Funology 2 pp 61-75 | Cite as

The (Un)Enjoyable User Experience of Online Dating Systems

  • Doug ZytkoEmail author
  • Sukeshini Grandhi
  • Quentin Jones
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


Online dating systems are used by millions of people around the world to pursue love, sex, friendship, and other goals. Several product features of online dating systems contribute to a seemingly enjoyable and rewarding user experience. For example, the “swiping” mechanism commonly found in many of today’s mobile dating apps has been likened to a game (Purvis in Why using Tinder is so satisfying. The Washington Post, 2017). Users swipe right to “like” profiles that they find attractive, and swipe left to reject the others. Receiving a match in these apps (i.e. discovering that an attractive user reciprocated a “like”) can be an exciting and addictive experience, not unlike winning a trivial amount of cash on a casino’s slot machine. Let’s pull the lever just one more time, let’s view just one more profile.



Some material cited in this chapter (Zytko et al. 2016) is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1422696. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. Blackwell C, Birnholtz J, Abbott C (2014) Seeing and being seen: co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media Soc 1–20.
  2. Blythe M, Hassenzahl M (2005) The semantics of fun: differentiating enjoyable experiences. In: Funology, Springer, pp 91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cacioppo JT, Cacioppo S, Gonzaga GC, Ogburn EL, Vanderweele TJ (2013) Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(25):10135–10140. Scholar
  4. Chiou W, Yang M (2010) The moderating role of need for cognition on excessive searching bias: a case of finding romantic partners online. Ann Rev Cyberther Telemed 120–122Google Scholar
  5. Clemens C, Atkin D, Krishnan A (2015) The influence of biological and personality traits on gratifications obtained through online dating websites. Comput Hum Behav 49(August):120–129. Scholar
  6. Couch D, Liamputtong P (2008) Online dating and mating: the use of the internet to meet sexual partners. Qual Health Res 18(2):268–279. [pii]; Scholar
  7. Crawford M, Popp D (2003) Sexual double standards: a review and methodological critique of two decades of research. J Sex Res 40(1):13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Angelo JD, Toma CL (2016) There are plenty of fish in the sea: the effects of choice overload and reversibility on online daters’ satisfaction with selected partners. Media Psychol 3269(May):1–27. Scholar
  9. Eastwick PW, Finkel EJ (2008) Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? J Pers Soc Psychol 94(2):245–264. Scholar
  10. Ellison N, Heino R, Gibbs JL (2006) Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. J Comput Mediated Commun 11:415–441. Scholar
  11. Ellison NB, Hancock JT, Toma CL (2012) Profile as promise: a framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations. New Media Soc 14(1):45–62. Scholar
  12. Finkel EJ, Eastwick PW, Karney BR, Reis HT, Sprecher S (2012) Online dating: a critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. psychological science in the public interest, vol. 13. Scholar
  13. Fiore AT, Taylor LS, Zhong X, Mendelsohn GA, Cheshire C (2010) Who’s right and who writes: People, profiles, contacts, and replies in online dating. In: Proceedings of the annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, IEEE, pp 1–10.
  14. Frost JH, Chance Z, Norton MI, Ariely D (2008) People are experience goods: improving online dating with virtual dates. J Interact Mark 22(1):51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gagne FM, Lydon JE (2001) Mind-set and close relationships: when bias leads to (In) accurate predictions. J Pers Soc Psychol 81(1):85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gatter K, Hodkinson K, Kolle M (2016) On the differences between TinderTM versus online dating agencies: questioning a myth. An exploratory study. Cogent Psychol 3(1):1162414. Scholar
  17. Gibbs JL, Ellison NB, Heino RD (2006) Self-presentation in online personals: the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet dating. Commun Res 33(2):152–177. Scholar
  18. Goffman E (1978) The presentation of self in everyday life. HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  19. González-Vallejo C, Moran E (2001) The evaluability hypothesis revisited: Joint and separate evaluation preference reversal as a function of attribute importance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 86(2):216–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall JA, Park N, Song H, Cody MJ (2010) Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: the effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits. J Soc Pers Relat 27(1):117–135. Scholar
  21. Hancock JT, Toma CL (2009) Putting your best face forward: the accuracy of online dating photographs. J Commun 59(2):367–386. Scholar
  22. Hancock JT, Toma C, Ellison N (2007) The truth about lying in online dating profiles. In: CHI Proceedings, pp 449–452.
  23. Hardy J, Lindtner S (2017) Constructing a desiring user: discourse, rurality, and design in location-based social networks. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computingCSCW’17.
  24. Heino RD, Ellison NB, Gibbs JL (2010) Relationshopping: investigating the market metaphor in online dating. J Soc Pers Relat 27(4):427–447. Scholar
  25. Hsiao JC-Y, Dillahunt TR (2017) People-nearby applications. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing—CSCW’17, February, pp 26–40.
  26. Iyengar S (2010) The art of choosing. TwelveGoogle Scholar
  27. Katz E, Haas H, Gurevitch M (1973) On the use of the mass media for important things. Am Sociol Rev 164–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kruglanski AW, Thompson EP, Higgins ET, Atash MN, Pierro A, Shah JY, Spiegel S (2000) To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”: locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. J Pers Soc Psychol 79(5):793–815. Scholar
  29. Kumashiro M, Rusbult CE, Finkenauer C, Stocker SL (2007) To think or to do: the impact of assessment and locomotion orientation on the Michelangelo phenomenon. J Soc Pers Relat 24(4):591–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leary MR, Kowalski RM (1990) Impression management: a literature review and two-component model. Psychol Bull 107(1):34–47. Scholar
  31. Lenton AP, Stewart A (2008) Changing her ways: the number of options and mate-standard strength impact mate choice strategy and satisfaction. Judgm Decis Mak 3(7):501–511. Retrieved from
  32. Lenton AP, Fasolo B, Todd PM (2009) The relationship between number of potential mates and mating skew in humans. Anim Behav 77(1):55–60. Scholar
  33. Masden C, Edwards WK (2015) Understanding the role of community in online dating. In: CHI Proceedings, pp 535–544.
  34. Purvis J (2017, February 14). Why using Tinder is so satisfying. The Washington PostGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith A, Anderson M (2015) 5 facts about online dating. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
  36. Sumter SR, Vandenbosch L, Ligtenberg L (2017) Love me Tinder: untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics Inform 34(1):67–78. Scholar
  37. Terveen L, McDonald DW (2005) Social matching: a framework and research agenda. ACM Trans Comput Hum Inter (TOCHI) 12(3):401–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Timmermans E, De Caluwé E (2017) Development and validation of the Tinder Motives Scale (TMS). Comput Hum Behav 70:341–350. Scholar
  39. Toma CL, Hancock JT (2010) Looks and lies: the role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Commun Res 37(3):335–351. Scholar
  40. Wu P-L, Chiou W-B (2009) More options lead to more searching and worse choices in finding partners for romantic relationships online: an experimental study. CyberPsychol Behav 12(3):315–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang M-L, Chiou W-B (2010) Looking online for the best romantic partner reduces decision quality: the moderating role of choice-making strategies. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Networking 13(2):207–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zytko D, Grandhi SA, Jones Q (2014a) Impression management struggles in online dating. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on supporting group work, pp 53–62Google Scholar
  43. Zytko D, Grandhi S, Jones Q (2014b) Impression management and formation in online dating systems. In: European conference on information systems (ECIS) 2014, pp 1–10. Retrieved from
  44. Zytko D, Freeman G, Grandhi SA, Herring SC, Jones QG (2015a) Enhancing evaluation of potential dates online through paired collaborative activities. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, pp 1849–1859Google Scholar
  45. Zytko D, Grandhi SA, Jones Q (2015b) Frustrations with pursuing casual encounters through online dating. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 1935–1940Google Scholar
  46. Zytko D, Grandhi SA, Jones Q (2016) The coaches said…What?: analysis of online dating strategies recommended by dating coaches. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on supporting group work (GROUP ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 385–39Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New Jersey Institute of TechnologyNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Eastern Connecticut State UniversityWillimanticUSA

Personalised recommendations