Research on dating applications relies heavily on explicitly measured evaluations of potential partners; however, the quick swiping mechanism of Tinder and other popular dating applications may rely on more spontaneous evaluations. We asked heterosexual U.S. undergraduates (n = 135) to rate opposite-gender Tinder profiles using both an implicit reaction time task and explicit self-report. Men had more positive implicit evaluations of sexualized profiles compared with women. Men also showed an implicitly measured preference for sexualized profiles over nonsexualized profiles, while women showed the opposite preference. However, the genders did not differ in evaluation of sexualized or nonsexualized profiles in explicitly measured evaluations. This study highlights the value of using implicit measures when conducting research on mobile dating.
SharabiLL, Dykstra-DeVetteTA. From first email to first date: Strategies for initiating relationships in online dating. J Soc Pers Relat, 2019; 36(11–12):3389–3407; doi: 10.1177/0265407518822780
2.
FazioRH. Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: the mode model as an integrative framework. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. (ZannaMP, eds.) Academic Press; 1990; pp. 75–109. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260108603184
BerkowitzD, TinklerJ, PeckA, et al.Tinder: A game with gendered rules and consequences. Soc Curr, 2021; 8(5):491–509; doi: 10.1177/23294965211019486
5.
WardJ. What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app. Information, Communication & Society, 2017; 20(11):1644–1659; doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1252412
BarradaJR, CastroÁ. Tinder users: Sociodemographic, psychological, and psychosexual characteristics. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020; 17(21):8047. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/8047
8.
CioccaG, RobilottaA, FontanesiL, et al.Sexological aspects related to Tinder use: A comprehensive review of the literature. Sex Med Rev, 2020; 8(3):367–378.
SumterSR, VandenboschL, LigtenbergL. Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics [Internet], 2017; 34(1):67–78.
11.
DanielsEA. Sexiness on social media: The social costs of using a sexy profile photo. Sexualization, Media, & Society, 2016; 2(4):2374623816683522; doi: 10.1177/2374623816683522
12.
DanielsEA, ZurbriggenEL. The price of sexy: Viewers’ perceptions of a sexualized versus nonsexualized Facebook profile photograph. Psychol Pop Media Cult, 2016; 5(1):2–14.
13.
HallPC, WestJH, McIntyreE. Female self-sexualization in myspace.com personal profile photographs. Sexuality & Culture, 2012; 16(1):1–16; doi: 10.1007/s12119-011-9095-0
14.
RolleroC, LeonCM, MartiniM, et al.Enjoyment of sexualization in men and women: Relationships with ambivalent sexism and body image coping strategies. Sexuality & Culture, 2022; 26(4):1403–1421; doi: 10.1007/s12119-022-09949-7
15.
RuppHA, WallenK. Sex differences in response to visual sexual stimuli: A review. Arch Sex Behav, 2008; 37(2):206–218; doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9217-9
16.
AbramovaO, BaumannA, KrasnovaH, et al.Gender Differences in Online Dating: What Do We Know So Far? A Systematic Literature Review. In: 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). 2016; pp. 3858–67. Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7427665
17.
LopesM, VogelC. Gender differences in online dating experiences. In: It Happened On Tinder. Institute of Network Cultures; 2019; pp. 32–48.
18.
KellieDJ, BlakeKR, BrooksRC. What drives female objectification? An investigation of appearance-based interpersonal perceptions and the objectification of women. PLoS One, 2019; 14(8):e0221388; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221388
19.
DanielsEA, JeraldMC, DiekerJ. Putting a sexy self forward on tinder: What do viewers think about sexualized white men? Sex Roles, 2022; 86(7–8):428–440; doi: 10.1007/s11199-022-01278-1
20.
EllithorpeME. MODE Model. In: The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2020; pp. 1–7; doi: 10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0093
21.
EwoldsenDR, RhodesN, FazioRH. The MODE model and its implications for studying the media. Media Psychol, 2015; 18(3):312–337; doi: 10.1080/15213269.2014.937440
22.
EllithorpeME. Implicit methods. In: The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2017; pp. 1–14; doi: 10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0272
23.
GawronskiB, De HouwerJ, ShermanJW. Twenty-five years of research using implicit measures. Soc Cogn, 2020; 38(Supplement):s1–s25.
24.
UhlmannEL, LeavittK, MengesJI, et al.Getting explicit about the implicit: A taxonomy of implicit measures and guide for their use in organizational research. Organ Res Methods, 2012; 15(4):553–601; doi: 10.1177/1094428112442750
25.
FazioRH. A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In: Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology. Sage Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA, US; 1990; pp. 74–97. (Review of personality and social psychology, Vol. 11).
26.
KrumpalI. Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Qual Quant, 2013; 47(4):2025–2047; doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
27.
SantoniccoloF, TrombettaT, ParadisoMN, et al.Gender and media representations: A review of the literature on gender stereotypes, objectification and sexualization. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2023; 20(10):5770.
28.
BareketO, ShnabelN. Domination and objectification: Men’s motivation for dominance over women affects their tendency to sexually objectify women. Psychol Women Q, 2020; 44(1):28–49; doi: 10.1177/0361684319871913
29.
LeFebvreLE. Swiping me off my feet: Explicating relationship initiation on Tinder. J Soc Pers Relat, 2018; 35(9):1205–1229; doi: 10.1177/0265407517706419
BridgesD, PitiotA, MacAskillMR, et al.The timing mega-study: Comparing a range of experiment generators, both lab-based and online. PeerJ, 2020; 8:e9414.
34.
RhodesN, EwoldsenDR. Attitude and norm accessibility and cigarette smoking. J Applied Social Pyschol, 2009; 39(10):2355–2372; doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00529.x
35.
MeissnerF, GrigutschLA, KoranyiN, et al.Predicting behavior with implicit measures: Disillusioning findings, reasonable explanations, and sophisticated solutions. Front Psychol, 2019; 10:2483; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02483/full
36.
FrieseM, HofmannW, SchmittM. When and why do implicit measures predict behaviour? Empirical evidence for the moderating role of opportunity, motivation, and process reliance. Eur Rev Soc Psychol, 2008; 19(1):285–338; doi: 10.1080/10463280802556958
37.
TimmermansE, De CaluwéE. To Tinder or not to Tinder, that’s the question: An individual differences perspective to Tinder use and motives. Pers Individ Dif, 2017; 110:74–79.
