Scholars have argued that college hookup culture is facilitated by the unique physical and social context of college campuses and that young adults are increasingly using dating apps to initiate hookups. This has inspired calls for researchers to examine the digital interactions that precede face-to-face hookups. In this study, we used a “sexual market” framework to investigate the processes by which college hookups are “digitally brokered” via dating apps. Using data from focus groups conducted with 49 college students representing diverse sexual identities, we analyzed dating app users’ stories of their transitions from digital interactions to face-to-face meetups with matches. Participants discussed three types of consent that matches attempt to digitally broker: app-implied consent, colloquial consent, and (re)negotiated consent. We discuss problems that arise when users attempt to redeem these forms of digitally brokered consent during face-to-face meetups and make recommendations for sexual assault prevention efforts.
AllisonRRismanB (2014) “It goes hand in hand with the parties”: race, class, and residence in college student negotiations of hooking up. Sociological Perspectives57: 102–123.
2.
AndersonMVogelsEATurnerE (2020) The Virtues and Downsides of Online Dating. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
3.
BanksJMonierMReynagaM, et al (2024) From the auction block to the Tinder swipe: Black women’s experiences with fetishization on dating apps. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 16 March 2024. DOI: 10.1177/14614448241235904.
4.
BergerR (2015) Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research15(2): 219–234.
5.
BerkowitzDTinklerJPeckA, et al (2021) Tinder: a game with gendered rules and consequences. Social Currents8(5): 491–509.
6.
BivensRHoqueAS (2018) Programming sex, gender, and sexuality: infrastructural failures in the “feminist” dating app Bumble. Canadian Journal of Communication43: 441–459.
7.
BogleK (2008) Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. New York: New York University Press.
8.
BroekerF (2023) ‘We went from the anonymity of the internet into my private WhatsApp’: rituals of transition among dating app users in Berlin. New Media & Society25(10): 2551–2571.
9.
CastroÁBarradaJR (2020) Dating apps and their sociodemographic and psychosocial correlates: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health7(18): 6500.
ChristensenMA (2021) “Tindersluts” and “tinderellas”: examining the digital affordances shaping the (hetero)sexual scripts of young womxn on Tinder. Sociological Perspectives64: 432–449.
12.
ComunelloFParisiLIeracitanoF (2021) Negotiating gender scripts in mobile dating apps: between affordances, usage norms and practices. Information, Communication, & Society24(8): 1140–1156.
13.
CorbinJStraussA (2015) Basics of Qualitative Research. 4th ed.New York: Sage.
14.
CuringtonCVLundquistJHLinKH (2021) The Dating Divide: Race and Desire in the Era of Online Romance. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
15.
DietzelC (2022) The three dimensions of unsolicited dick pics: men who have sex with men’s experiences of sending and receiving unsolicited dick pics on dating apps. Sexuality & Culture26: 834–852.
16.
EllingsonSLaumannEOPaikA, et al (2004) The theory of sex markets. In: LaumannEOEllingsonSMahayJ, et al (eds) The Sexual Organization of the City. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–38.
17.
FerrisLDuguayS (2020) Tinder’s lesbian digital imaginary: investigating (im)permeable boundaries of sexual identity on a popular dating app. New Media & Society22: 489–506.
18.
FiliceEAbeywickramaKDParryDC, et al (2022) Sexual violence and abuse in online dating: a scoping review. Aggression and Violent Behavior67: 101781.
19.
ForbesTDStaceyL (2022) Personal preferences, discursive strategies, and the maintenance of inequality on gay dating apps. Archives of Sexual Behavior51: 2385–2397.
20.
FrithH (2000) Focusing on sex: using focus groups in sex research. Sexualities3(3): 275–297.
21.
Gewirtz-MeydanAVolman-PampanelDOpudaE, et al (2024) Dating apps: a new emerging platform for sexual harassment? A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse25: 752–763.
22.
GibsonJJ (1986) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
GillettR (2023) “This is not a nice safe space”: investigating women’s safety work on Tinder. Feminist Media Studies23(1): 199–215.
24.
HansonKR (2022) Collective exclusion: how white heterosexual dating app norms reproduce status quo hookup culture. Sociological Inquiry92: 894–918.
25.
HickmanSEMuehlenhardCL (1999) “By the sem-mystical appearance of a condom’: how young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. The Journal of Sex Research36: 258–272.
26.
HsiaoJCYDillahuntTR (2017) People-nearby applications: how newcomers move their relationships offline and develop social and cultural capital. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Portland, OR, 25 February 2017, pp. 26–40. New York: Association for Computing Machiner.
27.
HuJWangR (2024) Familiarity breeds trust? The relationship between dating app use and trust in dating algorithms via algorithm awareness and critical algorithm perceptions. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction40: 4596–4607.
28.
HuangSAHancockJTongST (2022) Folk theories of online dating: exploring people’s beliefs about the online dating process and online dating algorithms. Social Media + Society8(2): 20563051221089561.
29.
KettreyHHNwajeiMQuinnS, et al. (2024) Gendered affordances of digital technology in mitigating the perceived risk of dating app matches perpetrating sexual assault or “making stories” of assault. Social Media + Society10(3): 20563051241269296.
30.
KettreyHHThompsonMPMarxRA, et al (2023) Effects of campus sexual assault prevention programs on attitudes and behaviors among American college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescent Health72(6): 831–844.
31.
KuperbergAPadgettJE (2015) Dating and hooking up in college: meeting contexts, sex, and variation by gender, partner’s gender, and class standing. The Journal of Sex Research52: 517–531.
32.
KuperbergAPadgettJE (2017) Partner meeting contexts and risky behavior in college students’ other-sex and same-sex hookups. The Journal of Sex Research54: 55–72.
33.
LeeJ (2019) Mediated superficiality and misogyny through cool on Tinder. Social Media + Society5(3): 1–11.
34.
LeFebvreLE (2018) Swiping me off my feet: explicating relationship initiation on Tinder. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships35(9): 1205–1229.
35.
LykensJPillotonMSilvaC, et al (2019) Google for sexual relationships: mixed-methods study on digital flirting and online dating among adolescent youth and young adults. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance5(2): e10695.
36.
MacLeodCMcArthurV (2019) The construction of gender in dating apps: an interface analysis of Tinder and Bumble. Feminist Media Studies19(6): 822–840.
37.
NewlandsRTDenningDMMasseyKS, et al (2022) Safe dating in the digital era: protective behavioral strategies in dating behaviors facilitated by dating applications. Violence and Victims37(2): 185–200.
38.
ÖverlienCAronssonKHydénM (2005) The focus group interview as an in-depth method? Young women talk about sexuality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology8(4): 331–344.
39.
PaulA (2022) The Current Collegiate Hookup Culture: Dating Scripts, Hookup Scripts, and Sexual Outcomes. New York: Lexington Books.
40.
PaulELMcManusBHayesA (2000) “Hookups”: characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. The Journal of Sex Research37: 76–88.
41.
PeckAJBerkowitzDTinklerJ (2021) Left, right, Black, and White: how White college students talk about their inter-and intra-racial swiping preferences on Tinder. Sociological Spectrum41: 304–321.
42.
PetrychynJParryDCJohnsonCW (2020) Building community, one swipe at a time: hook-up apps and the production of intimate publics between women. Health Sociology Review29: 249–263.
43.
PruchniewskaU (2020) “I like that it’s my choice a couple different times”: gender, affordances, and user experience on Bumble dating. International Journal of Communication14: 2422–2439.
44.
RanziniGRosenbaumJETyburJM (2022) Assortative (online) dating: insights into partner choice from an experimental dating app. Computers in Human Behavior127: 107039.
45.
RonzhynACardenalASBatlle RubioA (2023) Defining affordances in social media research: a literature review. New Media & Society25(11): 3165–3188.
46.
RosenfeldMJThomasRJ (2012) Searching for a mate: the rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review77(4): 523–547.
47.
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): 17753–11758.
48.
RubinskyV (2018) “Sometimes it’s easier to type things than to say them”: technology in BDSM sexual partner communication. Sexuality & Culture22: 1412–1431.
49.
ShawF (2016) “Bitch I said hi”: the Bye Filipe campaign and discursive activism in mobile dating apps. Social Media + Society2(4): 1–10.
50.
SmithMG (2022) Queer enough to swipe right? Dating app experiences of sexual minority women: a cross-disciplinary review. Computers in Human Behavior Reports8: 100238.
51.
SobierajSHumphreysL (2021) Forced empowerment and the paradox of mobile dating apps. Social Media + Society7(4): 1–12.
52.
SobierajSHumphreysL (2022) The Tinder games: collective mobile dating app use and gender conforming behavior. Mobile Media & Communication10(1): 57–75.
53.
StaceyLForbesTD (2022) Feeling like a fetish: racialized feelings, fetishization, and the contours of sexual racism on gay dating apps. The Journal of Sex Research59: 372–384.
54.
ThompsonL (2018) “I can be your Tinder nightmare”: harassment and misogyny in the online sexual marketplace.”Feminism & Psychology28(1): 69–89.
55.
TimmermansECourtoiseC (2018) From swiping to casual sex and/or committed relationships: exploring the experiences of Tinder users. The Information Society: An International Journal34(2): 59–70.
56.
TimmermansEDe CalweE (2017) Development and validation of the Tinder motives scale. Computers in Human Behavior70: 341–350.
57.
TreemJWLeonardiPM (2013) Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association36: 143–189.
58.
WadeL (2017) American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus. New York: W.W. Norton.
59.
WignallLStirlingJScoatsR (2020) UK university students’ perceptions and negotiations of sexual consent. Psychology & Sexuality13(3): 474–486.
60.
WongWCSunWHChiaSMC, et al (2020) Effectiveness of a peer-led web-based intervention to improve general self-efficacy in using dating apps among young adults: randomized clustered trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research22(10): e16378.
61.
YoungMRobertsS (2023) “Shifting old-fashioned power dynamics”? Women’s perspectives on the gender transformational capacity of the dating app, Bubble. Feminist Media Studies23(3): 1238–1255.
62.
ZytkoDFurloNCarlinB, et al (2021) Computer-mediated consent to sex: the context of Tinder. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5(CSCW1): 1–26.
