skip to content »

Ray fishman dating

In tangible terms, it only takes a few ratings of somebody’s relative attractiveness to be moderately confident that the person is generally perceived to be above or below average, but it’s also the case that almost all participants had at least one partner who perceived him or her to be noticeably above average, and at least one who had the opposite perception.Correlations between perceptions on different dimensions As one would expect based the Halo Effect , people who were viewed positively on one dimension were viewed positively on all dimensions.

Multilevel modeling would definitely be useful here, since you have something like 10 binary observations and 6 parameters to estimate for each person.All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies.If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.Such data is seldom public, but Columbia business school professors Ray Fisman and Sheena Iyengar compiled a rich and relevant data set for their paper Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence From a Speed Dating Experiment, which they generously anonymized and shared.I initially explored the data with a view toward predicting whether two people will want to see each other again.I am looking for interesting, unusual datasets for a data analysis class I am teaching, and I heard by email from Ray Fisman that you have a sanitized version of the data from his speed dating experiment.

Indeed, the data are here; we use them in a homework assignment in our book.

I'll post market design related news and items about repugnant markets.

See also my Game theory, experimental economics, and market design page.

The data were collected by Ray Fisman and Sheena Iyengar, an economist and a psychologist at the business school here, and they summarized their findings in this paper: We study dating behavior using data from a Speed Dating experiment where we generate random matching of subjects and create random variation in the number of potential partners.

Our design allows us to directly observe individual decisions rather than just final matches.

But there were still (weak) well-defined group consensuses on a person’s relative ambition, intelligence and sincerity.