Abstract
Scholars have worked to understand how people use dating apps as this new technology changes sexual interactions. While previous scholarship has examined how people interact with one another on dating platforms, less attention has been paid to how people decide to adopt dating apps for personal use. This study analyzes interview data with 27 heterosexual college students in order to examine this process by asking, “how do heterosexual college students come to define dating apps as a normative dating practice?” The findings in this study suggest that both men and women work through ambiguous and deceptive online interactions. As they work through online interactions, they establish themselves as normative dating app users by aligning their experiences with their perceived potential of dating apps. The findings suggest that initially, many dating app users see the apps ‘fun’ or as a ‘game.’ Eventually, through a combination of experience and technological tools, students came to define dating apps as more convenient than in-person dating and relatively safe to use for sex and dating. The findings also suggest that while both men and women confront deception and ambiguous social interactions, gender-specific concerns strongly influence how students use dating apps. This gender difference is particularly pronounced regarding the perceived relative safety of dating apps. Specifically, men define dating apps as fun albeit superficial, whereas women define dating apps as potentially dangerous.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, A., Goel, S., Huber, G., Malhotra, N., & Watts, D. J. (2014). Political ideology and racial preferences in online dating. Sociological Science, 1, 28–40.
Blackwell, C., Birnholtz, J., & Abbott, C. (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.
Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social media: Defining, develo**, and diving. Journal of Communication, 23, 46–65.
Curington, C. V., Lin, K.-H., & Lundquist, J. H. (2015). Positioning multiraciality in cyberspace: Treatment of multiracial daters in an online dating website. American Sociological Review, 80(4), 764–788.
David, G., & Cambre, C. (2016). Screened intimacies: Tinder and the swipe logic. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116641976.
Duffy, B. E., & Wissinger, E. (2017). Mythologies of creative work in the social media age: Fun, free, and ‘just being me’. International Journal of Communication, 11, 4652–4671.
Duguay, S. (2017). Dressing up Tinderella: Interrogating authenticity claims on the mobile dating app Tinder. Information, Communication & Society, 20(3), 351–367.
Emerson, J. (1970). Behavior in private places: Sustaining definitions of reality in gynecological examinations. In J. O’Brien (Ed.), The production of reality: Essays and readings on social interaction (pp. 247–260). London: Sage Publishing.
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Lai, C.-H. (2011). First comes love, the comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research, 38(1), 70–100.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Penguin Press.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Hamilton, L., & Armstrong, E. A. (2009). Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds and flawed options. Gender & Society, 23(5), 589–616.
Hess, A., & Flores, C. (2016). Simply more than swi** left: A critical analysis of toxic masculine performances on Tinder Nightmares. New Media & Society, 20(3), 1085–1102.
Hlavka, H. (2014). Vulnerability and dangerousness: The construction of gender through conversation about violence. Gender & Society, 15(1), 83–109.
Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.
Jerolmack, C., & Khan, S. (2014). Talk is cheap: Ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(2), 178–209.
LeFebvre, L. E. (2018). Swi** me off my feet: Explication relationship initiation on tinder. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(9), 1205–1229.
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10(3), 393–411.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Marwick, A., & Boyd, D. (2012). ‘I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.
Ranzini, G., & Lutz, C. (2017). Love at first swipe? Explaining Tinder self-presentation and motives. Mobile Media & Communications, 5(1), 80–101.
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.
Timmermans, E., & De Caluwé, E. (2017). To Tinder or not to Tinder, that’s the question: An individual perspective to Tinder use and motives. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 74–79.
Tolman, D. (1994). Doing desire: Adolescent girls struggle for/with sexuality. Gender & Society, 8(3), 324–342.
Toma, C., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023–1036.
Vitis, L., & Gilmour, F. (2017). Dick pics on blast: A woman’s resistance to online sexual harassment using humour, art and Instagram. Crime Media Culture, 13(3), 335–355.
Wade, L. (2017). American hookup: The new culture of sex on campus. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Waling, A., & Pym, T. (2017). C’mon, no one wants a dick pic’: Exploring the cultural framings of the ‘dick pic’ in contemporary online publics. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(1), 70–85.
Ward, J. (2016). Swi**, matching, chatting, self-presentation and self-disclosure on mobile dating apps. HUMAN IT, 13(2), 81–95.
Ward, J. (2017). What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app. Information, Communication & Society, 20(11), 1644–1659.
Funding
This study is not funded.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no financial conflicts of interest to declare regarding this study.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hanson, K.R. Becoming a (Gendered) Dating App User: An Analysis of How Heterosexual College Students Navigate Deception and Interactional Ambiguity on Dating Apps. Sexuality & Culture 25, 75–92 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09758-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09758-w