skip to main content
10.1145/3442188.3445904acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfacctConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

An Agent-based Model to Evaluate Interventions on Online Dating Platforms to Decrease Racial Homogamy

Published:01 March 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Perhaps the most controversial questions in the study of online platforms today surround the extent to which platforms can intervene to reduce the societal ills perpetrated on them. Up for debate is whether there exist any effective and lasting interventions a platform can adopt to address, e.g., online bullying, or if other, more far-reaching change is necessary to address such problems. Empirical work is critical to addressing such questions. But it is also challenging, because it is time-consuming, expensive, and sometimes limited to the questions companies are willing to ask. To help focus and inform this empirical work, we here propose an agent-based modeling (ABM) approach. As an application, we analyze the impact of a set of interventions on a simulated online dating platform on the lack of long-term interracial relationships in an artificial society. In the real world, a lack of interracial relationships are a critical vehicle through which inequality is maintained. Our work shows that many previously hypothesized interventions online dating platforms could take to increase the number of interracial relationships from their website have limited effects, and that the effectiveness of any intervention is subject to assumptions about sociocultural structure. Further, interventions that are effective in increasing diversity in long-term relationships are at odds with platforms' profit-oriented goals. At a general level, the present work shows the value of using an ABM approach to help understand the potential effects and side effects of different interventions that a platform could take.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Atila Abdulkadiroğlu, Parag A Pathak, Alvin E Roth, and Tayfun Sönmez. 2005. The Boston public school match. American Economic Review 95, 2 (2005), 368--371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Ashton Anderson, Sharad Goel, Gregory Huber, Neil Malhotra, and Duncan J Watts. 2014. Political ideology and racial preferences in online dating. Sociological Science 1 (2014), 28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Delia Baldassarri and Peter Bearman. 2007. Dynamics of political polarization. American sociological review 72, 5 (2007), 784--811.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Amber Benham, Eli Edwards, Ben Fractenberg, Laura Gordon-Murnane, Cynthia Hetherington, Deborah A Liptak, Meg Smith, Craig Thompson, and Anne P Mintz. 2012. Web of deceit: Misinformation and manipulation in the age of social media. Information Today, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Eszter Bokányi and Anikó Hannák. 2020. Understanding inequalities in ride-hailing services through simulations. Scientific reports 10, 1 (2020), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Dimitrios Bountouridis, Jaron Harambam, Mykola Makhortykh, Mónica Marrero, Nava Tintarev, and Claudia Hauff. 2019. SIREN: A Simulation Framework for Understanding the Effects of Recommender Systems in Online News Environments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 150--159. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287583Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Geoffrey C Bowker and Susan Leigh Star. 2000. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Lukas Brozovsky and Vaclav Petricek. 2007. Recommender system for online dating service. arXiv preprint cs/0703042 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Elizabeth E Bruch and MEJ Newman. 2018. Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Science Advances 4, 8 (2018), eaap9815.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Robert J Brym and Rhonda L Lenton. 2001. Love online: A report on digital dating in Canada. MSN. ca, February 6 (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. John T. Cacioppo, Stephanie Cacioppo, Gian C. Gonzaga, Elizabeth L. Ogburn, and Tyler J. VanderWeele. 2013. Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 25 (2013), 10135--10140. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222447110 arXiv:https://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10135.full.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. George T Cantwell, Yanchen Liu, Benjamin F Maier, Alice C Schwarze, Carlos A Serván, Jordan Snyder, and Guillaume St-Onge. 2020. Thresholding normally distributed data creates complex networks. Physical Review E 101, 6 (2020), 062302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Dongyu Chen, Xiaolin Li, and Fujun Lai. 2017. Gender discrimination in online peer-to-peer credit lending: evidence from a lending platform in China. Electronic Commerce Research 17, 4 (2017), 553--583.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Alexander D'Amour, Hansa Srinivasan, James Atwood, Pallavi Baljekar, D. Sculley, and Yoni Halpern. 2020. Fairness is not static: deeper understanding of long term fairness via simulation studies. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 525--534. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372878Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Daniel DellaPosta, Yongren Shi, and Michael Macy. 2015. Why Do Liberals Drink Lattes? Amer. J. Sociology 120, 5 (March 2015), 1473--1511. https://doi.org/10.1086/681254Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Megan Rose Dickey. 2016. Here's Airbnb's plan to fix its racism and discrimination problem. TechCrunch (Oct. 2016). https://social.techcrunch.com/2016/09/08/airbnb-plan-fix-racism-discrimination/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Danielle Ensign, Sorelle A. Friedler, Scott Neville, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2017. Runaway Feedback Loops in Predictive Policing. arXiv:1706.09847 [cs, stat] (June 2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09847 arXiv:1706.09847.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Joshua M. Epstein. 1999. Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Complexity 4, 5 (1999), 41--60. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.118.546&rep=rep1&type=pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Eli J Finkel, Paul W Eastwick, Benjamin R Karney, Harry T Reis, and Susan Sprecher. 2012. Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public interest 13, 1 (2012), 3--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Ray Fisman and Michael Luca. 2016. Fixing discrimination in online marketplaces. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonathan B. Freeman and Nalini Ambady. 2011. A dynamic interactive theory of person construal. Psychological review 118, 2 (2011), 247.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeana H Frost, Zoe Chance, Michael I Norton, and Dan Ariely. 2008. People are experience goods: Improving online dating with virtual dates. Journal of Interactive Marketing 22, 1 (2008), 51--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. David Gale and Lloyd S Shapley. 1962. College admissions and the stability of marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly 69, 1 (1962), 9--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Nigel Gilbert. 2007. Agent-Based Models. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. N. Gilbert and K. Troitzsch. 2005. Simulation for the social scientist. Open university press. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fBlaulpmNowC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=simulation+for+the+social+scientist&ots=PBJ6JBl3Wn&sig=rb6HhSlWO2HHhOHs8lB3uaP9708Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Eric Grodsky and Devah Pager. 2001. The structure of disadvantage: Individual and occupational determinants of the black-white wage gap. American Sociological Review (2001), 542--567.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Alex Hanna, Emily Denton, Andrew Smart, and Jamila Smith-Loud. 2020. Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 501--512.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Aniko Hannak, Piotr Sapiezynski, Arash Molavi Kakhki, Balachander Krishnamurthy, David Lazer, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2013. Measuring personalization of web search. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web. 527--538.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Curtis D Hardin and E Tory Higgins. 1996. Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. (1996).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Albert H. Hastorf and Hadley Cantril. 1954. They saw a game; a case study. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49, 1 (1954), 129. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/49/1/129/Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Alex Hern. 2020. How hate speech campaigners found Facebook's weak spot. The Guardian (June 2020). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/29/how-hate-speech-campaigners-found-facebooks-weak-spotGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomas Hills and Peter Todd. 2008. Population heterogeneity and individual differences in an assortative agent-based marriage and divorce model (MADAM) using search with relaxing expectations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 11, 4 (2008), 5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Gunter J Hitsch, Ali Hortaçsu, and Dan Ariely. 2010. Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review 100, 1 (2010), 130--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Jevan A Hutson, Jessie G Taft, Solon Barocas, and Karen Levy. 2018. Debiasing desire: Addressing bias & discrimination on intimate platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Kenneth Joseph, Geoffrey P. Morgan, Michael K. Martin, and Kathleen M. Carley. 2014. On the Coevolution of Stereotype, Culture, and Social Relationships An Agent-Based Model. Social Science Computer Review 32, 3 (June 2014), 295--311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313511388Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Dean C Karnopp, Donald L Margolis, and Ronald C Rosenberg. 2012. System dynamics: modeling, simulation, and control of mechatronic systems. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Joachim Krueger. 1996. Personal beliefs and cultural stereotypes about racial characteristics. Journal of personality and Social Psychology 71, 3 (1996), 536.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Kevin Lewis. 2016. Preferences in the early stages of mate choice. Social Forces 95, 1 (2016), 283--320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Omar Lizardo and Michael Strand. 2010. Skills, toolkits, contexts and institutions: Clarifying the relationship between different approaches to cognition in cultural sociology. Poetics 38, 2 (2010), 205--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Bridget L Long. 2010. Scripts for online dating: A model and theory of online romantic relationship initiation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bowling Green State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Kristian Lum and William Isaac. 2016. To predict and serve? Significance 13, 5 (2016), 14--19. Publisher: Wiley Online Library.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Momin M Malik and Jürgen Pfeffer. 2016. Identifying Platform Effects in Social Media Data.. In ICWSM. 241--249.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Donald Martin Jr., Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Jill Kuhlberg, Andrew Smart, and William S. Isaac. 2020. Extending the Machine Learning Abstraction Boundary: A Complex Systems Approach to Incorporate Societal Context. arXiv:2006.09663 [cs] (June 2020). http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.09663 arXiv: 2006.09663.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Merritt Roe Smith Leo Marx et al. 1994. Does technology drive history?: The dilemma of technological determinism. Mit Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Anna May, Johannes Wachs, and Anikó Hannák. 2019. Gender differences in participation and reward on Stack Overflow. Empirical Software Engineering 24, 4 (2019), 1997--2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. M. McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and J. Cook. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 1 (2001), 415--444. https://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:3022278Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Marina J Muñoz-Rivas, Jose Luis Graña, K Daniel O'Leary, and M Pilar González. 2007. Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health 40, 4 (2007), 298--304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Karl-Dieter Opp. 1982. The Evolutionary Emergence of Norms. British Journal of Social Psychology 21 (06 1982). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1982.tb00522.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Orlando Patterson. 2014. Making Sense of Culture. Annual Review of Sociology 0 (2014). http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043123Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Benjamin Pimentel. [n.d.]. Facebook was once a hot startup looking to conquer the world. Today, my journalist friends in the Philippines grapple with threats and lies on the social network. https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-dangerous-platform-philippine-journalists-duterte-2019-7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Jason Radford and Kenneth Joseph. 2020. Theory In, Theory Out: The Uses of Social Theory in Machine Learning for Social Science. Frontiers in Big Data 3 (2020), 18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2020.00018Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Artemio Ramirez, Erin M Sumner, Christina Fleuriet, and Megan Cole. 2015. When online dating partners meet offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication between online daters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20, 1 (2015), 99--114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Michael J Rosenfeld, Reuben J Thomas, and Sonia Hausen. 2019. Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 36 (2019), 17753--17758.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Christian Sandvig, Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, and Cedric Langbort. 2014. Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. Data and discrimination: converting critical concerns into productive inquiry 22 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomas C. Schelling. 1971. Dynamic models of segregation. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1, 2 (1971), 143--186. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989794Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Simon Schweighofer, Frank Schweitzer, and David Garcia. 2019. A Weighted Balance Model of Opinion Hyperpolarization. 56q12sdswx8daaggo3jb0ek2mxts6ndn (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Maya Sen and Omar Wasow. 2016. Race as a Bundle of Sticks: Designs that Estimate Effects of Seemingly Immutable Characteristics. Annual Review of Political Science 19 (2016), 499--522. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci- 032015- 010015Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Lloyd Shapley and Herbert Scarf. 1974. On cores and indivisibility. Journal of mathematical economics 1, 1 (1974), 23--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Dan Siroker and Pete Koomen. 2013. A/B testing: The most powerful way to turn clicks into customers. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Paul E Smaldino and Jeffrey C Schank. 2012. Human mate choice is a complex system. Complexity 17, 5 (2012), 11--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Henri Tajfel, Michael G. Billig, Robert P. Bundy, and Claude Flament. 1971. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European journal of social psychology 1, 2 (1971), 149--178. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202/fullGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Margaret E Tankard and Elizabeth Levy Paluck. 2016. Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social Issues and Policy Review 10, 1 (2016), 181--211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Kun Tu, Bruno Ribeiro, David Jensen, Don Towsley, Benyuan Liu, Hua Jiang, and Xiaodong Wang. 2014. Online dating recommendations: matching markets and learning preferences. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on world wide web. 787--792.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Duncan J Watts. 2011. Everything is obvious:* Once you know the answer. Currency.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Peng Xia, Benyuan Liu, Yizhou Sun, and Cindy Chen. 2015. Reciprocal recommendation system for online dating. In 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). IEEE, 234--241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. An Agent-based Model to Evaluate Interventions on Online Dating Platforms to Decrease Racial Homogamy

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      FAccT '21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
      March 2021
      899 pages
      ISBN:9781450383097
      DOI:10.1145/3442188

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 March 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Upcoming Conference

      FAccT '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader