Mobile dating apps like Tinder became very popular among young adults, and, in contrast to mobile dating websites, they were designed to create a more game-like experience. While it is well documented that seeking entertainment is one core motivation for mobile dating app use, the social nature of entertainment has garnered less attention. Therefore, in this paper we draw on research on entertainment in dating apps and the socio-physical contexts of use to identify patterned behaviors of heterosexual users. To do this, we employed a qualitative multi-phase research approach. First, we conducted 20 interviews with mobile dating app users. Based on the findings from that study, we conducted gender-specific focus groups and a discourse analysis to explore the social phenomena identified in phase one. Our findings suggest the fun of mobile dating is not just interacting with potential matches through the apps, but the use of the apps among one’s friends. These “dating games” are entertaining, but importantly mitigate potential social or physical risks of mobile dating. Unsurprisingly, notions of “play” across the interview, focus group, and discourse analyses reflect highly gendered practices surrounding mobile dating apps and different risks associated with such games.
AbramovaO.BaumannA.KrasnovaH.BuxmannP. (2016). Gender differences in online dating: What do we know so far? A systematic literature review. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 3858–3867. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.481
BirnholtzJ.FitzpatrickC.HandelM.BrubakerJ. R. (2014). Identity, identification and identifiability: The language of self-presentation on a location-based mobile dating app. MobileHCI’14: Proceedings of the 16th Iinternational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2628406
5.
BlackhartG. C.FitzpatrickJ.WilliamsonJ. (2014). Dispositional factors predicting use of online dating sites and behaviors related to online dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.022
6.
BlackwellC.BirnholtzJ.AbbottC. (2015). Seeing and being seen: Co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media & Society, 17(7), 1117–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814521595
7.
BogleK. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York University Press.
8.
BossonJ. K.MichniewiczK. S. (2013). Gender dichotomization at the level of ingroup identity: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033126
9.
BryantK.SheldonP. (2017). Cyber dating in the age of mobile apps: Understanding motives, attitudes, and characteristics of users. American Communication Journal, 19(2), 1–15.
10.
BulcroftR.BulcroftK.BradleyK.SimpsonC. (2000). The management and production of risk in romantic relationships: A postmodern paradox. Journal of Family History, 25(1), 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/036319900002500105
11.
BurgessD.BorgidaE. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(3), 665–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.665
ChanL. S. (2016). How sociocultural context matters in self-presentation: A comparison of US and Chinese profiles on Jack’d, a mobile dating app for men who have sex with men. International Journal of Communication, 10, 6040–6059. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5829/1875
14.
ChristensenM. A. (2020). “Tindersluts” and “Tinderellas”: Examining the digital affordances shaping the (hetero) sexual scripts of young womxn on Tinder. Sociological Perspectives, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121420950756
15.
ClarkC. L.ShaverP. R.AbrahamsM. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025006006
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
18.
CouldryN. (2012). Media, society, world: Social media and digital media practice. Polity.
19.
DuguayS. (2017). Dressing up Tinderella: Interrogating authenticity claims on the mobile dating app Tinder. Information, Communication and Society, 20(3), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1168471
20.
EaglyA. H.WoodW.DiekmanA. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In EckesT.TrautnerH. M. (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21.
EllisonN. B.HeinoR.GibbsJ. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
22.
GibbsJ. L.EllisonN. B.LaiC. H. (2011). First comes love, then comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research, 38(1), 70–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377091
23.
HancockJ. T.TomaC. L. (2009). Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01420.x
24.
HenningsenD. D.HenningsenM. L. M. (2020). Examining first date goals across different types of date initiation. Marriage and Family Review, 56(5), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2020.1728003
25.
HessA.FloresC. (2018). Simply more than swiping left: A critical analysis of toxic masculine performances on Tinder Nightmares. New Media and Society, 20(3), 1085−1102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816681540
26.
HetsroniA. (2000). Choosing a mate in television dating games: The influence of setting, culture, and gender. Sex Roles, 42, 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007084211572
27.
HumphreysL.Von PapeT.KarnowskiV. (2013). Evolving mobile media: Uses and conceptualizations of the mobile internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12019
28.
LearyM. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.221
29.
LeFebvreL. (2017). Phantom lovers—Ghosting as a relationship dissolution strategy in the technological age. In Punyanunt-CarterN. M.WrenchJ. S. (Eds.), The impact of social media in modern romantic relationships (pp. 219–235). Lexington Books.
30.
LoflandJ.SnowD.AndersonL.LoflandL. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (4th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.
31.
LutzC.RanziniG. (2017). Where dating meets data: Investigating social and institutional privacy concerns on Tinder. Social Media + Society, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117697735
MarkowitzD. M.HancockJ. T. (2018). Deception in mobile dating conversations. Journal of Communication, 68(3), 547–569. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy019
34.
MarkowitzD. M.HancockJ. T.TongS. T. (2018). Interpersonal dynamics in online dating: Profiles, matching, and discovery. In PappacharissiZ. (Ed.), A networked self and love (pp. 66–77). Routledge.
35.
MarquesJ. M.YzerbytV. Y.LeyensJ. P. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180102
36.
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed). Sage Publication, Inc.
37.
MayringP. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse [Qualitative content analysis]. In MayG.MruckK. (Eds.), Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (pp. 601–613). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
38.
McCormickN. B.BranniganG. G.LaPlanteM. N. (1984). Social desirability in the bedroom: Role of approval motivation in sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 11, 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287522
39.
McDonaldS. (2009). Changing climate, changing minds: Applying the literature on media effects, public opinion, and the issue-attention cycle to increase public understanding of climate change. International Journal of Sustainability Communication, 4, 45–63. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.334.1015&rep=rep1&type=pdf
40.
MongeauP. A.JacobsenJ.DonnersteinC. (2007). Defining dates and first date goals: Generalizing from undergraduates to single adults. Communication Research, 34(5), 526–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207305235
41.
MongeauP. A.SerewiczM. C. M.TherrienL. F. (2004). Goals for cross-sex first dates: Identification, measurement, and the influence of contextual factors. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 121–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775042331302514
42.
MontemurroB.BartasavichJ.WintermuteL. (2015). Let’s (not) talk about sex: The gender of sexual discourse. Sexuality and Culture, 19, 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-014-9250-5
O’HaraD. (2000). Courtship and constraint: Rethinking the making of marriage in Tudor England. Manchester University Press.
45.
RaghunathanR.CorfmanK. (2006). Is happiness shared doubled and sadness shared halved? Social influence on enjoyment of hedonic experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.386
46.
RobertsS.RavnS.MaloneyM.RalphB. (2020). Navigating the tensions of normative masculinity: Homosocial dynamics in Australian young men’s discussions of sexting practices. Cultural Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975520925358
47.
ShawF. (2016). “Bitch I said hi”: The Bye Felipe campaign and discursive activism in mobile dating apps. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116672889
SumterS. R.VandenboschL.LigtenbergL. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.009
51.
TimmermansE.De CaluwéE. (2017). Development and validation of the Tinder Motives Scale (TMS). Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.028
52.
TomaC. L.HancockJ. T. (2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research, 37(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209356437
53.
TysonG.PertaV. C.HaddadiH.SetoM. C. (2016). A first look at user activity on Tinder. Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM ASONAM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (SNAM’16), 461–466. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASONAM.2016.7752275
54.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2007). Who visits online dating sites? Exploring some characteristics of online daters. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(6), 849–852. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9941
55.
van DijkT. A. (2007). Discourse as interaction in society. In van DijkT. A. (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 1–37). Sage.
56.
VordererP. (2001). It’s all entertainment—sure. But what exactly is entertainment? Communication research, media psychology, and the explanation of entertainment experiences. Poetics, 29(4−5), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(01)00037-7
WardJ. (2017). What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app. Information, Communication and Society, 20(11), 1644–1659. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1252412
59.
WertzB.HairL. (2019). Sex on Reddit: An analysis of anonymity in NSFW communities on Reddit [Paper Presentation]. International Communication Association 69th Annual Conference, Washington, DC.
60.
YeoT. E. D.FungT. H. (2018). “Mr Right Now”: Temporality of relationship formation on gay mobile dating apps. Mobile Media and Communication, 6(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157917718601
