The current mixed-methods study reports the results of a cross-sectional survey of 205 online daters and uses the Investment Model to examine the antecedents of commitment in online dating and users’ decisions to delete their online dating account(s). We hypothesized that the quality of alternatives, investments, and satisfaction with the online dating relationship would mediate the association between online dating intensity and commitment, which, in turn, would predict the intention to terminate an account. The analyses revealed that online dating intensity was associated with greater commitment and a lower likelihood of account termination. There were also specific indirect effects on commitment through the quality of alternatives, investments, and satisfaction, and on termination through investments. Responses to an open-ended question provided more information about users’ decisions to quit online dating. These results point to ways online dating may facilitate the desire for commitment while potentially undermining the long-term stability of relationships.
AlexopoulosCTimmermansEMcNallieJ (2020) Swiping more, committing less: unraveling the link between dating app use and intention to commit infidelity. Computers in Human Behavior102: 172–180.
ArkesHRBlumerC (1985) The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes35(1): 124–140.
4.
BilledoCJKerkhofPFinkenauerC (2015) The use of social networking sites for relationship maintenance in long-distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking18(3): 152–157.
5.
BloomZDTaylorDD (2020) The online dating intensity scale: exploratory factor analysis in a sample of emerging adults. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development53(1): 1–16.
6.
BotnenEOBendixenMGrøntvedtTV, et al. (2018) Individual differences in sociosexuality predict picture-based mobile dating app use. Personality and Individual Differences131: 67–73.
7.
BrubakerJRAnannyMCrawfordK (2014) Departing glances: a sociotechnical account of “leaving” Grindr. New Media & Society18(3): 373–390.
8.
BruchEENewmanMEJ (2018) Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Science Advances4(8): 1–6.
9.
BulmerM (1979) Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. Sociological Review27(4): 651–677.
10.
ColemanMD (2009) Sunk cost and commitment to dates arranged online. Current Psychology28: 45–54.
11.
CourtoisCTimmermansE (2018) Cracking the tinder code: an experience sampling approach to the dynamics and impact of platform governing algorithms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication23(1): 1–16.
12.
D’AngeloJDTomaCL (2017) There are plenty of fish in the sea: the effects of choice overload and reversibility on online daters’ satisfaction with selected partners. Media Psychology20(1): 1–27.
13.
DrouinMMillerDADibbleJL (2014) Ignore your partners’ current Facebook friends; beware the ones they add!Computers in Human Behavior35: 483–488.
14.
DrouinMMillerDADibbleJL (2015) Facebook or memory: which is the real threat to your relationship?Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking18(10): 561–566.
15.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): 1143–1168.
16.
FinkelEJEastwickPW (2009) Arbitrary social norms influence sex differences in romantic selectivity. Psychological Science20(10): 1290–1295.
17.
FinkelEJEastwickPWKarneyBR, et al. (2012) Online dating: a critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest13(1): 3–66.
18.
FitzpatrickCBirnholtzJ (2018) “I Shut the Door”: interactions, tensions, and negotiations from a location-based social app. New Media & Society20(7): 2469–2488.
19.
FletcherGJO (2002) The New Science of Intimate Relationships. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
20.
FrostJHChanceZNortonMI, et al. (2008) People are experience goods: improving online dating with virtual dates. Journal of Interactive Marketing22(1): 51–61.
21.
GershonI (2010) The Breakup 2.0: Disconnecting Over New Media. Ithaca, NY: Cornell.
22.
HahnHAYouDSSferraM, et al. (2018) Is it too soon to meet? Examining differences in geosocial networking app use and sexual risk behavior of emerging adults. Sexuality & Culture22: 1–21.
23.
HaimsonOLAndalibiNChoudhuryMD, et al. (2017) Relationship breakup disclosures and media ideologies on Facebook. New Media & Society20(5): 1931–1952.
24.
HayesAF (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. 2nd ed.New York: Guilford.
25.
HeinoRDEllisonNBGibbsJL (2010) Relationshopping: investigating the market metaphor in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships27(4): 427–447.
26.
LeFebvreLBlackburnKBrodyN (2015) Navigating romantic relationships on Facebook: extending the relationship dissolution model to social networking environments. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships32(1): 78–98.
27.
LeFebvreLE (2018) Swiping me off my feet: explicating relationship initiation on Tinder. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships35(9): 1205–1229.
28.
OroszGSzekeresÁKissZG, et al. (2015) Elevated romantic love and jealousy if relationship status is declared on Facebook. Frontiers in Psychology6: 214.
29.
OroszGTóth-KirályIBőtheB, et al. (2016) Too many swipes for today: the development of the Problematic Tinder Use Scale (PTUS). Journal of Behavioral Addictions5(3): 518–523.
30.
PerlmanDDuckSHengstebeckND (2018) The seven seas of the study of personal relationships research: historical and recent currents. In: VangelistiALPerlmanD (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. 2nd ed.New York: Cambridge, pp. 9–27.
31.
PondTFarvidP (2017) “I do like girls, I promise”: young bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder. Psychology of Sexualities Review8(2): 6–24.
32.
PreacherKJKelleyK (2011) Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods16(2): 93–115.
33.
PronkTMDenissenJJ (2020) A rejection mind-set: choice overload in online dating. Social Psychological and Personality Science11(3): 388–396.
34.
PrzepiorkaABlachnioA (2016) Time perspective in Internet and Facebook addiction. Computers in Human Behavior60: 13–18.
35.
RosenfeldMJThomasRJHausenS (2019) Disintermediating your friends: how online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(36): 17753–17758.
36.
RuggieroTE (2000) Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society3(1): 3–37.
37.
RusbultCE (1980) Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: a test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology16: 172–186.
38.
RusbultCEAgnewCRArriagaXB (2012) The investment model of commitment processes. In: Van LangePAMKruglanskiAWHigginsET (eds) The Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, vol 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 218–231.
39.
RusbultCEMartzJMAgnewCR (1998) The investment model scale: measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships5(4): 357–391.
ScottVMMottarellaKELavooyMJ (2006) Does virtual intimacy exist? A brief exploration into reported levels of intimacy in online relationships. CyberPsychology & Behavior9(6): 759–761.
42.
ShapiroGKTatarOSuttonA, et al. (2017) Correlates of Tinder use and risky sexual behaviors in young adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking20(12): 727–734.
43.
SharabiLLCaughlinJP (2017) What predicts first date success? A longitudinal study of modality switching in online dating. Personal Relationships24(2): 370–391.
44.
SharabiLLDykstra-DeVetteTA (2019) From first email to first date: strategies for initiating relationships in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships36(11–12): 3389–3407.
StapletonPLuizGChatwinH (2017) Generation validation: the role of social comparison in use of Instagram among emerging adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking20(3): 142–149.
47.
StrubelJPetrieTA (2017) Love me Tinder: body image and psychosocial functioning among men and women. Body Image21: 34–38.
48.
SurraCAHughesDK (1997) Commitment processes in accounts of the development of premarital relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family59(1): 5–21.
49.
TimmermansECourtoisC (2018) From swiping to casual sex and/or committed relationships: exploring the experiences of Tinder users. The Information Society34(2): 59–70.
50.
TimmermansEDe CaluwéE (2017) Development and validation of the Tinder motives scale (TMS). Computers in Human Behavior70: 341–350.
51.
TimmermansEDe CaluwéEAlexopoulosC (2018) Why are you cheating on Tinder? Exploring users’ motives and (dark) personality traits. Computers in Human Behavior89: 129–139.
52.
TurkleS (2011) Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
53.
WuPLChiouWB (2009) More options lead to more searching and worse choices in finding partners for romantic relationships online: an experimental study. CyberPsychology & Behavior12(3): 315–318.
