Since each participant meets other people sequentially, there's no way to know whether there will be only one person you're interested in. In other words, say I am going to meet ten people. Afterwards, I feel that I am mostly just interested in #7. The reciprocity of numbers 1 through 6 should therefore be roughly the same as the reciprocity towards someone else who didn't have one favorite person.

I feel like this is purely just a matter of compatibility, rather than reciprocity. In other words, it's rare that two people are highly compatible, but when such couplings occur, those two people will rate that interaction highly and not be as concerned about all the other possible dates. Someone that didn't find anyone highly compatible will simply put down interest in a number of people. So if I only have eight "points" of interest for four people, and I had a favorite, then I would put down (1 1 5 1), whereas if nobody really gelled, then (2 2 2 2).

Hm, my words still seem obtuse. Let me try again: If I have no favorite, then nobody else will like me because I didn't like any of them that much, rather than because I didn't like one of them uniquely.

I'm sure this has crossed people's minds, so I'm wondering how the data shows that this is not the case.

Hi

I own a speed dating company in South Africa. This is intriguing and I'll be reading the series with interest.

Thank you!

Jenny

Dan Ariely is the fourth author on this paper, so it seems weird to give him first billing in your write-up (indeed his is the only name dropped), especially when the lead authors Finkel and Eastwick have a Psychology Today blog (I link to it as my homepage)... Just sayin'.

Nevermind, just noticed the second part of this series.