skip to main content
research-article

When the "Matchmaker" Does Not Have Your Interest at Heart: Perceived Algorithmic Harms, Folk Theories, and Users' Counter-Strategies on Tinder

Published: 08 November 2024 Publication History

Abstract

On online platforms, algorithms help us build and manage our relationships. However, their invisible interventions might also pose harm to these connections. Dating platforms offer a prime example where, despite extensive research on human-inflicted harm, the potential harm from the algorithms themselves, and user strategies for mitigating them, remains largely unexplored. In our analysis of 7,043 reviews and interviews with 30 Tinder users, we unveiled how users perceive algorithmic harm as damaging self-esteem, sabotaging potential relationships, encouraging antisocial behavior, and misrepresenting or marginalizing certain identities. We introduce a new algorithmic folk theory, the "conflict of interest" theory, perceived to perpetuate these harms. This theory encapsulates users' sense of a contradiction between the dating platform's promise of finding the perfect partner (leading to discontinued use of Tinder) and its commercial interest in retaining users to increase revenue. Users suspected various algorithmic processes pursuant to this theory, such as (a) throttling profile visibility, (b) manipulating users' matches, and (c) recommending large quantities of profiles that will not lead to matches. They also described various strategies in resistance or defense of these suspected algorithmic processes, such as engaging in counter-intuitive behaviour to disrupt the unfavorable algorithmic processes or leveraging location based filtering for match variety and safety. We conclude by discussing how the perceived algorithmic harms can inform the development of new algorithmic implementations that balance both user and company interests.

References

[1]
Christie Abel, Lucy Pei, Ian Larson, Benedict Salazar Olgado, and Benedict Turner. 2022. ''Tinder Will Know You Are A 6?: Users' Perceptions of Algorithms on Tinder. In Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
[2]
Amelia Acker and Brian Beaton. 2016. Software update unrest: The recent happenings around Tinder and Tesla. In 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). IEEE, 1891--1900.
[3]
UK National Crime Agency. 2022. More under 20s sexually assaulted after meeting offenders on dating sites. https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/more-under-20s-sexually-assaulted-after-meeting-offenders-on-dating-sites
[4]
AIAAIC. 2023. What's driving AI and algorithmic incidents and controversies. https://www.aiaaic.org/home
[5]
Kath Albury, Paul Byron, Anthony McCosker, Tinonee Pym, Jarrod Walshe, Kane Race, Doreen Salon, Tim Wark, Jessica Botfield, Daniel Reeders, and Christopher Dietzel. 2019. Safety, risk and wellbeing on dating apps: Final report. https://doi.org/10.25916/5dd324c1b33bb
[6]
Fatemeh Alizadeh, Aikaterini Mniestri, and Gunnar Stevens. 2022. Does Anyone Dream of Invisible AI? A Critique of the Making Invisible of AI Policing. In Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference. 1--6.
[7]
Fatemeh Alizadeh, Gunnar Stevens, and Margarita Esau. 2021. I Don't Know, Is AI Also Used in Airbags? An Empirical Study of Folk Concepts and People's Expectations of Current and Future Artificial Intelligence. I-com 20, 1 (2021), 3--17.
[8]
Fatemeh Alizadeh, Gunnar Stevens, Timo Jakobi, and Jana Krüger. 2023. Catch Me if You Can:" Delaying" as a Social Engineering Technique in the Post-Attack Phase. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1--25.
[9]
Hanan Khalid Aljasim and Douglas Zytko. 2022. Foregrounding Women's Safety in Mobile Social Matching and Dating Apps: A Participatory Design Study. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, GROUP, Article 9 (dec 2022), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3567559
[10]
Nazanin Andalibi, Cassidy Pyle, Kristen Barta, Lu Xian, Abigail Z Jacobs, and Mark S Ackerman. 2023. Conceptualizing Algorithmic Stigmatization. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--18.
[11]
Monica Anderson, Emily A. Vogels, and Erica Turner. 2020. The virtues and downsides of online dating. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/06/the-virtues-and-downsides-of-online-dating/
[12]
Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Afsaneh Razi, Jan Edwards, and Pamela Wisniewski. 2020. Children's Perspectives on Human Sex Trafficking Prevention Education. Companion of the 2020 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work, 123--126. https://doi.org/10.1145/3323994.3369889
[13]
Solon Barocas, Kate Crawford, Aaron Shapiro, and Hanna Wallach. 2017. The problem with bias: From allocative to representational harms in machine learning. In SIGCIS conference paper.
[14]
Matt Bartlett. 2020. How Tinder's algorithm is micromanaging your dating life. https://thespinoff.co.nz/tech/18-07--2020/how-tinders-algorithm-is-micromanaging-your-dating-life
[15]
Jeremy Birnholtz, Colin Fitzpatrick, Mark Handel, and Jed R Brubaker. 2014. Identity, identification and identifiability: The language of self-presentation on a location-based mobile dating app. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices & services. 3--12.
[16]
Jeremy Birnholtz, Shruta Rawat, Richa Vashista, Dicky Baruah, Alpana Dange, and Anne-Marie Boyer. 2020. Layers of Marginality: An Exploration of Visibility, Impressions, and Cultural Context on Geospatial Apps for Men Who Have Sex With Men in Mumbai, India. Social Media Society 6 (2020), 2056305120913995. Issue 2.
[17]
Courtney Blackwell, Jeremy Birnholtz, and Charles Abbott. 2014. Seeing and being seen: Co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media & Society (2014), 1--20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814521595
[18]
Lindsay Blackwell, Jill Dimond, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Cliff Lampe. 2017. Classification and Its Consequences for Online Harassment: Design Insights from HeartMob. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1 (122017), 1--19. Issue CSCW. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134659
[19]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association.
[20]
Ashley Brown. 2018. 'Least Desirable'? How Racial Discrimination Plays Out In Online Dating.
[21]
Joy Buolamwini. 2022. Facing the Coded Gaze with Evocative Audits and Algorithmic Audits. Ph. D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[22]
Edmond Pui Hang Choi, Janet Yuen Ha Wong, and Daniel Yee Tak Fong. 2018. An Emerging Risk Factor of Sexual Abuse: The Use of Smartphone Dating Applications. Sexual Abuse 30 (6 2018), 343--366. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216672168
[23]
Danielle Keats Citron and Frank Pasquale. 2014. The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Wash. L. Rev. 89 (2014), 1.
[24]
Francesca Comunello, Lorenza Parisi, and Francesca Ieracitano. 2020. Negotiating gender scripts in mobile dating apps: between affordances, usage norms and practices. Information, Communication & Society (2020), 1--17.
[25]
Elena Francesca Corriero and Stephanie Tom Tong. 2016. Managing uncertainty in mobile dating applications: Goals, concerns of use, and information seeking in Grindr. Mobile Media & Communication 4 (2016), 121--141. Issue 1
[26]
Cédric Courtois and Elisabeth Timmermans. 2018. Cracking the Tinder code: An experience sampling approach to the dynamics and impact of platform governing algorithms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 23, 1 (2018), 1--16.
[27]
Steve Dent. 2019. Tinder ditches its hidden desirability scores. https://www.engadget.com/2019-03--18-tinder-dumps-desirability-scores.html?guccounter=1
[28]
Michael Ann DeVito. 2021. Adaptive Folk Theorization as a Path to Algorithmic Literacy on Changing Platforms. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1--38.
[29]
Michael Ann DeVito. 2022. How transfeminine TikTok creators navigate the algorithmic trap of visibility via folk theorization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1--31.
[30]
Michael A DeVito, Jeremy Birnholtz, Jeffery T Hancock, Megan French, and Sunny Liu. 2018. How people form folk theories of social media feeds and what it means for how we study self-presentation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1--12.
[31]
Michael A DeVito, Darren Gergle, and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2017. ''Algorithms ruin everything'' # RIPTwitter, Folk Theories, and Resistance to Algorithmic Change in Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 3163--3174.
[32]
Michael A DeVito, Ashley Marie Walker, and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2018. 'Too Gay for Facebook' Presenting LGBTQIdentity Throughout the Personal Social Media Ecosystem. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1--23.
[33]
Michael Ann DeVito, Ashley Marie Walker, and Julia R Fernandez. 2021. Values (mis) alignment: Exploring tensions between platform and LGBTQ community design values. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1--27.
[34]
Beautiful Soup Documentation. 2022. Beautiful Soup Documentation. https://beautiful-soup-4.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
[35]
Periwinkle Doerfler, Andrea Forte, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Gianluca Stringhini, Jeremy Blackburn, and Damon McCoy. 2021. ''I'm a Professor, which isn't usually a dangerous job'': Internet-facilitated Harassment and Its Impact on Researchers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5 (10 2021), 1--32. Issue CSCW2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476082
[36]
Eric Drever. 1995. Using Semi-Structured Interviews in Small-Scale Research. A Teacher's Guide. ERIC.
[37]
Stefanie Duguay. 2016. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer visibility through selfies: Comparing platform mediators across Ruby Rose's Instagram and Vine presence. Social Media Society 2, 2 (2016), 2056305116641975.
[38]
Stefanie Duguay. 2017. Identity modulation in networked publics: Queer women's participation and representation on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine. Ph. D. Dissertation. Queensland University of Technology.
[39]
Stefanie Duguay, Jean Burgess, and Nicolas Suzor. 2020. Queer women's experiences of patchwork platform governance on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine. Convergence 26, 2 (2020), 237--252.
[40]
Stefanie Duguay, Christopher Dietzel, and David Myles. 2022. The year of the ''virtual date'': Reimagining dating app affordances during the COVID-19 pandemic. new media & society (2022), 14614448211072257.
[41]
Nicole Ellison, Rebecca Heino, and Jennifer Gibbs. 2006. Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of computer-mediated communication 11, 2 (2006), 415--441.
[42]
Motahhare Eslami, Karrie Karahalios, Christian Sandvig, Kristen Vaccaro, Aimee Rickman, Kevin Hamilton, and Alex Kirlik. 2016. First I ''like'' it, then I hide it: Folk Theories of Social Feeds. In Proceedings of the 2016 cHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2371--2382.
[43]
Motahhare Eslami, Aimee Rickman, Kristen Vaccaro, Amirhossein Aleyasen, Andy Vuong, Karrie Karahalios, Kevin Hamilton, and Christian Sandvig. 2015. ''I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to [her]'' Reasoning about Invisible Algorithms in News Feeds. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. 153--162.
[44]
Motahhare Eslami, Kristen Vaccaro, Min Kyung Lee, Amit Elazari Bar On, Eric Gilbert, and Karrie Karahalios. 2019. User attitudes towards algorithmic opacity and transparency in online reviewing platforms. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--14.
[45]
Julia R Fernandez and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2019. ''I Don't Want Them to Not Know'' Investigating Decisions to Disclose Transgender Identity on Dating Platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3 (2019), 1--21. Issue CSCW. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359328
[46]
Casey Fiesler and Nicholas Proferes. 2018. ''Participant'' perceptions of Twitter research ethics. Social Media Society 4, 1 (2018), 2056305118763366.
[47]
Guo Freeman, Samaneh Zamanifard, Divine Maloney, and Dane Acena. 2022. Disturbing the Peace: Experiencing and Mitigating Emerging Harassment in Social Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6 (3 2022), 1--30. Issue CSCW1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512932
[48]
Jeana H Frost, Zoe Chance, Michael I Norton, and Dan Ariely. 2008. People are experience goods: Improving online dating with virtual dates. Journal of Interactive Marketing 22 (2008), 51--61. Issue 1
[49]
Ysabel Gerrard and Helen Thornham. 2020. Content moderation: Social media's sexist assemblages. new media & society 22, 7 (2020), 1266--1286.
[50]
Jennifer L Gibbs, Nicole B Ellison, and Chih-Hui Lai. 2011. First comes love, then comes google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research 38 (2011), 70--100. Issue December 2010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377091
[51]
Louisa Gilbert, Aaron L. Sarvet, Melanie Wall, Kate Walsh, Leigh Reardon, Patrick Wilson, John Santelli, Shamus Khan, Martie Thompson, Jennifer S. Hirsch, and Claude A. Mellins. 2019. Situational Contexts and Risk Factors Associated with Incapacitated and Nonincapacitated Sexual Assaults Among College Women. Journal of Women's Health 28 (2 2019), 185--193. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7191
[52]
Oliver L Haimson, Jed R Brubaker, Lynn Dombrowski, and Gillian R Hayes. 2015. Disclosure, stress, and support during gender transition on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 1176--1190.
[53]
Michael Halpin. 2022. Weaponized Subordination: How Incels Discredit Themselves to Degrade Women. Gender & Society 36, 6 (2022), 813--837. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432221128545 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432221128545
[54]
Melissa Hamilton. 2019. The sexist algorithm. Behavioral sciences & the law 37, 2 (2019), 145--157.
[55]
Jeffrey T Hancock, Mor Naaman, and Karen Levy. 2020. AI-mediated communication: Definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 25, 1 (2020), 89--100.
[56]
Jean Hardy and Silvia Lindtner. 2017. Constructing a desiring user: Discourse, rurality, and design in location-based social networks. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 13--25.
[57]
Gerald Häubl and Valerie Trifts. 2000. Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: The effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing science 19, 1 (2000), 4--21.
[58]
Sabrina Angela Huang, Jeffrey Hancock, and Stephanie Tom Tong. 2022. Folk Theories of Online Dating: Exploring People's Beliefs About the Online Dating Process and Online Dating Algorithms. Social Media Society 8, 2 (2022), 20563051221089561.
[59]
Jevan A Hutson, Jessie G Taft, Solon Barocas, and Karen Levy. 2018. Debiasing desire: Addressing bias & discrimination on intimate platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1--18.
[60]
Shagun Jhaver, Sucheta Ghoshal, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2018. Online Harassment and Content Moderation: The Case of Blocklists. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 25 (4 2018), 1--33. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3185593
[61]
Shagun Jhaver, Yoni Karpfen, and Judd Antin. 2018. Algorithmic anxiety and coping strategies of Airbnb hosts. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1--12.
[62]
Tech Junkie. 2020. How To Calculate and Increase Your Tinder Elo Score. https://social.techjunkie.com/calculate-increase-tinder-elo-score/
[63]
Jodi Kantor. 2022. Times Article Changes a Starbucks Policy, Fast. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/08/22/times-article-changes-a-policy-fast/
[64]
Nadia Karizat, Dan Delmonaco, Motahhare Eslami, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Algorithmic folk theories and identity: How TikTok users co-produce Knowledge of identity and engage in algorithmic resistance. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1--44.
[65]
Jared Katzman, Angelina Wang, Morgan Scheuerman, Su Lin Blodgett, Kristen Laird, Hanna Wallach, and Solon Barocas. 2023. Taxonomizing and Measuring Representational Harms: A Look at Image Tagging. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01776 (2023).
[66]
Seunghyun Kim, Afsaneh Razi, Gianluca Stringhini, Pamela J. Wisniewski, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2021. A Human-Centered Systematic Literature Review of Cyberbullying Detection Algorithms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5 (10 2021), 1--34. Issue CSCW2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476066
[67]
Samantha Leal. 2016. Oh, Okay: Tinder Is Secretly Ranking Your Desirability. https://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/news/a17973/tinder-secret-dating-score/
[68]
Tony Liao and Olivia Tyson. 2021. ''Crystal Is Creepy, but Cool?: Mapping Folk Theories and Responses to Automated Personality Recognition Algorithms. Social Media Society 7, 2 (2021), 20563051211010170.
[69]
Milena Ribeiro Lopes and Carl Vogel. 2018. Gender bias on Tinder: Transforming an exploratory qualitative survey into statistical data for contextualized interpretation. In Computer Supported Qualitative Research: Second International Symposium on Qualitative Research (ISQR 2017). Springer, 225--236.
[70]
Nuria Lorenzo-Dus, Anina Kinzel, and Matteo Di Cristofaro. 2020. The communicative modus operandi of online child sexual groomers: Recurring patterns in their language use. Journal of Pragmatics 155 (1 2020), 15--27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.010
[71]
Emily Malz. 2020. The Relationship between Online Dating, Self-Esteem and Body Image. B.S. thesis. University of Twente.
[72]
Md Waliur Rahman Miah, John Yearwood, and Sid Kulkarni. 2011. Detection of child exploiting chats from a mixed chat dataset as a text classification task. Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2011, 157--165.
[73]
Petar Mikonoss. 2019. The Secret Rules of Tinder -- How to Improve Your Score & Get More Matches. https://thefrisky.com/the-secret-rules-of-tinder-how-to-improve-your-score-get-more-matches/
[74]
Miljana Mladenovic, Vera O?mjanski, and Sta?a Vujicic Stankovic. 2021. Cyber-aggression, Cyberbullying, and Cyber-grooming. Comput. Surveys 54 (4 2021), 1--42. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3424246
[75]
Zane Muller. 2019. Algorithmic harms to workers in the platform economy: The case of Uber. Colum. JL & Soc. Probs. 53 (2019), 167.
[76]
EC Musan. 2020. ''Does online dating harm your mental wellbeing?'': The relationship between online dating rejection and mental wellbeing and the moderating role of self-compassion. B.S. thesis. University of Twente.
[77]
Karim Nader and Min Kyung Lee. 2022. Folk Theories and User Strategies on Dating Apps: How Users Understand and Manage Their Experience with Algorithmic Matchmaking. In Information for a Better World: Shaping the Global Future: 17th International Conference, iConference 2022, Virtual Event, February 28--March 4, 2022, Proceedings, Part I. Springer, 445--458.
[78]
Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of oppression. (2018).
[79]
Katie Notopoulos. 2016. The Dating App That Knows You Secretly Aren't Into Guys From Other Races. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/coffee-meets-bagel-racial-preferences
[80]
Gábor Orosz, István Tóth-Király, Beáta Bothe, and Dóra Melher. 2016. Too many swipes for today: The development of the Problematic Tinder Use Scale (PTUS). Journal of Behavioral Addictions 5, 3 (2016), 518--523.
[81]
Jessica Pater, Casey Fiesler, and Michael Zimmer. 2022. No humans here: Ethical speculation on public data, unintended consequences, and the limits of institutional review. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, GROUP (2022), 1--13.
[82]
Anh Phan, Kathryn Seigfried-Spellar, and Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo. 2021. Threaten me softly: A review of potential dating app risks. Computers in human behavior reports 3 (2021), 100055.
[83]
Anastasia Powell and Nicola Henry. 2019. Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence Victimization: Results From an Online Survey of Australian Adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 34 (2019), 3637--3665. Issue 17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516672055 27697966.
[84]
Kane Race. 2015. Speculative pragmatism and intimate arrangements: online hook-up devices in gay life. Culture, Health & Sexuality 17 (4 2015), 496--511. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2014.930181
[85]
Giulia Ranzini and Christoph Lutz. 2017. Love at first swipe? Explaining Tinder self-presentation and motives. Mobile Media & Communication 5, 1 (2017), 80--101.
[86]
Noopur Raval and Paul Dourish. 2016. Standing out from the crowd: Emotional labor, body labor, and temporal labor in ridesharing. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 97--107.
[87]
Janine Rowse, Caroline Bolt, and Sanjeev Gaya. 2020. Swipe right: the emergence of dating-app facilitated sexual assault. A descriptive retrospective audit of forensic examination caseload in an Australian metropolitan service. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology 16 (2020), 71--77. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-019-00201--7
[88]
Jennifer D Rubin, Lindsay Blackwell, and Terri D Conley. 2020. Fragile Masculinity: Men, Gender, and Online Harassment. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1--14.
[89]
Florian Saurwein and Charlotte Spencer-Smith. 2021. Automated trouble: The role of algorithmic selection in harms on social media platforms. Media and Communication 9, 4 (2021), 222--233.
[90]
Liesel L Sharabi. 2021. Exploring how beliefs about algorithms shape (offline) success in online dating: A two-wave longitudinal investigation. Communication Research 48, 7 (2021), 931--952.
[91]
Frances Shaw. 2016. ''Bitch I said hi?: The Bye Felipe campaign and discursive activism in mobile dating apps. Social Media Society 2 (2016), 2056305116672889. Issue 4.
[92]
Ignacio Siles, Andrés Segura-Castillo, Ricardo Solís, and Mónica Sancho. 2020. Folk theories of algorithmic recommendations on Spotify: Enacting data assemblages in the global South. Big Data & Society 7, 1 (2020), 2053951720923377.
[93]
Guy Simon. 2021. Dating App Insiders Remain 'Highly Concerned' About User Security, According To A Recent Survey. https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2021/07/15/dating-app-insiders-remain-highly-concerned-about-user-security-according-to-a-recent-survey/'sh=2841415f4ed7
[94]
Ellen Simpson, Andrew Hamann, and Bryan Semaan. 2022. How to Tame ''Your'' Algorithm: LGBTQ Users' Domestication of TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 6, GROUP (2022), 1--27.
[95]
Ellen Simpson and Bryan Semaan. 2021. For You, or For ''You''? Everyday LGBTQ Encounters with TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 4, CSCW3 (2021), 1--34.
[96]
Katie Louise Smith. 2020. What is the Tinder ELO score? The 'desirability rating' is no longer used by the dating app. When the ''Matchmaker? Does Not Have Your Interest at Heart 481:27
[97]
Reuters Staff. 2021. Match tops sales estimates as Tinder, Hinge keep sparks flying. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-match-group-results-idUSKBN2A22V1
[98]
Sindy R Sumter and Laura Vandenbosch. 2019. Dating gone mobile: Demographic and personality-based correlates of using smartphone-based dating applications among emerging adults. New media & society 21, 3 (2019), 655--673.
[99]
Rachel Thompson. 2022. Bumble makes cyberflashing detection tool available as open-source code. Mashable (Oct 2022). https://mashable.com/article/bumble-cyberflashing-private-detector-open-source
[100]
Tinder. 2023. Swipe Right. https://tinder.com/
[101]
Tinderpress. 2022. Powering Tinder® ? The Method Behind Our Matching. https://www.tinderpressroom.com/powering-tinder-r-the-method-behind-our-matching/
[102]
Tinderpress. 2022. Privacy FAQs. https://www.help.tinder.com/hc/en-us/articles/5349453268877-Privacy-FAQs#h_01G63PGMBC1RQ5ESM3RC72ZF0M
[103]
Benjamin Toff and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2018. ''I just google it?: Folk theories of distributed discovery. Journal of communication 68, 3 (2018), 636--657.
[104]
Catalina L Toma. 2022. Online dating and psychological wellbeing: A social compensation perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology 46 (2022), 101331.
[105]
Stephanie Tom Tong, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Richard B Slatcher. 2016. The influence of technology on romantic relationships: Understanding online dating. In Social Computing and Social Media: 8th International Conference, SCSM 2016, Held as Part of HCI International 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17--22, 2016. Proceedings 8. Springer, 162--173.
[106]
Zeynep Tufekci. 2015. Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colo. Tech. LJ 13 (2015), 203.
[107]
Julie L Valentine, Leslie W Miles, Kristen Mella Hamblin, and Aubrey Worthen Gibbons. (n. d.). Dating App Facilitated Sexual Assault: A Retrospective Review of Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examination Charts. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0 ([n. d.]), 08862605221130390. Issue 0. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221130390 36310506.
[108]
Julia Velkova and Anne Kaun. 2021. Algorithmic resistance: Media practices and the politics of repair. Information, Communication & Society 24, 4 (2021), 523--540.
[109]
VIDAselect. 2022. Best Tinder Bios For Guys: 6 Examples That Will Make Her Swipe Right. https://www.vidaselect.com/best-tinder-bios/
[110]
Artemij Voskobojnikov, Oliver Wiese, Masoud Mehrabi Koushki, Volker Roth, and Konstantin Beznosov. 2021. The U in crypto stands for usable: An empirical study of user experience with mobile cryptocurrency wallets. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--14.
[111]
Ashley Marie Walker and Michael A DeVito. 2020. ''More gay' fits in better'': Intracommunity Power Dynamics and Harms in Online LGBTQ Spaces. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--15.
[112]
Janelle Ward. 2017. What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app. Information, Communication & Society 20, 11 (2017), 1644--1659.
[113]
Monica T Whitty. 2015. Anatomy of the online dating romance scam. Security Journal 28 (2015), 443--455. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2012.57
[114]
Yihan Wu and Ryan M Kelly. 2020. Online dating meets artificial intelligence: How the perception of algorithmically generated profile text impacts attractiveness and trust. In Proceedings of the 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 444--453.
[115]
Douglas Zytko and Nicholas Furlo. 2023. Online Dating as Context to Design Sexual Consent Technology with Women and LGBTQ Stakeholders. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580911
[116]
Douglas Zytko, Nicholas Furlo, Bailey Carlin, and Matthew Archer. 2021. Computer-mediated consent to sex: the context of Tinder. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1--26.
[117]
Douglas Zytko, Sukeshini A. Grandhi, and Quentin Jones. 2014. Impression management struggles in online dating. Proceedings of the 18th international conference on supporting group work, 53--62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2660398.2660410
[118]
Douglas Zytko, Sukeshini A Grandhi, and Quentin Jones. 2015. Frustrations with Pursuing Casual Encounters through Online Dating. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1935--1940. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732905
[119]
Douglas Zytko, Victor Regalado, Nicholas Furlo, Sukeshini A. Grandhi, and Quentin Jones. 2020. Supporting Women in Online Dating with a Messaging Interface that Improves their Face-to-Face Meeting Decisions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4 (10 2020), 1--30. Issue CSCW2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415208

Index Terms

  1. When the "Matchmaker" Does Not Have Your Interest at Heart: Perceived Algorithmic Harms, Folk Theories, and Users' Counter-Strategies on Tinder

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 8, Issue CSCW2
    CSCW
    November 2024
    5177 pages
    EISSN:2573-0142
    DOI:10.1145/3703902
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 08 November 2024
    Published in PACMHCI Volume 8, Issue CSCW2

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. algorithmic harms
    2. algorithmic resistance
    3. automated decisions
    4. explanations
    5. folk theories
    6. online dating
    7. relationship building
    8. transparency
    9. users' strategies

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • This project is supported by funds of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) funded by the European Union (NextGenerationEU).

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 207
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)207
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)47
    Reflects downloads up to 25 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media