessible abstract. Fong says the paper discusses potential mechanisms, but the abstract does not identify one explanation as proven. So the careful conclusion is modest: the information itself changed average search behavior, while the reason any particular user responded remains unknown. There is no contradiction between fewer people entering the market and greater selectivity among those who enter. These are different stages. Participation asks whether a user takes part in the market; conditional selectivity describes matching choices among the users who did. Once we look only at people who entered, we are looking at a selected group. Their decisions cannot stand in for everyone who received the information. The abstract does not show that every user became more selective, or that the same person would respond in the same way under different conditions. It reports average effects for this experiment. That distinction matters because “more choice” can sound like a simple gift: a wider field, therefore better odds. But a count is not the same as a usable opportunity. Learning that many people may be nearby can change expectations before anyone opens another profile. A person could see the number as promise, pressure, or simply background information; the abstract does not tell us which meaning drove the average result. Nor does it establish that people who stepped away disliked dating, or that those who kept searching were less serious. Those would be stories layered onto outcomes the study did not report. For you, then, a large number on an app tells you little about whether a man is choosing you, what kind of relationship he wants, or whether his actions fit your needs. The field experiment helps explain one feature of online search: information about market size can shape whether users participate and how selective participating users are. It cannot read one man’s intentions from his app activity. If you’re deciding whether to keep investing, pay closer attention to the exchange between you: what he says he wants, whether he follows through, and whether the pace leaves room for what you want too. A market count may describe the setting. It doesn’t answer the relationship question.

Sources: Effects of Market Size and Competition in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from Online Dating

Why is changing the number of profiles a different test?

A bigger feed is not the same thing as a bigger dating market. One changes how many profiles a person can consider; the other changes what they know about the number of people available. In “The Secret to Finding a Match: A Field Experiment on Choice Capacity Design in an Online Dating Platform,” researchers changed users’ daily profile capacity inside one South Korean dating app. They did not simply tell users that more people lived nearby. The app showed two simplified profiles side by side. A user could choose one or move on to the next pair. After a selection, the chosen person received a notice and could also review the selector’s detailed profile. Either person could then spend in-app currency to view details or send a chat invitation; the recipient decided whether to accept. A match, as this study defined it, meant that both users had initiated online communication. The experiment randomly assigned 6,327 customers, ages 24 to 34 and living in the same metropolitan area, to four groups. For three days, the app increased the number of daily profile pairs available to women only, men only, or both, while a control group stayed at the usual capacity. The researchers reported that increasing men’s capacity produced the highest number of choices, while increasing women’s capacity alone produced the highest number of matches. A simultaneous increase for both sides did not maximize either outcome. These were platform outcomes, not measures of relationship quality. (Jung et al., “The Secret to Finding a Match.”) More capacity may let users select more people, but each selection still needs a response. In a two-sided platform, one person’s expanded feed can also change what happens to the people seeing that person. More choices can coexist with fewer returned choices; an initial selection also differs from mutual conversation. Men’s expanded capacity generated the most selections, but women’s expanded capacity generated the most chats. In the both-expanded group, neither measure reached its high point. So the useful comparison is not simply small pool versus large pool. It is which side gained capacity, how the other side responded, and whether the outcome is a selection or reciprocal communication. This is why the field experiment asks a different question from Fong’s 2024 study. Fong supplied information about nearby user counts and observed platform participation and selectivity. Jung and colleagues changed the number of profiles available to evaluate. One design concerns knowledge of market size; the other changes search capacity. Neither establishes whether a particular man is available, keeps his word, or wants the relationship you want. When an app or article promises “more options,” ask what actually expands. Does the platform report a larger user count? Does it show more profiles in a daily feed? Does its algorithm change who appears? Or does it measure mutual messages after two people choose each other? A profile count cannot stand in for reciprocal interest, and a chat count cannot stand in for a relationship. You can notice whether he makes plans, follows through, speaks clearly about what he wants, and respects your pace. Then ask whether his answer and his repeated actions fit your needs. The experiment helps explain how an app’s design can shape choices and matches. It cannot make that judgment for you.

Sources: The Secret to Finding a Match: A Field Experiment on Choice Capacity Design in an Online Dating Platform

What can a profile sequence tell us about selectivity?

Seeing profiles one after another can change acceptance as the sequence unfolds, but that does not prove a larger real-world dating pool causes more rejection. In “A Rejection Mind-Set: Choice Overload in Online Dating,” Pronk and Denissen followed choices across three studies. Participants tended to become less likely to accept later profiles. The pattern varied, and the authors’ analysis raises a key question: did profile count matter, or did earlier rejections?

The first study asked 315 single, heterosexual adults ages 18 to 30, recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk, to rate either 45 or 90 hypothetical partners. Acceptance declined as the sequence progressed, with the sharpest drop in roughly the first dozen pictures. But assignment to 45 rather than 90 pictures did not significantly change acceptance overall. The study detected a change during repeated evaluation; it did not establish that doubling the pool itself made people more rejecting.

Study 2 brought choices closer to an actual app interaction. A group of 158 single, heterosexual Dutch participants ages 18 to 29 viewed pictures submitted by other participants, who could accept them in return. Mutual acceptance counted as a match. Acceptance fell across the sequence, though the decline began later than in Study 1. There was no significant overall sequence effect on match probability. But women’s chance of a match declined over the task; the change for men was not statistically significant. This is a finding from one sample and setup, not a rule about dating-app behavior.

In Study 3, 305 single, heterosexual adults ages 18 to 30 rated 50 hypothetical profiles in five blocks. Women became less likely to accept profiles across the blocks; men did not show a significant decline. Participants also reported lower satisfaction with the pictures and less hope about their dating success as the task continued. They suggest a possible path through the task, but cannot explain why a particular person passed on a profile or what a dater wants from a relationship.

profile order and accumulated rejection moved together. Across the studies, sequence and earlier rejections were strongly correlated. In adjusted models, accumulated rejection predicted more rejection of the next profile. The estimated sequence effect then turned positive, but Pronk and Denissen urged caution because the measures were closely related and could create multicollinearity. Declining acceptance appeared in these tasks, while its cause is less settled than ‘more options make people choosier’ suggests.

This differs from Jessica Fong’s 2024 field experiment, “Effects of Market Size and Competition in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from Online Dating.” Fong gave users information about lower-bound counts of nearby users and observed participation and selectivity. Pronk and Denissen changed profile order and tracked choices through the sequence. One tests responses as exposure unfolds; the other tests responses to market-size information. Neither measures whether someone will build a good relationship.

For you, a man’s profile activity cannot answer whether he is right for you. These experiments describe average choices in bounded tasks, not private motives. If browsing leaves you comparing everyone or second-guessing yourself, notice that effect. It still does not explain what he intends. Look at what he says he wants, whether he follows through, and how he responds when you name the pace and care you need.

Sources: A Rejection Mind-Set: Choice Overload in Online Dating

Does a large pool always feel like a benefit?

No. A larger pool can feel like more possibility and more pressure at once. In “The Agony of Partner Choice,” a survey of 667 adults found that dating-app use was associated with perceiving more potential partners, and that perceived abundance was associated with greater fear of being single. Because this was a cross-sectional survey, it cannot show that app use or abundance caused that fear. The paper then tested availability in a separate experiment with 248 adults aged 18 to 38. Participants were assigned to see 11, 31, or 91 profiles described as available potential partners. Compared with the low-availability group, those in the high-availability group reported more fear of being single, lower state self-esteem, and more partner-choice overload. This is evidence about short-term responses to perceived availability. It does not show that participants actually had 91 people to date, formed fewer relationships, or chose worse partners. That distinction matters. The experiment changed how many profiles participants believed were available in the task; it did not enlarge anyone’s real dating market or follow people into relationships. “More choice” can mean candidates to browse or profiles presented in an exercise. Those are not the same experience as a lasting relationship. Why might abundance bring strain? The authors discuss a possible pressure to find the right person when many candidates seem available. A long list may invite comparison and make a choice harder to settle on. Those are possible explanations, not a proven account of what each participant thought. The direct finding is narrower: the high-availability group reported more fear, lower state self-esteem, and greater overload than the low-availability group. It doesn’t establish that every woman reacts this way, or that a large dating market is always harmful. The survey and experiment answer different questions. The survey describes associations across a broader adult sample; the experiment tests assigned perceptions of high, moderate, and low availability. Neither tested whether someone started a relationship, whether it worked, or whether a woman should keep seeing the man she is dating. Fear and self-esteem are not measures of compatibility. The experimental participants were relatively young, highly educated, and mostly women. The task was a single exposure, so it cannot tell us whether these effects last or change with app use over time. It’s a bounded result about perceived availability and immediate feelings, not a rule about every woman or app. You can still use the finding personally without treating it as a verdict. If browsing leaves you tense, comparing yourself with strangers, or afraid that you must choose perfectly, take that reaction seriously as information about your experience. You might close the app for the evening or browse for a set time. The feeling doesn’t prove a bigger pool is bad for you; it tells you how this stretch of browsing is landing. Don’t let an app’s pool decide whether a man deserves your investment. The study measured group responses to an availability task, not his intentions or your fit together. Bring the decision back to the two people involved: what does he say he wants, does his follow-through match his words, and does the pace leave room for your needs? A crowded screen can shape how dating feels. It cannot answer those questions for you.

Sources: The Agony of Partner Choice: The Effect of Excessive Partner Availability on Fear of Being Single, Self-Esteem, and Partner-Choice Overload

Does selectivity mean someone is unwilling to commit?

No. Selectivity is about how someone evaluates possible partners; commitment readiness is how ready they feel to begin a committed relationship. Neither measure tells us whether a person actually starts or sustains one. In the five-study program reported in “Playing the field or locking down a partner?: Perceptions of available romantic partners and commitment readiness,” one correlational study and four experiments examined single people’s perceptions of available partners and their reported readiness. Across the studies, perceiving more potential partners was linked to lower readiness. In the final experiment, participants who received feedback that they had more matches reported greater selectivity, and selectivity statistically mediated lower reported readiness. That result offers a possible pathway, not a diagnosis of an individual dater. The study measured responses to experimental feedback and questionnaires. Its authors explicitly called for future research to test whether the change in readiness leads people to initiate an actual relationship. Feeling unready and choosing not to build with you are not interchangeable facts.

Readiness is a state, not a promise. A person may feel more or less open to commitment at a particular time, while an actual relationship requires two people to choose one another and keep showing up. The Brady study investigated the first part of that chain. It did not follow participants into relationships to see who made plans or stayed. Its finding cannot tell you that a selective man will avoid commitment, or explain what his app activity means. It does suggest that perceived alternatives can shape how ready people say they feel, which makes readiness worth asking about directly. His answer matters alongside what he does next.

A later comparison complicates any simple rule that more options make people less willing to pursue a relationship. In “Re-examining relational pursuit and mate selection in online dating,” two preregistered experiments assigned participants to choose a date from either six profiles or 31. The samples included 193 people in the first experiment and 342 in the second. Participants facing 31 profiles reported stronger immediate pursuit intentions toward the person they chose; perceived compatibility or similarity helped explain that effect. In the second experiment, they also reported higher commitment readiness. The researchers did not find that the larger set increased selectivity. These were simulated profile choices and self-reports, not observed dates or lasting commitments. Brady’s experiments changed perceived availability and measured general readiness. Hu and Markowitz’s experiments offered a larger set, asked people to choose someone, and measured their reported response to that selected match. A broader pool may feel like more alternatives in one task and a better chance of finding a fitting person in another.

A study can’t decode his hesitation. Ask what he is available for now, what kind of relationship he wants, and whether he wants to build toward the same thing you do. Then watch whether his choices support his words: does he make plans, follow through, and leave room for your pace and needs? If he says he wants commitment but repeatedly keeps the relationship undefined, you have a pattern to assess. If he says he is unsure and acts with care while you decide whether that pace works for you, that is a different situation. An app-level average cannot settle the choice. His answer, repeated behavior, and your requirements belong in the conversation.

Sources: Playing the Field or Locking Down a Partner?: Perceptions of Available Romantic Partners and Commitment Readiness; Re-examining Relational Pursuit and Mate Selection in Online Dating

When can more profiles increase pursuit instead?

A larger set can increase interest in the person someone chooses when it makes a more compatible match easier to find. That is the counterweight to the idea that more options always make people hesitate. In “Re-examining Relational Pursuit and Mate Selection in Online Dating,” two preregistered experiments asked participants to choose one person for a date from either six profiles or thirty-one. Those assigned thirty-one reported stronger immediate pursuit intentions toward their chosen person. Perceived compatibility helped explain the difference in both experiments; perceived similarity also mattered in the second. A larger set may create more comparison, but it may also make a closer fit easier to find. The profiles varied in interests and relationship goals, so participants could encounter someone who felt more compatible. In these experiments, perceived compatibility partly explained why those shown more profiles reported stronger pursuit intentions. That is a possible path from more options to more interest, not proof that every large pool contains a better match. “More profiles” does not describe one experience. A varied set may make a fitting person easier to spot, but the study does not establish that every large pool contains a better match. The researchers used a simulated dating site. Participants shared preferences, reviewed profiles presented as potential dates, and chose one person to meet. The first experiment included 193 single U.S. adults aged 21 to 30; the second included 342 participants assigned to the six- or thirty-one-profile condition. The outcome was reported interest in pursuing the chosen person, measured just after selection. The researchers did not track actual dates or lasting relationships. The authors also found no significant increase in selectivity from the larger profile set in these experiments. That result pushes against a simple story in which every extra option raises the bar until nobody gets chosen. But it does not erase other findings. Jessica Fong’s 2024 field experiment changed what users knew about nearby market counts and measured participation and selectivity on a platform. It did not add profiles to people’s choice sets. “The Agony of Partner Choice” experimentally varied perceived availability and measured short-term overload, fear of being single, and self-esteem. Hu and Markowitz instead varied the number of profiles shown and asked about immediate pursuit of the selected person. These are different tests with different outcomes. The studies can point in different directions without canceling one another. A market-count message may alter entry; perceived abundance may feel draining; a larger, varied set may help someone find a closer fit. Each result belongs to its own design and measure. Hu and Markowitz offer a possibility, not a universal rule or a promise of better relationships. For you, this evidence cannot tell you what a man intends or whether he is ready to build the relationship you want. It can only loosen one assumption: more profiles do not always mean less interest in choosing someone. If you are wondering whether to invest, look at the two of you. Does he say what he wants? Does he make plans and follow through? Does he respect your pace and take your needs seriously? A study about profile sets cannot answer those questions for him. His words and repeated actions can.

Sources: Re-examining Relational Pursuit and Mate Selection in Online Dating; Junwen Hu

What does this body of evidence let you conclude about him?

It cannot tell you whether he is right for you. The studies do not test one shared version of “more options,” and they do not measure one shared outcome. In “Effects of Market Size and Competition in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from Online Dating,” the 2024 field experiment changed what users knew about nearby user counts. Larger opposite-side market information reduced participation on average and increased selectivity among those who joined; more same-side competition reduced selectivity. That is evidence about entering and searching within one platform. It is not a verdict on a man’s interest, character, or capacity for a relationship. Here is the useful comparison. Fong’s study changed information about market size; it measured participation and selectivity, leaving individual motives and relationship outcomes unknown. “The Secret to Finding a Match” changed how many candidates users could view and select on one South Korean dating platform; it measured choices and matches, which are different steps in a platform’s process. “A Rejection Mind-Set: Choice Overload in Online Dating” followed people as they saw profiles in sequence and measured acceptance and, in one study, mutual matches; it cannot cleanly separate the number seen from the experience of earlier rejections. “Playing the Field or Locking Down a Partner?” experimentally changed perceived availability and measured commitment readiness, a reported state rather than a relationship begun. Finally, “Re-examining Relational Pursuit and Mate Selection in Online Dating” compared six with 31 simulated profiles and measured immediate pursuit intentions. A larger set raised pursuit when a chosen profile seemed more compatible, but that result does not establish who went on a date or built a lasting partnership. These findings can differ because the researchers changed different conditions and watched different moments in the search. Consider this illustration: after several dates, you notice that he still appears active on an app. None of these studies can reveal why he is browsing, whether he wants to keep seeing you, or what the two of you could build. An app signal may prompt a conversation, but it cannot answer for him. Ask what kind of relationship he wants. Then notice whether his plans and follow-through fit that answer, whether he makes room for your pace and needs, and how he responds when you state a boundary. Also ask yourself whether the relationship he is offering is one you want. A clear conversation followed by consistent action gives you more relevant evidence than a population average; repeated mismatch matters even if the app market is large or small. The studies challenge the easy assumption that a bigger pool guarantees better outcomes. They cannot decide whether you should invest in this man. Make that choice from what he says, what he does over time, and whether the relationship taking shape meets your needs.

Sources: Effects of Market Size and Competition in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from Online Dating; The Secret to Finding a Match: A Field Experiment on Choice Capacity Design in an Online Dating Platform; A Rejection Mind-Set: Choice Overload in Online Dating; Playing the Field or Locking Down a Partner?: Perceptions of Available Romantic Partners and Commitment Readiness; Re-examining Relational Pursuit and Mate Selection in Online Dating

What should you ask and watch next?

Ask what kind of relationship he wants and what pace feels right. You might say, “I’m looking for a relationship that can grow with intention. What are you hoping for?” Does he answer clearly? Does he make room for what you want, even if your timelines differ? Can you agree on a next step that feels good to both of you?

A different timeline isn’t automatically a mismatch. What matters is whether you can discuss it honestly and whether his choices match his words. If he wants something casual while you want commitment, believe the difference. If he says he wants a relationship, notice whether he follows through on plans and respects your pace. a repeated gap between words and actions gives you firmer information. You don’t have to keep investing while you wait for clarity.

Fong’s 2024 field experiment, “Effects of Market Size and Competition in Two-Sided Markets,” concerns how market-count information shaped participation and selectivity on one platform. It can’t tell you whether this man is right for you. If you want help naming your needs, the Dating Clarity Report offers six observations about consistency, intentions, and boundaries, followed by a practical conversation. Compare his answer with his behavior, your priorities, and the relationship you’re building together. The decision is yours.

Sources: Effects of Market Size and Competition in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from Online Dating

A little more clarity