Match Group's Preference Problem: Are Algorithms Chasing the Wrong Data?
Key Points
- •A University of California Davis study tracking 4,500 blind dates with Tawkify revealed that both men and women showed higher attraction to younger partners in person.
- •The finding contradicts decades of survey data where women claim to prefer older men, challenging the stated preference models used by Match Group and Bumble.
- •Match Group Chief Executive Bernard Kim told investors the company plans to use large language models to refine recommendation engines based on user profile data.
- •Hinge has already removed search filters from its free tier, forcing members to view profiles outside of their stated match criteria.
The dating app industry has a stated-preference problem. Match Group and its competitors have spent years refining algorithms that serve up what users say they want, but new research suggests those stated preferences bear little relation to actual attraction. The gulf between what people claim to desire and what they respond to in person may undermine the entire foundation of algorithmic matching.
Match Group (MTCH) has spent the last three years optimising its platforms around stated preferences—algorithmically serving up what users say they want. A new study from UC Davis tracking 4,500 blind dates suggests that exercise might be fundamentally flawed. According to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, both men and women demonstrated higher attraction to younger partners during in-person encounters, contradicting decades of survey data showing women claim to prefer older men.
The disconnect isn't subtle. Whilst demographic data consistently shows men partnering with younger women—and women routinely tell researchers they seek older partners—the blind date research reveals something different happens when people actually meet. Lead researcher Paul Eastwick told media outlets the finding would be 'shocking to many people', and he's not wrong. It upends the prevailing wisdom that youth preference is primarily a male trait.
Create a free account
Unlock unlimited access and get the weekly briefing delivered to your inbox.
If users can't accurately report—or won't honestly disclose—what they're attracted to, then preference filters and algorithmic matching built on that data are optimising for the wrong target.
This is the stated-versus-revealed preference problem that should terrify every product team relying on profile data to train matching algorithms. The industry has spent a decade refining tools to help people filter for what they think they want. That might be the entire problem.
The study itself is unusually robust by dating research standards. UC Davis partnered with Tawkify, a concierge matchmaking service that arranged the encounters and collected post-date feedback from participants actively seeking long-term relationships. These weren't swipe-fatigued Tinder users half-heartedly showing up to drinks. They were people paying for professional matchmaking, which makes the youth-preference finding considerably more significant than if it had emerged from a casual dating context.
What the research doesn't reveal is arguably more important than what it does. Eastwick and his team tracked initial attraction but not relationship formation. Feeling chemistry on a first date isn't the same as choosing to commit. The gulf between those two moments—between first-date attraction and partnership—may explain why we see men partnering with younger women despite both genders showing similar age-related attraction patterns.
Why algorithms can't solve for what users won't admit
The implications for product development are uncomfortable. Dating platforms have collectively invested hundreds of millions into recommendation engines and compatibility scoring, almost all of it built on user-supplied preference data. Bumble (BMBL) lets users filter by age range. Hinge prompts members to specify dealbreakers. Match's entire value proposition rests on compatibility matching derived from stated preferences.
You can't A/B test your way out of users not knowing what they actually want, or knowing but being unwilling to admit it.
If those stated preferences don't predict in-person attraction, the feature set isn't wrong—it's solving for the wrong variable. The age gap presents an especially thorny challenge because it intersects with trust and safety concerns.
Most major platforms already restrict age-gap matching at the extreme ends—Tinder, for instance, won't show profiles with more than a decade's difference if one party is under 27. But those guardrails were built partly on the assumption that large age gaps primarily benefit older men pursuing younger women. If women are also drawn to younger partners but self-censoring that preference in their profile settings, platforms may be inadvertently restricting matches that would have produced genuine attraction.
There's also a commercial tension. Subscription dating platforms generate revenue by keeping users engaged long enough to convert to paid tiers, but not so engaged that they're matching efficiently and churning out. A feature that helps users overcome their own preference blind spots—surfacing profiles they wouldn't have selected but might actually be attracted to—could theoretically improve match quality whilst reducing time-to-partnership. That's good for users, questionable for lifetime value metrics.
The profile problem gets worse with AI
The stated-preference gap will become more problematic as platforms lean harder into AI-driven matching. Grindr (GRND) recently disclosed it's testing AI tools to help users craft better profiles. Match Group has repeatedly flagged AI as a strategic priority, with CEO Bernard Kim telling investors last quarter that the company sees 'significant opportunity' in using large language models to improve recommendations.
Training AI on profile data that doesn't accurately reflect what users want is expensive way to build a more sophisticated version of the same problem. If the model learns that women overwhelmingly set age preferences for older men—and then optimises to serve those matches—it's encoding the stated preference bias directly into the algorithm. The blind date data suggests that approach might be systematically under-serving matches that would produce higher attraction.
Some platforms are already moving away from heavy reliance on stated preferences. Hinge famously removed filters from its free tier, forcing users to encounter profiles outside their specified criteria. The company framed it as an engagement play—more profiles viewed means more session time—but it also functions as a hedge against preference blind spots. Users might skip profiles they'd otherwise filter out, but at least they see them.
The more interesting question is whether platforms should surface this research to users directly. Imagine an onboarding flow that tells new members: 'Research shows people are often attracted to partners outside their stated preferences. We'll show you profiles that don't match your filters.' It's honest, evidence-backed, and directly contrary to the prevailing product philosophy of giving users more control over their experience.
No major platform will do this, of course. User control has become a core product value, particularly for women-focused apps like Bumble that position filtering as a safety and empowerment feature. Telling users their preferences might be wrong—even if the data supports it—runs counter to a decade of product positioning.
The UC Davis research won't change how platforms match users next quarter. But it should prompt product teams to question whether preference optimisation is the right north star, or whether the industry has spent years building increasingly sophisticated tools to help users avoid the partners they'd actually be drawn to in person.
Key Takeaways
- •Dating operators relying on user-supplied preference data risk training artificial intelligence models on flawed inputs, which could undermine the effectiveness of algorithmic recommendations.
- •Removing strict preference filters allows platforms like Hinge to hedge against user blind spots, though reducing filter controls presents positioning challenges for safety-focused applications like Bumble.
Frequently Asked Questions
Financial Intelligence Desk
The DII Financial Intelligence Desk covers earnings, valuations, funding and the financial performance of the global online dating industry.
Comments
Join the discussion
Industry professionals share insights, challenge assumptions, and connect with peers. Sign in to add your voice.
Your comment is reviewed before publishing. No spam, no self-promotion.
