In this study (N = 495), dating apps were conceptualized as digital leks. We examined how interpersonal (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), sexual (sociosexual attitudes, desires, and behavior), and search (satisficing, alternatives) styles relate to mating success through dating apps (dates and sex). Individuals with a faster life history strategy, particularly men high in psychopathy and sexual desires, report more mating success via dating apps. Women who were easier satisficed also experienced more Tinder-sex. These findings clarify the nuanced roles of sociosexuality facets in dating app success, enriching the discourse on digital mating behaviors. Using the life history framework, this research advances our understanding of how personality shapes real-world mating outcomes that originate in digital contexts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GesselmanAN, DruetA, VitzthumVJ. Mobile sex-tech apps: How use differs across global areas of high and low gender equality. PLoS One, 2020; 15(9):e0238501; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238501
2.
IlmiawanRA, NafisahRM, NisaRK, et al.Popular dating apps in Indonesia and the United States. Bull Soc Inform App, 2022; 5(2):88–96; doi: 10.31763/businta.v5i2.405
3.
NeytB, BaertS, VandenbulckeS. Never mind I’ll find someone like me—Assortative mating preferences on Tinder. Personal Individual Diff, 2020; 155:109739; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109739
4.
PoerwandariEK, BerlianaC. Dating apps and risky sexual behaviors among young adults in large cities in Indonesia. Psychological Res Urban Society, 2022; 5(2):4–18; doi: 10.7454/proust.v5i2.145
BotnenEO, BendixenM, GrøntvedtTV, et al.Individual differences in sociosexuality predict picture-based mobile dating app use. Personal Individual Diff, 2018; 131:67–73; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.021
8.
CastroÁ, BarradaJR, Ramos-VillagrasaPJ, et al.Profiling dating apps users: Sociodemographic and personality characteristics. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020; 17(10):3653; doi: 10.3390/ijerph17103653
9.
HarrisonMG, McAnultyRD, CanevelloA. College students’ motives for in-person meetings with dating application matches. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2022; 25(2):130–134; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2021.0031
10.
FreythL, BatinicB. How bright and dark personality traits predict dating app behavior. Personal Individual Diff, 2021; 168:110316; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110316
11.
FigueredoAJ, VásquezG, BrumbachBH, et al.The K-factor: Individual differences in life history strategy. Personal Individual Diff, 2005; 39(8):1349–1360; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.009
12.
FurnhamA, RichardsSC, PaulhusDL. The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review: Dark Triad of personality. Social & Personality Psych, 2013; 7(3):199–216; doi: 10.1111/spc3.12018
13.
DufnerM, RauthmannJF, CzarnaAZ, et al.Are narcissists sexy? Zeroing in on the effect of narcissism on short-term mate appeal. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 2013; 39(7):870–882; doi: 10.1177/0146167213483580
14.
FreythL, JonasonPK. Overcoming agreeableness: Sociosexuality and the Dark Triad expanded and revisited. Personal IndividualDiff, 2023; 203:112009; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.112009
15.
LyonsM, MessengerA, PerryR, et al.The Dark Tetrad in Tinder: Hook-up app for high psychopathy individuals, and a diverse utilitarian tool for Machiavellians? Curr Psychol, 2022; 41(2):659–666; doi: 10.1007/s12144-019-00589-z
JonasonPK, FosterJD, McCainJ, et al.Where birds flock to get together: The who, what, where, and why of mate searching. Personal Individual Diff, 2015; 80:76–84; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.018
18.
WhiteKP, CzerwińskiSK, MulhearnR, et al.How disgust predicts the adoption of mate shortage solutions. Personal Individual Diff, 2022; 196:111734; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111734
19.
ValentovaJV, Moraes JuniorFP, ŠtěrbováZ, et al.The association between Dark Triad traits and sociosexuality with mating and parenting efforts: A cross-cultural study. Personal Individual Diff, 2020; 154:109613; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109613
20.
BussDM, SchmittDP. Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev, 1993; 100(2):204–232; doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
21.
ClarkRD, HatfieldE. Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. J Psychol Hum Sexuality, 1989; 2(1):39–55.
22.
JonasonPK, Żemojtel‐PiotrowskaM, PiotrowskiJ, et al.Country‐level correlates of the Dark Triad traits in 49 countries. J Pers, 2020; 88(6):1252–1267; doi: 10.1111/jopy.12569
23.
SchmittDP. Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behav Brain Sci, 2005; 28(2):247–275; doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000051
24.
JonasonPK, WhiteKP, Al-ShawafL. Should I stay or should I go: Individual differences in response to romantic dealmakers and dealbreakers. Personal Individual Diff, 2020; 164:110120; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110120
25.
LiNP, BaileyJM, KenrickDT, et al.The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2002; 82(6):947–955; doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947
26.
HaseltonMG, BussDM. Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2000; 78(1):81–91.
27.
TriversR. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual Selection & the Descent of Man. Aldine de Gruyter; 1972, pp. 136–179.
28.
KoehnMA, JonasonPK. Costs of short-term mating for women. In: Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. (ShackelfordTK, Weekes-ShackelfordVA., eds.) Springer: Cham; 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3662-1
29.
ChristensenMA. “Tindersluts” and “Tinderellas”: Examining the digital affordances shaping the (hetero)sexual scripts of young Womxn on Tinder. Sociological Perspectives, 2021; 64(3):432–449; doi: 10.1177/0731121420950756
30.
HessA, FloresC. Simply more than swiping left: A critical analysis of toxic masculine performances on Tinder Nightmares. New Media Soc, 2018; 20(3):1085–1102; doi: 10.1177/1461444816681540
31.
TannerM, Q TaboP. Ladies first: The influence of mobile dating applications on the psychological empowerment of female users. Informing Sci J, 2018; 21:289–317; doi: 10.28945/4137
32.
SobierajS, HumphreysL. The Tinder Games: Collective mobile dating app use and gender conforming behavior. Mobile Media Commun, 2022; 10(1):57–75; doi: 10.1177/20501579211005001
33.
MasonCL. Tinder and humanitarian hook-ups: The erotics of social media racism. Feminist Media Studies, 2016; 16(5):822–837; doi: 10.1080/14680777.2015.1137339
34.
McWilliamsS, BarrettAE. Online dating in middle and later life: Gendered expectations and experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 2014; 35(3):411–436; doi: 10.1177/0192513X12468437
35.
NdlelaM, TannerM. The perceived psychological empowerment of women using mobile dating applications: The case of tinder. In SOTICS 2018: The Eighth International Conference on Social Media Technologies, Communication, and Informatics. IARIA; 2018.
36.
DeMasiS. Shopping for love: online dating and the making of a cyber culture of romance. In Introducing the New Sexuality Studies. Routledge; 2011, pp. 222–230.
37.
GillR. Post-postfeminism?: New feminist visibilities in postfeminist times. Feminist Media Studies, 2016; 16(4):610–630; doi: 10.1080/14680777.2016.1193293
38.
LeeJ. Mediated superficiality and misogyny through cool on Tinder. Social Media + Society, 2019; 5(3):1–11.
39.
EliasAS, GillR. Beauty surveillance: The digital self-monitoring cultures of neoliberalism. Eur J Cultural Studies, 2018; 21(1):59–77; doi: 10.1177/1367549417705604
40.
DobsonAS. “Sexy” And “Laddish” Girls: Unpacking complicity between two cultural imag(inations)es of young femininity. Feminist Media Studies, 2014; 14(2):253–269; doi: 10.1080/14680777.2012.713866
41.
ThompsonL, DonaghueN. The confidence trick: Competing constructions of confidence and self-esteem in young Australian women’s discussions of the sexualisation of culture. Women’s Studies International Forum, 2014; 47:23–35; doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2014.07.007
42.
MorrisS, DobsonAS. Tinder marketing and transnational postfeminist media cultures: “Modern” women as single, not sorry? Feminist Media Studies, 2023; 23(8):4269–4284; doi: 10.1080/14680777.2023.2166972
43.
McRobbieA. The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social Change. Sage: London; 2009.
44.
GillR. The affective, cultural and psychic life of postfeminism: A postfeminist sensibility 10 years on. Eur J Cultural Stud, 2017; 20(6):606–626; doi: 10.1177/1367549417733003
BussDM. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci, 1989; 12(1):1–14; doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00023992
47.
Del GiudiceM, BoothT, IrwingP. The distance between Mars and Venus: Measuring global sex differences in personality. PLoS One, 2012; 7(1):e29265; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029265
48.
WalterKV, Conroy-BeamD, BussDM, et al.Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychol Sci, 2020; 31(4):408–423; doi: 10.1177/0956797620904154
49.
McCraeRR, CostaPT. Personality trait structure as a human universal. Am Psychol, 1997; 52(5):509–516.
WestcottDA. Leks of leks: A role for hotspots in lek evolution? Proc R Soc London B Biol Sci, 1994; 258:281–286.
53.
WranghamRW. Female choice of least costly males; a possible factor in the evolution of leks. Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie, 1980; 54(4):357–367; doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1980.tb01252.x
54.
TrailPW. Why should lek-breeders be monomorphic? Evolution, 1990; 44(7):1837–1852; doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb05254.x
55.
IsvaranK. Lek territory size and the evolution of leks: A model and a test using an ungulate with a flexible mating system. Front Ecol Evol, 2021; 8:539061; doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.539061
56.
JonasonPK, ThomasAG. Being more educated and earning more increases romantic interest: Data from 1.8 M online daters from 24 nations. Hum Nat, 2022; 33(2):115–131; doi: 10.1007/s12110-022-09422-2
57.
LuotoS. An updated theoretical framework for human sexual selection: From ecology, genetics, and life history to extended phenotypes. Adaptive Hum Behav Physiol, 2019; 5(1):48–102; doi: 10.1007/s40750-018-0103-6
58.
WillisML, OliverE, MarchE. Dating in the dark: Vulnerable narcissism predicts inauthentic self-presentation in online dating. Telematics Informatics, 2023; 81:101985.
59.
BransonM, MarchE. Dangerous dating in the digital age: Jealousy, hostility, narcissism, and psychopathy as predictors of Cyber Dating Abuse. Comput Hum Behav, 2021; 119:106711; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106711
60.
MarchE, GrieveR, MarringtonJ, et al.Trolling on Tinder® (and other dating apps): Examining the role of the Dark Tetrad and impulsivity. Personal Individual Diff, 2017; 110:139–143; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.025
61.
WangF, TopalliV. The cyber-industrialization of catfishing and romance fraud. Computers in Human Behavior, 2024; 154:108133; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.108133
SchönbrodtFD, PeruginiM. At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 2013; 47(5):609–612; doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
64.
KüfnerACP, DufnerM, BackMD. The Dirty Dozen and the Naughty Nine: Short scales for the assessment of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Diagnostica, 2015; 61(2):76–91; doi: 10.1026/0012-1924/a000124
65.
ĎuriníkM, ProcházkaJ, CíglerH. The Short Maximization Inventory. Judgm Decis Mak, 2018; 13(1):123–136; doi: 10.1017/S1930297500008871
66.
ImperioS, LombardiS, De MarinisA, et al.Female mating tactics in lekking fallow deer (Dama dama): Experience explains inter-individual variability more than costs. Sci Rep, 2020; 10(1):3598; doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-58681-5
67.
RobertsBW. A revised sociogenomic model of personality traits: Revised sociogenomic model of. Personality. Journal of Personality, 2018; 86(1):23–35; doi: 10.1111/jopy.12323
68.
SeviB. The dark side of tinder: The Dark Triad of personality as correlates of Tinder use. J Individual Diff, 2019; 40(4):242–246; doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000297
69.
The Bloodhound Gang. (1999). The Bad Touch [Single]. Hooray for Boobies. Geffon Records.
70.
HöGlundJ, MontgomerieR, WidemoF. Costs and consequences of variation in the size of ruff leks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 1993; 32(1):31–39; doi: 10.1007/BF00172220
71.
JonasonPK, GirgisM, Milne-HomeJ. The exploitive mating strategy of the Dark Triad traits: Tests of rape-enabling attitudes. Arch Sex Behav, 2017; 46(3):697–706; doi: 10.1007/s10508-017-0937-1
72.
BlackPJ, WoodworthM, PorterS. The Big Bad Wolf? The relation between the Dark Triad and the interpersonal assessment of vulnerability. Personal Individual Diff, 2014; 67:52–56; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.026
73.
Denardo RoneyJL, FalkenbachDM, AvesonO. Psychopathy and victim selection: Does nonverbal decoding or empathy impact vulnerability ratings? J Interpers Violence, 2021; 36(3–4):NP1698–N1719NP; doi: 10.1177/0886260517742914
74.
ArkesHR, BlumerC. The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behav Hum Decision Processes, 1985; 35(1):124–140; doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4
75.
GillR. Empowerment/Sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism & Psychology, 2008; 18(1):35–60; doi: 10.1177/0959353507084950
76.
PotarcaG. The demography of swiping right. An overview of couples who met through dating apps in Switzerland. PLoS One, 2020; 15(12):e0243733; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243733
77.
JonasonPK, CzerwińskiSK, BrewerG, et al.Three factors of the Intrasexual Competition Scale? Personal Individual Diff, 2023; 213:112312; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2023.112312
78.
BlanchardAE, DunnTJ, SumichA. Borderline personality traits in attractive women and wealthy low attractive men are relatively favoured by the opposite sex. Personal Individual Diff, 2021; 169:109964; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109964
79.
FreythL. Dating app users after two years: A Dark Triad amplification. SPTP, 2022; 22(1):23–31; doi: 10.21697/sp.2022.22.1.02
80.
ThompsonL. “I can be your Tinder nightmare”: Harassment and misogyny in the online sexual marketplace. Feminism Psychol, 2018; 28(1):69–89; doi: 10.1177/0959353517720226
81.
MarengoD, LongobardiC, FabrisMA, et al.Highly-visual social media and internalizing symptoms in adolescence: The mediating role of body image concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018; 82:63–69; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.003
82.
FreythL, BatinicB, JonasonPK. Social media use and personality: Beyond self-reports and trait-level assessments. Personal Individual Diff, 2023; 202:111960; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111960
83.
SteinJ-P, KrauseE, OhlerP. Every (Insta)Gram counts? Applying cultivation theory to explore the effects of Instagram on young users’ body image. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2021; 10(1):87–97; doi: 10.1037/ppm0000268
HenrichJ, HeineSJ, NorenzayanA. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci, 2010; 33(2–3):61–83.
88.
HahnHA, YouDS, SferraM, et al.Is it too soon to meet? Examining differences in geosocial networking app use and sexual risk behavior of emerging adults. Sexuality Culture, 2018; 22(1):1–21; doi: 10.1007/s12119-017-9449-3
89.
LandovitzRJ, TsengC-H, WeissmanM, et al.Epidemiology, sexual risk behavior, and HIV prevention practices of men who have sex with men using GRINDR in Los Angeles, California. J Urban Health, 2013; 90(4):729–739; doi: 10.1007/s11524-012-9766-7
90.
ChanLS, ChuiDLT, YanagiJ. Cultural-psychological differences, social acceptance of same-sex relationships, and dating app use motives of young GBMSM: A comparative study across Hong Kong, Taipei, and Osaka. J Sex Res, 2024:1–11; doi: 10.1080/00224499.2024.2317806
91.
ChanLS. How sociocultural context matters in self-presentation: A comparison of U.S. and Chinese profiles on Jack’d, a mobile dating app for men who have sex with men. Int J Commun, 2016; 10; doi: 1932–8036/20160005
92.
AdamBD, BrennanDJ, DaviesAW, et al.Dating apps and shifting sexual subjectivities of men seeking men online. Sexuality Culture, 2024; doi: 10.1007/s12119-024-10231-1
93.
ToledoRP. The coloniality of dating apps: Racial affordances and Chinese men using gay dating apps in Sydney. Int J Commun, 2023; 17; doi: 1932–8036/20230005
94.
GroszMP, HarmsPD, DufnerM, et al.Reducing the overlap between Machiavellianism and subclinical psychopathy: The M7 and P7 scales. Collabra: Psychology, 2020; 6(1):17799; doi: 10.1525/collabra.17799
95.
JonasonPK. A mediation hypothesis to account for the sex difference in reported number of sexual partners: An intrasexual competition approach. Int J Sex Health, 2008; 19(4):41–49; doi: 10.1300/J514v19n04_05
96.
JonasonPK, FisherTD. The power of prestige: Why young men report having more sex partners than young women. Sex Roles, 2009; 60(3–4):151–159; doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9506-3
97.
MosleyMA, LancasterM, ParkerML, et al.Adult attachment and online dating deception: A theory modernized. Sexual Relationship Therapy, 2020; 35(2):227–243; doi: 10.1080/14681994.2020.1714577
98.
JonasonPK, KaźmierczakI, CamposAC, et al.Leaving without a word: Ghosting and the Dark Triad traits. Acta Psychol (Amst), 2021; 220:103425; doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103425
99.
OlmedaF. Towards a statistical physics of dating apps. J Stat Mech, 2022; 2022(11):113501; doi: 10.1088/1742-5468/ac9bed
100.
CarterGL, LyonsM, BrewerG. Lifetime offspring and the Dark Triad. Personal Individual Diff, 2018; 132:79–83; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.017
101.
PenkeL, JokelaM. The evolutionary genetics of personality revisited. Curr Opin Psychol, 2016; 7:104–109; doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.08.021
MacDonaldK. Cross-cultural comparison of learning in human hunting: Implications for life history evolution. Hum Nat, 2007; 18(4):386–402; doi: 10.1007/s12110-007-9019-8
