Machasio 1

Timothy Machasio
Professor Erin Dietel-McLaughlin
WR 13300: Multimedia Writing & Rhetoric
3 March 2015
Cursory Romances: Why Tinder is Not a Haven for Romantics
Tinder is a mobile phone courtship application launched in 2012 that works by
synchronizing to users Facebook profiles and allowing them to share up to six photos of
themselves and a brief personal bio. Upon successfully setting up their Tinder profiles, an
algorithm determines potential matches for users based primarily on their geographical location.
Potential matches are then presented to Tinder users through a visual interface on the application
where they swipe right if interested in pursuing a relationship with the account user in question
and left otherwise. If two users swipe right on each other, a message window pops up within the
application that allows them to establish contact.
Although rather bizarre, Tinders intuitive interface has garnered unmatched popularity in
the online dating business because it increases the odds of individuals meeting romantic matches
while at the same time lowering the stakes if they do not (Raczka). Although Tinder has been
successful in facilitating matches and in-person meetings between its users, with 21 million
matches per day (Cook), there is cause for concern about the ephemeral intentions, short
longevity and polyamorous nature of the relationships in question (Gee). While limitations in
Tinders modus operandi such as its large user base and casual interface elevate the likelihood of
short-term relationships, the conscious preference among a majority of Tinders demographic for
short-term relationships is what renders this result inevitable.

Machasio 2
Tinders primitive interface and low barriers to entry attract many individuals interested
in courtship. Consequently Tinder has an almost infinite database of persons and an equally
infinite set of combinations for those individuals. As Leah Reich argues, long-lasting romantic
relationships are about finding matches in smaller sets. In the presence of an extended number
of options, we (human beings) become maximizers (Reich). This assertion holds unparalleled
significance in the Tinder world; wherein a nearly infinite set of potential matches predictably
makes users seeking serious relationships to embark on a quest for the perfect partner. The
presence of platforms such as Tinder therefore eliminates the bounded set of choices (Reich)
and constantly prompts users to seek better matches instead of the alternative making a
deliberate effort to accept the imperfections of individuals who may make reasonable albeit
imperfect matches. Tinder romances, weakened by the illusion of latent perfection that underlies
the proverbial next swipe, are, therefore, more likely to culminate in hook-ups and one
night stands than in serious relationships.
The phenomenon of the next swipe results from a mismatch in incentives among Tinder
users and creators. Much like any other business, Tinders primary purpose is to generate
revenue for its creators. On the other hand, its primary purpose to its users is to facilitate
communication and interaction with potential romantic partners. This misalignment of
incentives is evident in the invention of services such as Tinder Plus a Premium service
whose feature pack allows subscribers, among many other privileges, to match with individuals
from whichever geographical location they prefer (since the default version of the application
only allows users to match with individuals within an 100-mile radius of themselves). This
feature, by its very setup, further eliminates the bounded set of choices that Leah Reich argues
is requisite for creating long-lasting and exclusive romantic relationships. Daniel Slater explains

Machasio 3
that the profitability of online courtship platforms (of which Tinder is only a recent iteration) is
dependent upon continued use by current users (50), and therefore exposes how human
tendencies could be exploited by curators of online courtship platforms for their monetary
benefit. Ephemeral Tinder romances are therefore not exclusively a consequence of users
desires for fleeting relationships, but the manifestation of a dissimilarity between the romantic
motives that shape user engagement with the platform and monetary incentives that underlie
services such as Tinder Plus.
While Tinder is intended to facilitate meetings between individuals, its jocose interface
has morphed it into an addictive recreational activity. As Tomas Chamorro-Premuzik puts it,
Mobile dating is an end in itself. With Tinder, the pretext is to hook-up, but the real
pleasure is derived from the Tindering process. Tinder is just the latest example for the
sexualisation of urban gadgets: it is nomophobia, Facebook-porn and Candy Crush Saga
all in one.
Helen Fisher, in her book Why we Love, explores the possible neurochemical basis of the
pleasure derived from the Tindering process2, asserting that gazing upon a photo of someone
with whom we are smitten (such as a Tinder photo) triggers the release of dopamine, the brains
pleasure chemical (qtd. in Rosenberg). The mode of Tinders operation, by virtue of its
gratification-induced craze, can therefore be compared to the psychological process that
addictively draws people to play at pay slot machines. Natasha Dow Schll argues in Addiction
by Design that;
The particular addictiveness of modern slots has to do with the solitary, continuous, rapid
wagering they enable. It is possible to complete a game every three to four seconds, with

2
The process of swiping right/left on Tinder profiles in the quest for a prospective romantic
partner.

Machasio 4
no delay between one game and the next. Some machine gamblers become so caught up
in the rhythm of play that it dampens their awareness of space, time and monetary value.
(qtd. in Rosenberg)
An affirmation of Tinders similarity to the gambling process can reliably be cited upon to
explain the Tinders psychological thrill that ultimately gets its users hooked. An addiction to
Tinder is a threat to long-term relationships since it puts users, especially those seeking serious
relationships, in a situation where the very act of engaging the platform exposes them to other
prospective romantic partners something that may rekindle the quest for the nonexistent
perfect partner.
Tinders formula for suggesting matches for its users is blemished, rendering a portion
of the relationships it spawns doomed to failure. Tinder permutes matches for its users based on
an algorithm that pools data from users Facebook profiles and determines a mutuality between
their listed interests and social circles. Often, however, the source data from which the algorithm
makes determinations about potential matches is fallacious. In a survey conducted by Consumer
Reports Online in 2012, it was determined that one in every four Facebook users lies in their
profile (Doug) something that was partially attributed to human propensity to seek approval.
This assertion aligns with Andrew Houghs observation, based on a 2013 OnePoll online survey,
that women lie on their Facebook profiles to impress their friends and acquaintances. Tinder,
by synchronizing data from Facebook, inherits the aforementioned flaws in information
propagated by an instinctive desire for positive reflected self-appraisal. The resulting information
asymmetry among users when matching with prospective romantic partners often leads to
unworkable relationships. The occasional mismatches by the Tinder algorithm resulting in
relationships based on misinformed impressions and non-existent similarities are predictably

Machasio 5
responsible for a portion of cursory Tinder romances that end when either party in the
relationship determines an incompatibility with their partner.
Tinder allows its users to self-report their physical appearance and personal attributes
through a limited number of photographs and a brief bio. This unwittingly offers users an
impetus to oversell themselves. The process of self-reporting personal attributes is adversely
affected by a social desirability bias (Grimm 5) that inevitably pushes users to over report their
most desirable traits and under report their undesirable ones. In a study steered by two graduate
scholars at University of Buffalo in 2012, it was observed that a vast majority of the 248 test
subjects were strategic in the management of their online image (Rui 1300). This observation
was attributed to factors such as impression motivation and contingencies of self-worth, both
which perfectly align with Grimms argument about the place of the social desirability bias in
Internet users self-portrayal. Since Tinders operability is contingent upon the Internet, it is
reasonable to assume that tendencies prompted by the social desirability bias visible elsewhere
on the Internet are also present on Tinder. Tinder, much like any existent Social Network Site
(SNS) offers its users a novel venue for self disclosure(Rui 1286) that allows everyone to
portray themselves in the best light. This behaviour leads Tinder users to set unrealistically high
expectations about their prospective partners something which often leads to severe
disappointment during eventual face-to-face interactions (Chamorro-Premuzik). This
disappointment is what drives short Tinder-initiated relationships, especially in conjunction with
an illusion perpetrated by Tinder that it is possible for users to seek better matches on the
platform should the individual they meet not satisfy their expectations.
Even in the face of disconcerting Tinder encounters, it has been observed that most users
continue using it - leading to an ever-growing user base and with it an even larger set of possible

Machasio 6
permutations for its users. In addition to the constant illusion Tinder perpetuates that it is
possible for individuals to seek out the perfect match from its infinite set of users, it is important
to examine a secondary factor a psychological one that explains this behavior. In a 2015
study conducted by three behavioral economists at University of Athens, it was observed that
although a majority of 288 Social Network Site (SNS) users surveyed reported being dissatisfied
with their respective SNS, they continued frequently engaging with it (Kourouthanassis 190). An
aggregation of the survey responses revealed that users who perceived a high match between
their respective SNS and their self-image, the majority in the aforementioned case, displayed this
behavior (Kourouthanassis 198). Tinder, being in itself a Social Network rooted in a mobile
phone application, is susceptible to the tendencies projected by the survey results. Assertions
from Panos Kourouthanassis study, in conjunction with a postulation by J.H. Kim that selfimage congruity on Social Network Sites is due to their self-expressive nature (1078), can
therefore be adopted to illustrate why discontented Tinder users continue using the platform. It is
important to understand why discontented Tinder users continue using the application because
this population comprises an ever-growing base of Tinder users something that is antithetical to
the requisite bounded set of choices (Reich) for the formation of long-lasting romantic
relationships.
It is important to acknowledge all the mentioned reasons as pitfalls in which Tinderignited romantic endeavors implode. It is, however, paramount to acknowledge that ultimately
the choice of the length, intention and sexual exclusivity of Tinder romances lies with its users.
As such, studying the demographic that encapsulates the quintessential Tinder user will be useful
in determining whether the brevity that characterizes Tinder romantic encounters is equally as

Machasio 7
affected by users conscious preferences as it is by the applications interface and users
unconscious mannerisms that result therefrom.
Tinder disproportionately attracts a demographic interested in transient, one off
relationships solely for the purpose of soliciting sex. Since this intention often aligns among
partners, Tinder matches often culminate in short, exclusively sexual relationships. This
conjecture is supported by a 2007 study conducted by University of Amsterdam professors on
729 respondents that sought to understand the role of personality traits in determining whether
individuals would seek dates on the internet or otherwise. Upon the conclusion of the study,
which sought to test the Compensation Hypothesis4 vis--vis the Recreation Hypothesis5, it was
determined that sexually permissive people and high sensation-seekers were more likely to seek
casual partners online than their more conservative counterparts because they appreciated the
anonymity the internet presented (Peter 473). While Tinder by virtue of requiring its users to
upload photographs and spiel a short bio does not offer the aforesaid anonymity, overarching
mannerisms prompted by the Recreation Hypothesis are still applicable thereto. This is because
of a general evolution in privacy and disclosure behavior online over the past few years evidenced by the analysis of a longitudinal panel of 5,076 SNS users between 2005 and 2011
that revealed a progressive increase in the amount of personal information individuals were
willing to share on SNSs such as Twitter and Facebook (Stutzman, 31). An extrapolation of
Stutzmans research taking into account a broad similarity between the purposes and operational
methodologies of Tinder and Facebook therefore implies the possibility that the Recreation

4
The assertion that self-conscious people seek relationships online because characteristics of
online communication such as anonymity allow them to momentarily compensate for their
perceived deficits in offline dating.
5
The assertion that sexually permissive people and high sensation-seekers will look for casual
partners online partially because they relish the Internets anonymity.

Machasio 8
Hypothesis is valid in the face of a changing online privacy landscape. That being the case, if
Tinder users mutually use the platform solely as a means for soliciting short-term sexual
relationships, the end result (short-term sexual relationships) cannot be disputed.
The aforementioned argument is absolute in the probable case that both individuals have
a preference for a short-term relationship as opposed to a long-term, committed one. In the case
that the partners intentions do not align, there is a divergence of opinion. While I concur with
the assertion that irreconcilable relationship objectives will lead to an immediate breakup, there
exists a school of thought with a contrary perspective. A representative of this school of thought
is Ross Rosenberg, an expert in the field of codependency, who asserts in The Human Magnet
Syndrome that humans, much like magnets, are attracted to their romantic opposites:
codependents are attracted to narcissists, and vice versa (2). In Tinders realm codependents are
romantics who seek mutually satisfying long-term relationships while narcissists are selforiented individuals who only seek their sexual satisfaction. Ross posits that since the
personalities of codependents and narcissists are perfectly complementary (one party seeks their
own satisfaction while the other is willing to offer them the said satisfaction), the magnetic
attraction force that brings them together is potent enough to bond them in a long-term
relationship. I, however, fault the applicability of Ross argument in the Tinder realm because it
seemingly ignores an important secondary factor that affects the longevity of relationships the
ready availability of alternative partners on Tinders platform. In the face of the seesaw of love
and pain that characterizes relationships composed of mutual opposites (Ross), what is to stop
any of the parties from seeking more comfortable romance elsewhere?
Critics contest that some seemingly long-term relationships have spawned from Tinder,
thereby negating the proposition that a combination of the flaws in Tinders operational

Machasio 9
methodology and intentions of a majority of its users render every Tinder-initiated relationship
unsuccessful. While it might be the case that Tinder has had some apparent success in
consummating long-term relationships as evidenced by 300 marriage proposals as of March 2014
(Craw), it is rather early to make any conclusive claims about the future of the relationships and
marriages in question since Tinder was founded in 2012 and only amassed widespread popularity
in the last quarter of 2013. Other online courting platforms such as eHarmony, OkCupid and
Christian Mingle, all which employ thorough informatics-based algorithms to determine matches
for its users will arguably continue having a greater success rate than Tinder due to the rigor of
the signup process and the depth of information that goes into determining the compatibility and
genuineness of romantic interest among partners.
It is also possible to argue, as Chamorro-Premuzik does, that Tinder adequately mimics
the way courtship works in the real world. After all, arent human beings superficial? In the
classic courtship scenario at a bar, doesnt one of the parties assess the physical looks of their
partner, gauge their interest and only then start a rudimentary conversation? The answer is yes.
Human beings are superficial, and will probably exclusively consider physical appearance during
the most initial stage of courtship. But there sure exist nuances. Hasnt the beautiful, flawless
lady sitting by the bar counter fallen for the less-than-decent-looking man time and again due to
his impeccable sophistication and sense of humor? In a platform such as Tinder in which snap
judgments about potential partners are made solely based on looks, would this even be a
possibility?
While Tinders format unwittingly undermines the foundational pillars long-term
relationships premised on romantic commitment and sexual exclusivity, the ultimate
responsibility for the length and intention of relationships that result from the platform is up to its

Machasio 10
users. The fact that relationships sired by Tinder culminate mostly in hookups and one night
stands is therefore a representation not only of a limitation in Tinders mode of operation, but
also a particular preference among the demographic Tinder attracts.

Machasio 11
Works Cited
Chamorro-Premuzik, Tomas. "The Tinder Effect: Psychology of Dating in the Technosexual
Era." The Guardian 17 Jan. 2014. Guardian Media Limited. Web. 29 Mar. 2015.
Cook, Jordan. "Tinder Acquires Ephemeral Messenger Tappy." TechCrunch 12 Jan. 2015. Web.
Craw, Victoria. "The Real Story behind Hugely Successful Dating App Tinder." News.com.au.
News Limited, 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.
Gee, Colllette. "Are You Using Tinder? Snap Out of It." The Huffington Post 23 Dec. 2014.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
Grimm, Pamela. "Social Desirability Bias." Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. Vol.
2. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. 5. Print.
Gross, Doug. "Survey: 1 in 4 Users Lie on Facebook." CNN.com. Cable News Network, 4 May
2012. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.
Hough, Andrew. "Why Women Constantly Lie about Life on Facebook." The Telegraph 12 Mar.
2013. Telegraph Media Group Limited. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.
Kourouthanassis, Panos, George Lekakos, and Vassilis Gerakis. "Should I Stay or Should I Go?
the Moderating Effect of Self-image Congruity and Trust on Social Networking
Continued Use." Behaviour & Information Technology, 34.2 (2015): 190-203.
Peter, Jochen, and Patti Valkenburg. "Who Looks for Casual Dates on the Internet? A Test of the
Compensation and the Recreation Hypotheses." New Media & Society, 9.3 (2007): 455474.
Raczka, Rachel. "The Psychology of Why Tinder Works." Boston.com. Boston Globe Media
Partners, LLC, 2 July 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2015.

Machasio 12
Reich, Leah. "Playing the Numbers in Digital Dating." The New York Times 15 Aug. 2014. Web.
21 Mar. 2015.
Rosenberg, Ross. The Human Magnet Syndrome: Why We Love People Who Hurt Us. Eau
Claire: PESI & Media, 2013. 2-10. Print.
Rui, Jian Raymond, and Michael Stefanone. "Strategic Image Management Online: Selfpresentation, Self-esteem and Social Network Perspectives." Information,
Communication & Society, 16.8 (2013): 1286-1305.
Slater, Dan. "Love in the Time of Algorithms: What Technology Does to Meeting and Mating."
Love in the Time of Algorithms: What Technology Does to Meeting and Mating (2013)