Dating-app users are far more willing to delegate messaging to AI than to accept AI-authored messages from others: deployment propensity is about three times higher than engagement propensity, so under random pairing only a small fraction (4–13%) of dyads would have both sides accept agent-mediated conversation; receptivity-aware routing can substantially increase per-contact engagement (AUC 0.88).

Main Finding

Users’ willingness to delegate conversations to autonomous LLM agents (send receptivity) is a distinct but highly correlated construct from willingness to engage messages authored by others’ agents (receive receptivity). There is a systematic delegation asymmetry: deploying one’s own agent requires substantially lower receptivity than accepting contact from others’ agents, producing a market in which many more users would deploy agents than would accept agent-mediated incoming contact. Under plausible random-pairing counterfactuals, only a small fraction (4–13%) of directed dyads would combine deployment with receiver engagement; receptivity-aware routing can materially increase engagement per contact and is predictively reliable (AUC 0.88).

Key Points

• Two-sided measurement: The authors jointly measure send and receive receptivity within individuals using a seven-item attitudinal battery; send items (deploying/configuring agents) and receive items (accepting others’ agent messages) load on separate factors.
• Psychometrics and separation: A graded response item-response model with latent regression finds the two constructs are distinct though highly correlated (ρ = 0.92). Model comparison strongly favors two dimensions (ΔBIC ≈ 52).
• Delegation asymmetry (main quantitative result):
  • Threshold for deploying one’s own agent: θ_send ≈ −0.38.
  • Threshold for engaging a counterpart’s agent: θ_recv ≈ +0.32 (with a "full engagement" threshold at ≈ +1.39).
  • Displacement ≈ 0.71 standard deviations (95% CI [0.65, 0.77]); stable under sensitivity checks.
  • Population deployment propensity ≈ 3× the engagement propensity.
• Market consequences: Under a stated-preference random-pairing simulation, only 4–13% of directed dyads would be both deploying and accepting agent contacts; there is a pronounced gender-directional imbalance and an asymmetric-delegator segment (~25% of users).
• Design levers quantified:
  • Requiring reciprocity (both sides must consent) excludes ~2/3 of would-be deployers and halves interaction volume.
  • Routing agent-originated contacts to likely receivers (receptivity-aware routing) triples per-contact engagement; this routing score validated out of sample with AUC = 0.88 and a 3.1× quartile lift under respondent-level cross-validation.
• Correlates: Higher receptivity clusters with users reporting unmet matching needs (low match→conversation conversion, frustration about stalled matches); receptivity is lower among women and long-tenured users. The gender gap is a stable trait difference (not measurement artifact).

Data & Methods

• Samples:
  • Instrument A (generative-profile features): N = 2,894 (Russian), rated interest in three generative-feature concepts.
  • Instrument B (autonomous conversational agents): N = 2,617 (2,385 RU, 232 EN); seven attitudinal items capturing send and receive scenarios. Complete-case sample used in measurement model: N = 2,499 (95.5%).
• Items & covariates: Seven ordinal attitudinal items (Y1–Y7) covering both roles (Y1–Y3, Y7 as send-side; Y4–Y6 as receive-side). Covariates: gender, age band, platform tenure, perceived match volume, match→conversation conversion, negative affect about stalled matches.
• Measurement model:
  • Confirmatory multidimensional graded response model (Samejima), estimated with marginal maximum likelihood.
  • Latent regression of factors on covariates; formal factorial invariance testing across languages (partial invariance achieved).
  • Model outputs: item thresholds on a common latent scale, factor-score estimates (EAP), and model-implied endorsement probabilities (propensities).
• Validation and counterfactuals:
  • Out-of-sample validation via leave-target-item-out respondent-level cross-validation for the routing score; AUC = 0.88 and 3.1× quartile lift reported.
  • Dyadic simulations (random-pairing stated-preference counterfactuals) translate individual propensities into market primitives: fraction of viable agent-mediated dyads, directional imbalances, and effects of policy levers (eligibility, routing, reciprocity requirement).
• Robustness: Asymmetry gap robust to alternative codings and partial measurement invariance; sensitivity analyses reported.

Implications for AI Economics

• Two-sided adoption is critical: Market viability for agentic communication requires both supply (agents deployed by principals) and demand (willing recipient engagement). Ignoring receiver-side acceptance will overestimate realized interaction volume and welfare gains.
• Strategic complementarities and externalities: Agent deployment imposes negative signaling/externalities on receivers (trust loss, perceived inauthenticity) that reduce match conversion; these externalities create coordination problems and potential market failure unless platforms internalize receiver preferences via design or regulation.
• Platform mechanism design:
  • Consent and opt-in: Receiver-side consent (opt-in or disclosure with acceptance controls) is an essential instrument; platforms must treat receive consent as a first-class primitive (eligibility rules can dramatically reduce unwanted outreach).
  • Receptivity-aware routing: Routing messages preferentially to users with high receive receptivity is an effective lever that raises per-contact engagement substantially and is feasible given validated psychometric signals.
  • Reciprocity constraints: Enforcing reciprocity (both parties must permit agent-mediated contact) reduces volume but improves match-level acceptability; platform trade-offs between engagement volume and user trust need explicit modeling.
• Pricing and productization: Threshold estimates (θ_send, θ_recv) offer concrete primitives for pricing, opt-in thresholds, and segmentation: e.g., targeted monetization to asymmetric-delegator segments vs. conservative defaults for general population.
• Fairness and distributional effects: Gendered differences in receptivity and the resulting directional imbalances call for equity-aware design and evaluation (allocation of exposure, differential welfare effects).
• Modeling and evaluation recommendations:
  • Incorporate receiver-side adoption parameters into models of recommender and matching systems (two-sided adoption dynamics).
  • Use psychometric measurements as market primitives when behavior data are unavailable pre-deployment (the receptivity audit is a general pre-launch procedure).
• Caution: Results are from stated-preference surveys on a dating platform; realized behavioral effects could differ. Still, the strong psychometric separation, robust asymmetry, and out-of-sample predictive validation suggest the findings are actionable for platform design and economic modeling of agent-mediated markets.

Short takeaway: Agentic recommender features are not just about making supply (agents) better — they create a two-sided product market where receiver acceptance is the binding constraint. Platforms should measure and incorporate receive-side receptivity (via the receptivity audit approach) into mechanism design (routing, consent, opt-in, pricing) to avoid large-scale unwanted outreach and to unlock the potential engagement gains of agentic systems.