Dating in the Age of Tinder: Swiping for Love?

  • Lauren Palmer
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life book series (PSFL)


With the continued popularity of online dating, this chapter explores the technology of dating apps, to see if the way young people negotiate intimate relationships has transformed in an era of cold intimacies. Through exploring ten individuals’ experiences of the dating app Tinder and using Illouz’s (Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge, 2007) concept of ‘emotional capitalism’, this chapter examines the extent to which Tinder has created a split with traditional love, causing intimate relationships to become commodified, or whether traditional narratives of romantic relationships have become incorporated into new modes of dating through Tinder. The analysis focuses on the ambiguous nature of romantic relationships, and how both emotional capitalism and tradition are facilitated through Tinder and a process of bricolage.


  1. Armstrong, E.A., Hamilton, L. and England, P. (2010) Is hooking up bad for young women? Contexts 9 (3): 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babbie, E.R. (2010) The basics of social research. 5th edn. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  3. Bauman, Z. (2003) Liquid love: On the Frailty of human bonds. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blum, V.L. (2005) Love studies: or, Liberating love. American Literary History 17 (2): 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogle, K.A. (2008) Hooking up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boyatzis, R. (1998) Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Brym, D.R. and Lenton, D.R. (2001) Love Online: A Report on Digital Dating in Canada. Available at: [Accessed 20 November 2016].
  8. Carter, J. (2012) What is commitment? Women’s accounts of intimate attachment. Families, Relationships and Societies 1 (2): 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carter, J. (2017) Why Marry? The role of Tradition in Women’s Marital Aspirations. Sociological Research Online 22 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter, J. and Duncan, S. (2016) Wedding paradoxes: Individualized conformity and the ‘perfect day’. The Sociological Review 65 (1): 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter, J. and Duncan, S. (2018) Reinventing couples: Tradition, agency and bricolage. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duncan, S. (2011a) Personal life, pragmatism and Bricolage. Sociological Research Online 16 (4).Google Scholar
  13. Duncan, S. (2011b) The World We Have Made? Individualisation and Personal Life in the 1950s. The Sociological Review, 59 (2): 242–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flick, U. (1998) An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Haavio-Mannila, E., Kontula, O. and Rotkirch, A. (2001) Sexual Lifestyle in the Twentieth Century: A Research Study. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heino, R., Ellison, N. and Gibbs, J. (2010) Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27 (4): 427–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobbs, M., Owen, S. and Gerber, L. (2016) Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital transformation of intimacy. Journal of Sociology 53 (2): 1–14.Google Scholar
  18. Horvat, S. (2016) The Radicality of Love. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Illouz, E. (2007) Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Illouz, E. (2012) Why love Hurts. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ivey, J. (2012) The value of qualitative research methods. Paediatric Nursing 38 (6): 319.Google Scholar
  22. Jackson, S. and Scott, S. (2004) Sexual Antinomies in Late Modernity. Sexualities 7 (2): 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jamieson, L. (1998) Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kao, A. (2016) Tinder: True Love or a Nightmare? Advanced Writing: Pop Culture Intersections 16.Google Scholar
  25. Keskin-Kozat, B. (2004) Liquid love: On the Frailty of human bonds. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 33 (4): 494–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Rappleyea, D. Taylor, A. and Fang, X. (2014) Gender Differences and Communication Technology Use Among Emerging Adults in the Initiation of Dating Relationships. Marriage and Family Review 50 (3): 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rodica, Z. and Milena (2008) Qualitative research methods: A comparison between focus-group and in-depth interview. Annals of the University of Oradea: Economic Science 4 (1): 1279–1283.Google Scholar
  29. Smart, C. (2007) Personal life: New directions in sociological thinking. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Turkle, S. (2011) Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  31. van Hooff, J. (2013) Modern Couples? Continuity and change in heterosexual relationships. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  32. van Hooff, J. (2017) An everyday affair: deciphering the sociological significance of women’s attitudes towards infidelity. The Sociological Review 65 (4): 850–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren Palmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Canterbury Christ Church UniversityCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations