# The 2026 Mutual Match Gap Study — Full Questionnaire **Version:** v0.1 (pre-fieldwork instrument) **Published:** 2026-07-29 **Sponsor:** Patriot Conceptions **Status:** Not yet fielded. Published in full before data collection so the instrument can be evaluated, criticised, and corrected before anyone answers it. --- ## Why this document is public A sponsored study should not ask to be trusted on the strength of its findings. Publishing the complete instrument before fieldwork lets anyone check whether the questions are leading, whether the answer options are loaded, and whether the analysis could have been chosen after seeing the results. If you think an item is biased, we would rather hear it now than defend it later. Corrections and objections: **Preparation disclosure.** This protocol and instrument were prepared in-house by Patriot Conceptions, which sponsors the study and has a commercial interest in surrogacy services. No external methodologist has reviewed this version. Treat the published instrument, not a claim of independent review, as the basis for judging it. --- ## Introduction and consent (shown to all respondents) > This study explores what gestational carriers and intended fathers need from a potential match > and where expectations differ. Patriot Conceptions is sponsoring the research. Your responses are > for research and will not be added to a Patriot Conceptions sales or matching profile unless you > separately choose that later. The survey takes approximately 12–15 minutes. Participation is > voluntary. You may skip any nonrequired question or stop at any time. Results will be reported in > aggregate, and small groups will be suppressed to reduce identification risk. Required acknowledgments before any response is recorded: - I am at least 18. - I understand participation is voluntary. - I understand the research survey is separate from marketing and matching consent. - I consent to the stated research use. --- ## Section 1 — Eligibility and role routing **Q1. Which best describes your role?** - I have considered, applied to become, am currently, or have been a gestational carrier. - I am an intended father considering, pursuing, or having completed surrogacy. - Neither of these. *(terminates)* ### Carrier route **C1. Which stages have you reached?** *(select all)* Considered but did not formally apply · Submitted an initial application · Completed records/background/psychological screening · Approved or had a profile available for matching · Met intended parent(s) · Mutually agreed to a match · Signed a carrier agreement · Began medication/transfer preparation · Had at least one embryo transfer · Had a pregnancy · Delivered through a gestational-carrier journey · Completed more than one journey *Primary-study eligibility requires screening or later. Earlier respondents enter an exploratory candidate module and are reported separately.* **C2. How many completed carrier journeys have you had?** 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4+ **C3. Have any of your intended parents been gay, bisexual, queer, a male same-sex couple, or a single intended father?** Yes / No / Not sure / Prefer not to say ### Intended-father route **F1. Which stages have you reached?** *(select all)* Exploring only · Formal consultation · Selected an agency/program · Selected a clinic · Selected or used an egg donor · Created embryos · Reviewed carrier profiles · Met a potential carrier · Mutually agreed to a match · Signed contracts · Embryo transfer · Pregnancy · Child born · Completed more than one journey **F2. Which best describes your family route?** Partnered/married male couple · Single intended father · Another description *(optional text)* · Prefer not to say **F3. Where do you primarily reside?** U.S. / Outside U.S. / Prefer not to say --- ## Section 2 — Warm-up **Q2.** In one sentence, what makes a gestational-surrogacy match feel trustworthy? *(open text)* **Q3.** Which three words best describe the relationship you would ideally want? *(choose up to 3, order randomised)* Warm · Respectful · Professional · Close · Boundaried · Family-like · Flexible · Reliable · Private · Direct · Collaborative · Low-pressure · Other --- ## Section 3 — MaxDiff match-priority exercise > You will see several sets of qualities. In each set, choose the quality that would matter **most** > and **least** when deciding whether to proceed with an introduction. There are no right answers. Served as a balanced incomplete block design generated by the survey platform. Respondents do not all see identical sets. ### Intended-parent qualities tested with carriers 1. Responds when promised 2. Respects the carrier's medical autonomy 3. Has a verified financial and escrow plan 4. Shows warmth and emotional openness 5. Includes and respects the carrier's spouse/partner and children 6. Shares views on termination/selective reduction and major pregnancy decisions 7. Is flexible about appointments and unexpected changes 8. Wants an ongoing relationship after birth 9. Can attend important appointments in person 10. Shares an authentic family story and reason for parenthood 11. Respects privacy and does not expect social-media sharing 12. Treats compensation and reimbursements respectfully 13. Has clinic, embryo, and legal preparation substantially complete 14. Communicates directly rather than only through the agency 15. Asks for and values the carrier's perspective 16. Has clear, realistic boundaries 17. Has supportive extended family/community 18. Offers a lifestyle or location the carrier relates to ### Carrier qualities tested with intended fathers 1. Communicates reliably 2. Has prior uncomplicated pregnancy experience 3. Shares values on major medical decisions 4. Is warm and enthusiastic about the relationship 5. Has strong spouse/partner/family support 6. Is comfortable with intended-parent appointment involvement 7. Wants ongoing contact after birth 8. Lives within manageable travel distance 9. Has clear boundaries and privacy expectations 10. Understands medications, appointments, and process obligations 11. Is financially stable independent of compensation 12. Is flexible when plans change 13. Is comfortable carrying for gay fathers 14. Is willing to share updates/photos 15. Has compatible compensation expectations 16. Trusts the intended parents and clinical team 17. Has strong agency/coordinator support 18. Has a communication style similar to ours --- ## Section 4 — Mirrored importance and prediction items Scale: 1 Not important · 2 Slightly · 3 Moderately · 4 Very · 5 Essential · Not applicable **C4 (carrier self-report).** How important is each quality in intended parent(s)? **F4 (father prediction).** How important do you believe each quality is to most gestational carriers when evaluating intended fathers? *(same items)* - Keeps commitments and follows through - Replies within the agreed time - Is emotionally warm - Is financially prepared - Has embryos/clinic plans ready - Respects my medical autonomy - Respects my spouse/partner - Respects the effect on my children - Treats compensation as legitimate - Gives me room for privacy - Wants ongoing contact after birth - Can attend appointments - Shares major values - Has realistic expectations about risk and timing - Has an agency/team that supports me - Is comfortable discussing hard topics before matching **F5 (father self-report).** How important is each quality in a gestational carrier? **C5 (carrier prediction).** How important do you believe each quality is to most intended fathers? *(carrier-qualities list from Section 3)* Items are randomised within logical blocks; paired item IDs are preserved so each self-report has its matching prediction. --- ## Section 5 — Match-breakers **Q4. Which, if any, would cause you to decline a potential match even if other qualities were strong?** *(select all)* **Carrier version:** Major disagreement about termination/selective reduction · Intended parent implies control over my medical decisions · Disrespect toward compensation · Funding/escrow not ready · Unreliable communication · Pressure for social-media exposure · Exclusion or disrespect of my spouse/partner or children · Unrealistic appointment/travel expectations · Expectation of lifelong closeness I cannot promise · No interest in any post-birth contact · Prejudiced or disrespectful views · Agency does not support me independently · Clinic/embryo plan not ready · Other · None of these are automatic match-breakers **Intended-father version:** Major disagreement about termination/selective reduction · Unreliable communication · Insufficient family/support system · Misrepresentation in profile/application · Compensation expectations outside budget/contract · Refusal of agreed screening · Social-media/privacy conflict · Relationship expectation conflict · Clinic does not medically clear · Hostility toward gay fathers/family structure · Agency support concerns · Other · None of these are automatic match-breakers **Q5.** Of the items you selected, which one would be hardest to work through? *(single select)* --- ## Section 6 — Relationship expectations **Q6.** During an uncomplicated pregnancy, what communication frequency feels ideal? More than once a day · Daily · Several times a week · Weekly · Every two weeks · Primarily around appointments/milestones · Another pattern **Q7.** Who should usually communicate directly? *(select all)* Carrier and both intended fathers in one group · Carrier and one designated intended father · Carrier's spouse/partner in the group · Agency coordinator included · Clinic/medical staff only for clinical matters · Separate channels for logistics and relationship **Q8.** For each event, what level of intended-parent participation feels ideal? *(Must attend / Prefer attendance / Optional / Prefer privacy / Depends)* transfer · first beta result · first ultrasound · routine obstetric visits · anatomy scan · urgent evaluation · baby shower or celebration · labour and delivery · postpartum check-ins **Q9.** After birth, what contact would you ideally expect in the first year? Frequent direct contact · Monthly · Every few months · Major milestones only · One or two planned updates · No expected contact, but open if it develops · Prefer no contact · Unsure **Q10.** Five years after birth, what contact would you ideally expect? *(same options, adapted)* **Q11.** How should a child's future request to contact or learn about the carrier be handled? Parents should facilitate age-appropriate contact if safe and mutually possible · Parents should share information but let contact wait until adulthood · Follow the original adult agreement strictly · Decide later based on circumstances · Unsure --- ## Section 7 — Compensation and motivation **C6 (carriers).** How important was, or would be, each reason in your decision to become a carrier? *(Not a reason / Minor / Moderate / Major / Essential)* Helping someone become a parent · Enjoying pregnancy · A meaningful personal experience · Financial compensation · Financial goals for my household · Connection to infertility or LGBTQ+ family building · Positive prior journey · Community or identity as a carrier · Other **C7.** Which statement best reflects your view? Helping is important; compensation is not important · Helping is primary; fair compensation is also important · Helping and compensation are equally important · Compensation is primary; helping is also meaningful · Compensation is primary; helping is not a major reason · Another description **F6 (fathers).** Which statement do you think best reflects most carriers? *(same options)* **Q12. Agreement scale.** - Discussing compensation openly makes a match less genuine. - Fair compensation can coexist with genuine care for the family. - Intended parents should understand the effect of delayed reimbursements on the carrier's household. - Carriers should not have to minimise financial motives to be viewed as trustworthy. --- ## Section 8 — Preparedness and financial trust **Q13.** How much would each item increase your confidence in a potential match? *(Not at all / A little / Somewhat / A lot / Essential)* **Carrier version:** identity/background verification completed · clinic and embryo plan ready · legal consultation completed · itemised budget and contingency reserve · escrow funded before the required milestone · insurance plan reviewed · profile includes communication preferences · intended parents completed counselling · agency response and escalation standards shown · prior references or verified journey readiness *The intended-father version mirrors these as evidence of carrier readiness.* **Q14.** Would you be more willing to accept an introduction if intended parents had a privacy-safe "financial plan verified" credential without showing balances or income? Much more willing · Somewhat more willing · No difference · Somewhat less willing · Much less willing · Unsure **Q15.** Which information should never be exposed in a profile even if readiness is verified? *(multi-select)* account balances · salary · credit score · loan amount · employer · exact home address · medical details beyond relevant and consented fields · other --- ## Section 9 — Intended-parent profile experiment Respondents are randomly shown one of three matched mock profiles with identical core demographics. No real applicant profile is used. - **Condition A — Generic family letter.** Warm narrative, hobbies, home, desire to parent. - **Condition B — Readiness profile.** Condition A plus clinic and embryo stage, legal and financial readiness, communication preferences, contingency planning. - **Condition C — Mutual profile.** Condition B plus values, boundaries, carrier-family respect, a medical-autonomy statement, post-birth expectations, and a short unscripted video or audio clip. Carrier outcomes, each 0–10: willingness to accept a first call · trust · perceived warmth · perceived preparedness · concern that the profile is performative. Plus: what information is still missing *(open text and multi-select)*. --- ## Section 10 — Vignettes Response order randomised. Both groups are asked what the intended parents **should** do, what they believe **most people would** do, and how the response would affect trust. **Vignette 1 — Medical autonomy under uncertainty.** At 23 weeks a new clinical concern appears. The carrier and intended fathers discussed the issue before matching, but the real facts are more uncertain than the hypothetical. The carrier wants another medical opinion before deciding. The intended fathers are frightened and want an immediate decision. *Options:* insist the contract requires the intended fathers' preferred decision · ask the agency to pressure the carrier privately · support a prompt second opinion and counselling while recognising that the carrier controls consent to her care · stop direct communication and communicate only through attorneys · other **Vignette 2 — Delayed reimbursement.** The carrier submits a documented childcare and lost-wage expense. The agency's payment process is delayed by ten days. The intended fathers funded escrow on time. *Asks:* who is responsible for resolving it · how much this affects trust in the intended fathers · what communication should occur · when the carrier should receive provisional payment **Vignette 3 — Contact after birth.** Before matching, everyone said they wanted to stay like family. Six months after birth the intended fathers are overwhelmed and send fewer updates. The carrier feels forgotten but does not want to intrude. *Options test:* proactive expectation reset · guilt · agency mediation · flexible contact · strict enforcement **Vignette 4 — Appointment attendance.** The intended fathers live internationally and cannot attend several routine appointments. They ask for video during every visit. The carrier is comfortable with some video but wants privacy during exams. *Tests privacy-respecting alternatives.* **Vignette 5 — Carrier household disruption.** The carrier is placed on modified activity. Her spouse must miss work and childcare needs increase. The contract covers specified lost wages, but the practical burden is larger than expected. *Tests financial contingency, emotional recognition, agency response.* **Vignette 6 — Social media.** The intended fathers would like to share pregnancy milestones publicly. The carrier agreed to limited sharing but later becomes uncomfortable after a post attracts attention. *Tests revocable consent and removal response.* --- ## Section 11 — Agency operations and trust **Q16.** How important is each agency behaviour to the success of the match? accurate profile availability · clear screening-stage labels · separate support for each side · fast reimbursement · after-hours escalation · consistent coordinator · written milestone ownership · transparent rematch rules · conflict mediation · postpartum support · secure records and data controls · ability to raise a complaint outside the assigned coordinator **Q17.** *(experienced respondents)* Which agency problems have you encountered? delayed responses · delayed reimbursement · staff turnover · unclear responsibilities · inaccurate profile or status · pressure to proceed · lack of independent support · privacy issue · poor conflict handling · no meaningful problem · other **Q18.** How much did the agency's behaviour change how you viewed the other party? Not at all · A little · Somewhat · A lot · It caused or nearly caused relationship breakdown --- ## Section 12 — The carrier's household **Q19.** How important is it that intended parents understand each item? spouse/partner's emotional role · effect on the carrier's children · childcare · lost wages · household scheduling · privacy and community disclosure · physical recovery · postpartum mental health · family travel · possibility of complications **Q20.** Who should receive preparation and support? carrier · spouse/partner · carrier's children, age-appropriate · intended fathers · intended fathers' support network · all, through separate resources --- ## Section 13 — Disclosure and child-centred planning **Q21.** How important is it to discuss the following before matching? how the child will be told about surrogacy · how egg-donor origins will be discussed · whether the carrier may receive updates · whether the child may contact the carrier later · donor and carrier terminology · privacy versus public storytelling · record preservation **Q22. Agreement scale.** - A child should receive age-appropriate truthful information about surrogacy. - Nonidentified donation should not be described as guaranteed anonymity. - A child's curiosity about a donor or carrier does not diminish the fathers' role as parents. --- ## Section 14 — Experience and outcomes *(matched or experienced respondents)* **Q23.** At the time of match, how aligned did expectations feel? 0–10 **Q24.** During the journey, how aligned did they prove to be? 0–10 **Q25.** Which expectation changed most? communication · emotional closeness · medical decision-making · compensation and expenses · appointment involvement · agency role · privacy and social media · post-birth contact · no major change · other **Q26.** Did any mismatch cause: a difficult conversation only · counselling or mediation · legal escalation · the match ending before transfer · relationship breakdown during or after pregnancy · no material consequence **Q27.** Overall experience: Very negative · Negative · Mixed · Positive · Very positive **Q28.** Would you choose the same match again with what you know now? Definitely not → Definitely yes --- ## Section 15 — Demographics and context Placed at the end. Every item allows "prefer not to say". Income is not collected — budget-readiness is studied without publishing wealth categories. **Carrier:** age band · U.S. region or country · race/ethnicity *(multi-select)* · relationship status · children in household · first-time or repeat · compensated/uncompensated/mixed model · agency-supported or independent · journey year bands · match family structure **Intended father:** age band · U.S. region or country · race/ethnicity · relationship status · single or partnered · journey stage · domestic or international · agency-supported or independent · prior children · embryos created · an optional question about an HIV-related care pathway, carrying a privacy warning and strong suppression rules --- ## Section 16 — Final open questions **Q29.** *(carriers)* What is one thing intended fathers misunderstand about gestational carriers? **Q30.** *(fathers)* What is one thing gestational carriers misunderstand about intended fathers? **Q31.** *(all)* What should every person discuss before saying yes to a match? **Q32.** *(all)* What should an agency prove — not merely promise — before matching people? **Q33.** *(all)* Is there anything else you want the report to understand? --- ## Data-quality exclusions (preregistered) Responses are excluded or flagged for: failed eligibility · duplicate device, account, or link patterns · completion time below a preregistered threshold · a failed instructed-response item · logically inconsistent journey stage · straight-line answering across varied constructs · nonsensical or copied open text · panel respondents who cannot validate role experience. **Criticism, extreme answers, and respondents who ended a relationship with Patriot Conceptions are never excluded.** --- ## Privacy commitments The research response collects no names, emails, exact addresses, full dates of birth, clinic chart data, bank data, or identifiable case narratives. Incentive fulfilment, interview opt-in, and requests for results use a separate, unlinked form. Published tables use a minimum subgroup cell size of 10, and 20 for sensitive cross-tabs where feasible. Rare countries, states, and medical attributes are suppressed or combined. Direct identifiers are removed from open-text quotations, and distinctive stories require re-consent. No provider ever sees a respondent-level answer. Survey answers are never used in matching without a second, explicit consent. --- ## Analysis plan summary For each mirrored priority item: the carrier self-reported distribution, the intended-father prediction of carrier importance, the mean or proportion difference with a confidence interval, the rank-order comparison, and both absolute and directional prediction gaps. Repeated in reverse where carriers predict intended-father priorities. MaxDiff is estimated with hierarchical Bayes or conditional logit depending on sample and vendor capability; group-level rescaled importance scores are published. Individual MaxDiff utilities are never presented as clinical or psychological truth. Vignettes are compared with risk differences or ordinal models, with one primary contrast preregistered per vignette to prevent headline shopping. Pre-specified subgroups: first-time versus repeat carrier · carrier experience with gay fathers versus other or none · domestic versus international intended father · single versus partnered intended father · early-stage versus completed journey · agency-supported versus independent. All other subgroups are exploratory and labelled as such. No opaque weighting is applied to make the sample look national. Item-level denominators are shown, and "not applicable" is distinguished from missing. --- ## Limitations that will accompany every published result > This study used a nonprobability sample recruited through agencies, community organisations, > professional networks and event channels. Respondents may differ from carriers or intended fathers > who did not participate, and the results should not be interpreted as population prevalence > estimates. Some subgroups were small, and subgroup analyses are exploratory unless otherwise > stated. Survey responses describe preferences, predictions and reported experiences; vignette > responses do not prove how participants behave in real situations. Patriot Conceptions sponsored > the study and has a commercial interest in surrogacy services. To reduce bias, the instrument and > primary analysis plan were published before fieldwork, research consent was separated from > marketing, multiple recruitment sources were used, and the questionnaire and methods are public. --- ## Version history - **v0.1 — 2026-07-29.** Pre-fieldwork instrument, published for comment. Prepared in-house; no external methodology review. - v0.2 — after cognitive testing: revised items and preregistration. - v0.9 — after analysis: review draft. - v1.0 — public edition with findings. - v1.1+ — corrections and clarifications with a visible change log.