How dating apps are changing our relationships
Pick your poison: Tinder, Hinge, Bumble, Grindr… the list continues. These apps will hook you up to a dating culture with over 250 million users worldwide. Through algorithms, they will filter their database to match compatible users based on a variety of inputs such as age, gender, ethnicity, location, and hobbies. But can mathematics predict romance?
To an extent, this categorising approach to dating can be highly effective. One study looking at the effects of Tinder’s rollout on college campuses in the United States found that the app led to a “sharp and persistent increase in reported dating and sexual activity.” But there’s a troublesome ease to the filter-and-find notion that might not equate to successful long-term relationships. Some researchers have raised concerns that the instantaneous nature of the apps is counter to how normative relationships form. The inverted exposure dating apps provide—where one is exposed to a list of facts before meeting in person—has raised concerns that dating platforms lead to an objectifying, evaluative mindset towards partner selection.
The dangers of objectifying don’t just land on the profiles you browse—in order to sign onto these apps you must process yourself into some form of 2D informational profile. It is a difficult task to accurately label the keystones of your identity in an algorithmically perceivable format, and then have those inputs facilitate your dating prospects. This was reflected in a Pew Research Study from 2019 found that 71 percent of dating app users in the United States felt that people commonly lie about themselves in their profiles. Numerous studies have also identified this disparity between the “real” and “ideal” self. By signing onto a dating app, you are ultimately commodifying yourself. The need to undergo self-characterisation will make this real/ideal discrepancy intrinsic in each account. But to what degree is this information inaccurate? Researchers found the biggest predictor to a noticeable person-profile discrepancy was a person’s self-esteem, and whether the user believed they would actually meet someone in person. Given that the main reasons people report using Tinder is either for entertainment or self-validation, it can be difficult to differentiate whose information is accurate.
Studies also looked at the role that speed dating and choice overload played in the decisions users made on the applications. One study found that when given 20 rather than four dating profiles, participants began misremembering what data was on each account. When the profiles increased to 64, the participants forewent closer examination strategies in favour of making decisions on faster and fewer cues.
The wider, constant access to potential partners is also believed to create a choice overload that compromises commitment—there is always the possibility of a better partner on the next scroll, on the next app’s algorithm. One study says that this low stakes, high choice environment has resulted in higher-turnover dating and more casual sex.
In addition to this choice paradox, for dating algorithms to inherently work they must weed out the profiles presented to users. In theory, the filters applied should help match compatible accounts to increase the app’s success rates. However, the way algorithms filter profiles can come with negative consequences. It has been shown that collaborative AI based algorithms, which are used by Tinder and Hinge to group together people with similar tastes, can exclude profiles in favour of behaviours found in the majority. Some have found that instead of being more inclusive, dating apps accentuate offline discriminatory practices around body types, age, rural environments, race, and HIV stigma. To counter this, it has been recommended that users should have an option to delete their swipe data or opt out of the algorithm entirely, but the more inclusive techniques are still in development.
From the outset, there is no strong evidence supporting that compatible partners can be found based on individually assessed qualities—context and interaction are far greater predictors of a successful romance compared to personality markers. The seemingly infinite choices on these dating sites does not equate, and perhaps even inhibits, the possibility of better relationship outcomes. There are concerns that the inherent process of self-commodification on these sites encourages users to browse and consume potential partners at unprecedented, impersonal rates.
Despite the scientifically unsupported claims dating sites make, what is uncontested is that they have nonetheless transformed dating culture. There are inherent dangers but many freedoms that come with this, and the long-term results it has on romance are still coming to light. What has been made evidently clear is this: our new dating culture is resultant of a perceived abundance of choice. However, this does not result in greater relationship possibilities.
