This article provides an analysis of the “dating app” Tinder as an aesthetic ludic artifact. By scrutinizing the title’s features of gameplay and expressive–interpretive social interaction, Tinder usage is set into a frame theory context and shown to operate by multiple overlapping frames that allow romantic engagement to be entered as play and vice versa.
ArjorantaJ. (2015). Real-time hermeneutics: Meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games (PhD thesis). University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
2.
BanksJ.WestermanD. K.SharabiL. L. (2017). A mere holding effect: Haptic influences on impression formation through mobile dating apps. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 303–311.
BogostI. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. MIT Press.
5.
BullinghamL.VasconcelosA. C. (2013). ‘The presentation of self in the online world’: Goffman and the study of online identities. Journal of Information Science, 39, 101–112.
6.
CarpenterC. J.McEwanB. (2016). The players of micro-dating: Individual and gender differences in goal orientations toward micro-dating apps. First Monday, 21. doi:10.5210/fm.v21i5.6187
7.
ConsalvoM. (2009). There is no magic circle. Games and Culture, 4, 408–417.
8.
CostikyanG. (2013). Uncertainty in games. MIT Press.
9.
DavidG.CambreC. (2016). Screened intimacies: Tinder and the swipe logic. Social Media + Society, 2. doi:10.1177/2056305116641976
10.
DerkI. K. (2016). Swipe left to detain: A procedural comparison between Tinder and papers, please. Journal of Games Criticism, 3. Retrived from http://gamescriticism.org/articles/derk-3-2
11.
DuguayS. (2017). Dressing up Tinderella: Interrogating authenticity claims on the mobile dating app Tinder. Information, Communication and Society, 20, 351–367.
12.
ErmiLMäyräF. (2005). Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion. Worlds in Play: International Perspectives on Digital Games Research, 37, 37–53.
13.
FinkelE. J.EastwickP. W.KarneyB. R.ReisH. T.SprecherS. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 3–66.
GatterK.HodkinsonK. (2016). On the differences between Tinder™ versus online dating agencies: Questioning a myth. An exploratory study. Cogent Psychology, 3, doi:10.1080/23311908.2016.1162414
16.
GoffmanE. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre.
17.
GoffmanE. (1986). Frame analysis. Northeastern University Press. (Original work published 1974)
18.
HardeyM. (2008). The formation of social rules for digital interactions. Information, Communication and Society, 11, 1111–1131.
19.
JärvinenA. (2008). Games without frontiers: Theories and methods for game studies and design (PhD dissertation). Tampere University Press, Tampere, Finland.
20.
KarhulahtiV. (2011). Mechanic/aesthetic videogame genres: Adventure and adventure. In LugmayrA.FranssilaH.SafranC.HammoudaI. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Mindtrek Conference (pp. 71–74). ACM.
21.
KarhulahtiV. (2015). Hermeneutics and Ludocriticism. Journal of Games Criticism, 2, 1–23.
22.
KirkpatrickG. (2015). The formation of gaming culture: UK gaming magazines, 1981–1995. Springer.
23.
LivingstoneC. (2005). Desire and the consumption of danger: Electronic gaming machines and the commodification of interiority. Addiction Research and Theory, 13, 523–534.
24.
MarchE.GrieveR.MarringtonJ.JonasonP. K. (2017). Trolling on Tinder® (and other dating apps): Examining the role of the dark tetrad and impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 139–143.
25.
MasonC. L. (2016). Tinder and humanitarian hook-ups: The erotics of social media racism. Feminist Media Studies, 16, 822–837.
26.
NehamasA. (2007). Only a promise of happiness: The place of beauty in a world of art. Princeton University Press.
27.
OroszG.Tóth-KirályI.BőtheB.MelherD. (2016). Too many swipes for today: The development of the Problematic Tinder Use Scale (PTUS). Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5, 518–523.
28.
PaasonenS. (2018) Many Splendored Things: Thinking Sex and Play. Goldsmiths Press.
PerronB.ArsenaultD. (2008). In the frame of the magic cycle: The circle(s) of gameplay. In PerronB.WolfM. J. P. (Eds.), The video game theory reader 2 (pp. 131–154). Routledge.
31.
QiuL.LuJ.YangS.QuW.ZhuT. (2015). What does your selfie say about you?Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 443–449.
32.
RanziniG.LutzC. (2017). Love at first swipe? Explaining Tinder self-presentation and motives. Mobile Media and Communication, 5, 80–101.
33.
RicheyL. A. (2016). Tinder humanitarians: The moral panic around representations of old relationships in new media. Javnost—The Public, 23, 398–414.
34.
SchüllN. D. (2012). Addiction by design: Machine gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton University Press.
35.
SeviB.AralT.EskenaziT. (2018). Exploring the hook-up app: Low sexual disgust and high sociosexuality predict motivation to use Tinder for casual sex. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 17–20.
36.
SicartM. (2011). The ethics of computer games. MIT press.
37.
StenrosJ. (2014). In defence of a magic circle: The social, mental and cultural boundaries of play. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 1, 147–185.
38.
SummersN. (2014). New Tinder security flaw exposed users’ exact locations for months. Bloomberg.
39.
SumterS. R.VandenboschL.LigtenbergL. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 67–78.
40.
SundénJ. (2009). Play as transgression: An ethnographic approach to queer game cultures. In DiGRA Conference Online Proceedings. DiGRA organization.
TimmermansE.CourtoisC. (2018). From swiping to casual sex and/or committed relationships: Exploring the experiences of Tinder users. The Information Society, 34, 59–70.
43.
TimmermansE.De CaluwéE. (2017a). Development and validation of the Tinder Motives Scale (TMS). Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 341–350.
44.
TimmermansE.De CaluwéE. (2017b). To Tinder or not to Tinder, that’s the question: An individual differences perspective to Tinder use and motives. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 74–79.
45.
TimmermansE.De CaluwéE.AlexopoulosC. (2018). Why are you cheating on Tinder? Exploring users’ motives and (dark) personality traits. Computers in Human Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.040
46.
TysonG.PertaV. C.HaddadiH.SetoM. C. (2016, August18–21). A first look at user activity on Tinder. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (pp. 461–466). IEEE Press.
47.
VahloJ. (2018). In gameplay: The invariant structures and varieties of the video game gameplay experience (PhD thesis). University of Turku, Turku.
48.
WardJ. (2017). What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app. Information, Communication and Society, 20, 1644–1659.
49.
WeiserD. A.NiehuisS.FloraJ.Punyanunt-CarterN. M.AriasV. S.BairdR. H. (2018). Swiping right: Sociosexuality, intentions to engage in infidelity, and infidelity experiences on Tinder. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 29–33.
