Advertisement

Hook, Line and Sinker: Do Tinder Matches and Meet Ups Lead to One-Night Stands?

  • Trond Viggo GrøntvedtEmail author
  • Mons Bendixen
  • Ernst O. Botnen
  • Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair
Research Article

Abstract

Several recent papers have established a link between personality and Tinder use, particularly with regards to sociosexuality and motivations for use. Following up our recent publication on dating apps and the studies linking Tinder and sociosexuality, we provide a more detailed investigation of the efficiency of using Tinder to acquire one-night stands or meet potential long-term committed relationship partners. Using self-reported data from 269 students (62% women), we find that a very large number of matches are required for a relative small number of meet ups, and result in a very limited number of hook-ups or potential romantic partner meetings. Merely 20% of the Tinder users in the sample have had one-night stands following Tinder use, and the majority of these only had one extra partner. The primary individual difference predictor of achieving casual sex using Tinder is unrestricted sociosexual attitudes, and this also predicts fewer potential romantic partner meetings.

Keywords

Sociosexuality Tinder Casual sex Committed relationships 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bendixen, M., & Kennair, L. E. O. (2015). Revisiting judgment of strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation tactics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(8), 1056–1082.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514558959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bendixen, M., Asao, K., Wyckoff, J. P., Buss, D. M., & Kennair, L. E. O. (2017). Sexual regret in US and Norway: Effects of culture and individual differences in religiosity and mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 246–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botnen, E. O., Bendixen, M., Grøntvedt, T. V., & Kennair, L. E. O. (2018). Individual differences in sociosexuality predict picture-based mobile dating app use. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 67–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 19–31.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2016). Sexual strategies theory. In T. Shackelford & V. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer: Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1861-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gatter, K., & Hodkinson, K. (2016). On the differences between TinderTM versus online dating agencies: questioning a myth. an exploratory study. Cogent Psychology, 3(1), 1162414.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1162414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grøntvedt, T. V., & Kennair, L. E. O. (2013). Age preferences in a gender egalitarian society. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 7(3), 239–249.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hallam, L., De Backer, C. J. S., Fisher, M. L., & Walrave, M. (2018). Are sex differences in mating strategies overrated? Sociosexual orientation as a dominant predictor in online dating strategies. Evolutionary Psychology Science, 4(4), 456–465.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0150-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kennair, L. E. O., Schmitt, D., Fjeldavli, Y. L., & Harlem, S. K. (2009). Sex differences in sexual desires and attitudes in Norwegian samples. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 3(supp1), 1–32.  https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v3isupp1.67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kennair, L. E. O., Grøntvedt, T. V., Mehmetoglu, M., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Sex and mating strategy impact the 13 basic reasons for having sex. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1(4), 207–219.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-015-0024-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kennair, L. E. O., Bendixen, M., & Buss, D. M. (2016). Sexual regret: tests of competing explanations of sex differences. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(4), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704916682903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kirsner, B. R., Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2003). Self, friends, and lovers: structural relations among Beck Depression Inventory scores and perceived mate values. Journal of Affective Disorders, 75(2), 131–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(02)00048-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. LeFebvre, L. E. (2017). Swiping me off my feet: explicating relationship initiation on Tinder. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 35(9), 1205–1229.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517706419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: what, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 468–489.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947–955.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269(1496), 1095–1100.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (Second ed.). College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  20. Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: a more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Provost, M. P., Troje, N. F., & Quinsey, V. L. (2008). Short-term mating strategies and attraction to masculinity in point-light walkers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(1), 65–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Puts, D. A. (2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(5), 388–397.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Gate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: what characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12(3), 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v12n03_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rhode Island Government. (2015). HEALTH releases new data on infectious syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.ri.gov/press/view/24889. Accessed 19 Oct 2019
  25. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: a 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247–311.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1185–1204.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmitt, D. P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Big Five traits related to short-term mating: from personality to promiscuity across 46 nations. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2), 246–282.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmitt, D. P., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Are men really more ‘oriented’ toward short-term mating than women? A critical review of theory and research. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 3(3), 211–239.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660110119331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sevi, B. (2019a). Brief report: Tinder users are risk takers and have low sexual disgust sensitivity. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(1), 104–108.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0170-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sevi, B. (2019b). The dark side of Tinder: the dark triad of personality as correlates of Tinder use. Journal of Individual Differences, 1(1), 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sevi, B., Aral, T., & Eskenazi, T. (2018). Exploring the hook-up app: low sexual disgust and high sociosexuality predict motivation to use Tinder for casual sex. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 17–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. StataCorp. (2017). Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station: StataCorp LLC.Google Scholar
  34. Sumter, S. R., Vandenbosch, L., & Ligtenberg, L. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Timmermans, E., & Courtois, C. (2018). From swiping to casual sex and/or committed relationships: exploring the experiences of Tinder users. The Information Society, 34(2), 59–70.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1414093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Timmermans, E., & De Caluwè, E. (2017). To Tinder or not to Tinder, that’s the question: an individual differences perspective to Tinder use and motives. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 74–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  38. World Bank, World development indicators (2018) Individuals using the Internet (% of population [Data file]. Retrieved from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/it.NET.user.ZS. Accessed 19 Oct 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of Public Health and Nursing, HUNT Research CenterNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyLevangerNorway
  3. 3.Lovisenberg Diakonale HospitalOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations