Image source: Gemma Correll
Yesterday the NYTimes ran a piece about Tinder, the online dating app. In many ways, Tinder changed the online dating landscape: instead of having elaborate profiles or algorithms that turn dating into a numbers game, Tinder relies mostly on instataneous reactions to pictures and other visual cues. If a person finds someone attractive, they can swipe right; if they find someone unattractive, they can swipe left. The interesting part about the article, however, is a discussion on what determines "attractive" when it comes to looking at pictures. The author of the article discusses this with an employee at Tinder who's sole job is to determine what about pictures makes someone swipe left or right. Turns out, people make a lot of inferences about others based on what they see in pictures. It seems that people are scrutinizing the pictures they see to try to determine a level of compatibility and acceptability. In this sense, the settings of the pictures are just as important as the main target. As one of the co-founders of the app points out: "'A photo of a guy at a bar with friends around him sends a very different message than a photo of a guy with a dog on the beach.'”
It's also important that attractiveness is not universal: "'There isn’t a consensus about who is attractive and who isn’t,' Mr. Eastwick [an assistant professor in human development and family sciences at the University of Texas, Austin] said in an interview. 'Someone that you think is especially attractive might not be to me. That’s true with photos, too.' Tinder’s data team echoed this, noting that there isn’t...one group of users [who] get the share of “like” swipes." In this way, Tinder is still a numbers game: with enough users, variation in what is deemed attractive will be great enough to ensure that many users get right swipes.
And what happens after you pick someone to date? A new article at Pacific Standard suggests that even if you discover a fatal flaw or incompatibility, you will still pursue that person if you are currently on a date with them (or more generally, if they are nearby versus just online). This is based on a new article in Psychological Science by Joel, Teper, and MacDonald which shows in several lab studies that people are almost twice as willing to go on a date with an unattractive or incompatible person if they think that person is nearby (in the lab setting, they were told the person was in the lab and ready to meet up). This effect was mediated by a concern for hurting the target's feelings, which was stronger if participants thought the other was nearby.
Ultimately, the PS article and the Psych Science paper discusses our inability to accurately predict how good we will be at rejecting romantic interests (or, in other words, hurting someone else's feelings). Turns out, humans don't generally like being mean to other humans (I would like to argue this point having lived in NYC for a couple months now). The problem is, "[w]e tend to be more satisfied in relationships with people who come closer to our ideals, and focusing on others’ feelings could keep us from seeking what we truly want." This can have consequences down the line, "As flaws become more grating over time, one partner may finally call it quits, causing more hurt than if they’d never gone out in the first place. Alternatively, a desire not to hurt a boyfriend or girlfriend could lead them to stay in a strained relationship longer despite the incompatibility." Ironically, our inability to hurt someone else's feelings can lead to greater hurt down the line (in addition to wasting everyone's time).
It's also important that attractiveness is not universal: "'There isn’t a consensus about who is attractive and who isn’t,' Mr. Eastwick [an assistant professor in human development and family sciences at the University of Texas, Austin] said in an interview. 'Someone that you think is especially attractive might not be to me. That’s true with photos, too.' Tinder’s data team echoed this, noting that there isn’t...one group of users [who] get the share of “like” swipes." In this way, Tinder is still a numbers game: with enough users, variation in what is deemed attractive will be great enough to ensure that many users get right swipes.
And what happens after you pick someone to date? A new article at Pacific Standard suggests that even if you discover a fatal flaw or incompatibility, you will still pursue that person if you are currently on a date with them (or more generally, if they are nearby versus just online). This is based on a new article in Psychological Science by Joel, Teper, and MacDonald which shows in several lab studies that people are almost twice as willing to go on a date with an unattractive or incompatible person if they think that person is nearby (in the lab setting, they were told the person was in the lab and ready to meet up). This effect was mediated by a concern for hurting the target's feelings, which was stronger if participants thought the other was nearby.
Ultimately, the PS article and the Psych Science paper discusses our inability to accurately predict how good we will be at rejecting romantic interests (or, in other words, hurting someone else's feelings). Turns out, humans don't generally like being mean to other humans (I would like to argue this point having lived in NYC for a couple months now). The problem is, "[w]e tend to be more satisfied in relationships with people who come closer to our ideals, and focusing on others’ feelings could keep us from seeking what we truly want." This can have consequences down the line, "As flaws become more grating over time, one partner may finally call it quits, causing more hurt than if they’d never gone out in the first place. Alternatively, a desire not to hurt a boyfriend or girlfriend could lead them to stay in a strained relationship longer despite the incompatibility." Ironically, our inability to hurt someone else's feelings can lead to greater hurt down the line (in addition to wasting everyone's time).
RSS Feed
