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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Because this is a sub-sample of current and prior Tinder users, we compared the SOI-scores with those of non-users. The analyses suggest that Tinder current users reported far less restricted sociosexuality (SOI-R) than current non-users (Cohen’s d = 1.00). For the separate SOI components, these differences were d = 1.07, d = 0.74, and d = 0.47 for SOI-behavior, SOI-attitudes, and SOI-desire, respectively.

  2. 2.

    Because the response alternatives for SOI behavior items are categorized, we applied the following recoding of scores: 0 = 0, 1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 4, 5 = 5.5, 6 = 8, 7 = 15, and 8 = 25. Three participants reported one more one-night stand following Tinder than the total number of one-night stands. For these instances, we adjusted the total number up to match the number following Tinder use.

  3. 3.

    When we dichotomized number of meet ups (None/1 or more), 62% of those who met reported neither one-night stands nor any meetings with an interest for a long-term relationship. Among the remaining 38%, participants who met a partner with an interest for a long-term relationship reported three times more often to have had a one-night stand following the meeting, OR = 3.0, 95% CI [1.4–5.6].

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trond Viggo Grøntvedt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grøntvedt, T.V., Bendixen, M., Botnen, E.O. et al. Hook, Line and Sinker: Do Tinder Matches and Meet Ups Lead to One-Night Stands?. Evolutionary Psychological Science 6, 109–118 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-00222-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sociosexuality
  • Tinder
  • Casual sex
  • Committed relationships