After reading the excerpt “The Pokémon Generation” from The PlayStation Dreamworld by Alfie Bown, I was particularly inspired by his quote about living in a dystopia where big companies such as Google “send us madly around the city in directions of its choosing in search of the objects of desire,” and that “the objectivity possessed by the Pokémon is comparable…to the objectivity of any other “physical” object of desire” (Bown, 2017). This has led me to explore the gamification used in dating apps. Due to the pandemic more people have been looking for relationships online; Hinge tripled their revenue in 2020, with a 63% increase in users since 2019. In May 2021 over 6.5 million people downloaded Tinder (Hughes, 2021). Developers of apps such as Tinder and Bumble want us to use them for as long as possible, and as playing games releases endorphins, introducing these game elements (through swiping) is the perfect way to encourage that behaviour. Additionally, as the “decision-making process is a simple left/right decision,” the “mentally-taxing task of approaching people” has been removed (Pop Neuro, 2021). When I have used dating apps I found that they seem to absorb a large amount of my time, and I believe that this comes down to the successful use of game mechanics.
Fig. 1 Red Heart Made Out Of Binary Digits (2019)
Sean Rad (the CEO of Tinder) explained that the “swiping design brings a game element to dating,” with each match giving the user an “ego boost.” Rad also describes the app as “virtual voyeurism,” as users can people watch on a wide scale (Bertoni, 2014 cited in Santos, 2018:46). In my last blog I discussed how I believe that dating apps follow the theory of Technological Determinism, however this source explains that they may follow the Social Creation of Technology (SCOT) as users are “in complete control, deciding when, where, how, and if they want to start the game.” Additionally, as these “players” are in control of pursuing matches, apps such as “Tinder cannot be expected to provide users with romantic relationships” (Santos, 2018:81). More concerningly, gamification in dating apps “manipulates us to ignore the potentially awkward or difficult implications of our actions…We lose sight of reality,” and “become absorbed in playing tinder.” Regardless of if we want a hook up or a relationship, “we will not be focused on either outcome” and will “lose the ability to obtain what we actually want from the system” (Cenci, 2021). The case study also mentioned that app users “must stop playing the game in order to win” (Santos, 2018:81).
Fig. 2 Tinder! (2020)
Creating a dating app profile is not unlike creating an avatar in a game. In the journal article Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital transformation of intimacy, dating app users felt the need to use self-branding techniques in order to “market themselves as desirable commodities in a crowded relationship marketplace” (Hobbs, 2017:280). People on dating apps are able to story tell using their profile, by “playing with their identities and even generating fabricated personas” (Santos, 2018:60). Moreover, the same users felt that dating apps were reducing them “to commodities…and that exchanges were too strategic” (Hobbs, 2017:282). The article described dating apps as providing a “network of intimacy” that enhances user’s social capital “dramatically” through “the ongoing search for love and fulfilment via dating apps and smartphones” (Hobbs, 2017:282).
Dating apps have been conceptualised by some as having “an architecture of social surveillance” (Westcott and Owen, 2013 cited in Hobbs, 2017:280), and the theory follows the idea that technology is designed to increase the power of the creator, in a one-way relationship with society. Bown also believes that technology itself is programmed with ideology (embedded code), and that big companies (such as Tinder) are programming devices to control passive consumers. Having said that, after doing some research I found that majority of dating app users feel that technology could aid them in the pursuit of meaningful relationships, with participants in one study having “more romantic…possibilities than previous generations” due to the fact that technology gives them “greater agency” to pursue and meet potential lovers (Hobbs, 2017:281). This research goes against technological determinism and Bown’s theories, suggesting that they may be inaccurate.
On the whole however, I believe that the gamification elements used in dating apps may be damaging to consumers, as apps such as Tinder and Grindr have been reviewed as two of “the top 10 apps most likely to leave users feeling sad” (Hughes, 2021). App developers want to maximise the time consumers spend using them, and the gamification elements of dating apps (e.g. swiping) release endorphins, which feel good and can reduce anxiety (not to mention that “love and cocaine trigger the same reward system in the brain;” Pop Neuro, 2021). When we match with people on dating apps we are flooded with adrenaline as we have “won” the game. However this is intentional, as “unpredictable rewards cause more activity in reward regions of the brain than rewards we know are coming.” When using dating apps the user’s brain “creates a dopamine feedback loop,” as “once it gets used to the neurological release (from unpredictable rewards), it learns to anticipate and reward…exposure to the source of that release” (McClintock, 2019). Concerningly, this feedback loop has led to “addiction, burnout, and feelings of isolation,” with research suggesting that those with social anxiety or “a high level of loneliness” are more likely to compulsively use dating apps (McClintock, 2019). There is also the issue that we are not cognitively equipped to deal with endless matches, and the apps play with “very primitive structures that aren’t rational,” which can remove the “rational desire to be in a relationship” (Greenfield, cited in McClintock, 2019).
Fig. 3 Videoshoot "Love Me" by Francesca Delfino from Rüsselsheim (2019)
Another issue that I have with the game elements used in dating apps is that they make it very easy for anti-social behaviour to occur. Examples of this include “objectification of user profiles and…narcissistic behaviour of ghosting, bread-crumbing, benching, and general dishonesty.” Psychotherapist Dr. Denise Dunne suggests that these behaviours occur as app users are viewing others as characters in a game who “do not have feelings to hurt” (McClintock, 2019). I have found that after using dating apps for a prolonged time period, I begin to develop negative feelings about myself and other people.
I also read a journal article that revealed that Tinder has rules, “both obvious in the limits of the app itself and hidden in the implicit guidelines supported by those participating.” The obvious rules are the left or right swipe, that eventually lead to reward for the user; a relationship (Santos, 2018:58). Hidden rules include ranking based on how frequently consumers use the app, and how selective they are when choosing their matches (being picky is preferred; Hughes, 2021). Additionally, the Tinder algorithm used to be based on attractiveness – the more swipes the user had, the more that they were matched with people with an equal number of matches. Tinder now functions on a “more complex” algorithm that matches users “based on proximity through age, gender preferences and geolocation,” and uses data from people with similar matching patterns. For example, if users 1 and 2 both swipe user 3, and user 2 swipes user 4, user 1 will also be suggested 4. As a result, it will take a much longer amount of time for users to find their most compatible match, and Tinder profits from long term app usage.
To conclude, it could be argued that as dating apps doesn’t use “a fixed set of characteristics to match users,” then players are “in control of matching with nearby users based on their own choices” which goes against the theory of Technological Determinism (Santos, 2018:58). Nevertheless, I believe that apps such as Tinder follow the theory, as they are deciding who users can match with and ultimately their future (most likely without finding a genuine match due to developers wanting to maximise their profit).
Bibliography
Bown, A. (2017) The PlayStation Dreamworld. Cambridge: Polity.
Hobbs, M. et al. (2017) “Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital transformation of intimacy” In: Journal of Sociology 53 (2) pp.271–284. At: https://journals-sagepub-com.ucreative.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1177/1440783316662718 (Accessed 17/10/2021).
Hughes, E. (2021) It’s 2021, why are dating app algorithms still so bad? At: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/dating-app-algorithms (Accessed 17/10/2021).
McClintock, M. (2019) The Psychology of Dating Apps. How dating apps influence our brain, our behavior, and how we interact with each other. At: https://medium.com/swlh/the-psychology-of-dating-apps-d014c304bdbe#:~:text=According%20to%20Psychology%20Today%2C%20dating%20apps%20become%20addictive,can%20even%20spark%20the%20feeling%20of%20being%20%E2%80%9Chigh.%E2%80%9D (Accessed 17/10/2021).
Pop Neuro (2021) Gamification and the Psychology of Random Rewards in Dating Apps. At: https://www.popneuro.com/neuromarketing-blog/psychology-dating-apps-gamification-random-rewards-consumer-behavior-lessons (Accessed 17/10/2021).
Santos, P. R. (2018) “Gamification of love: a case study of Tinder in Oslo” In: Nordic Media Program pp.11-82. At: https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/64406/Polyanna-Rocha.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed 17/10/2021).
List of Images
Fig. 1 Sinn, A. (2019) Red Heart Made Out Of Binary Digits. [Photo] At: https://unsplash.com/photos/KgLtFCgfC28 (Accessed 07/06/2022).
Fig. 2 Baumeister, M. (2020) Tinder!. [Photo] At: https://unsplash.com/photos/4xChyRlbyWM (Accessed 07/06/2022).
Fig. 3 Ranisch, R. (2019) Videoshoot "Love Me" by Francesca Delfino from Rüsselsheim. [Photo] At: https://unsplash.com/photos/lSMf7GJoDz4 (Accessed 07/06/2022).
Comments