4.6 Article

The psychological influence of dating app matches: The more matches the merrier?

期刊

NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/14614448231161598

关键词

Dating app feedback; Tinder; ostracism; social acceptance; swiping

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Swipe-based dating apps provide quantitative social feedback, and studies have shown a link between dating app success and well-being. However, the nature of this correlation has not been explored. In an experiment with 125 undergraduate women, the chance of matches had no effect on loneliness or fear of being single. However, a higher chance of matches led to higher partner choice overload. Additionally, women who accepted seven or more profiles reported higher loneliness in the low chance of matches condition. This suggests that matches may be rewarding for women with a high approach orientation. Manipulating social feedback in a dating app paradigm can be a suitable method to study the effects of social acceptance and ostracism.
Swipe-based dating apps characteristically provide quantitative social feedback in the form of mattches. Surveys suggest a link between dating app success and well-being, but the nature of this correlation has yet to be examined. In an experiment with 125 undergraduate women, we manipulated dating app feedback: When accepting a profile, participants had either a high (27/31) or a low chance (3/31) of receiving matches. We found no effect of chance of matches on women's loneliness or fear of being single. However, a higher chance of matches led to higher partner choice overload. Furthermore, in those who accepted seven or more profiles, women in the low chance of matches condition reported higher loneliness than women in the high chance of matches condition. This could mean that matches are rewarding for women with a high approach orientation. Manipulating social feedback in a dating app paradigm seems suitable to study the effects of social acceptance and ostracism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据