Dating App Users: Interpersonal Styles and Self-Reported Mating Success

Abstract

In this study (N = 495), dating apps were conceptualized as digital leks. We examined how interpersonal (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), sexual (sociosexual attitudes, desires, and behavior), and search (satisficing, alternatives) styles relate to mating success through dating apps (dates and sex). Individuals with a faster life history strategy, particularly men high in psychopathy and sexual desires, report more mating success via dating apps. Women who were easier satisficed also experienced more Tinder-sex. These findings clarify the nuanced roles of sociosexuality facets in dating app success, enriching the discourse on digital mating behaviors. Using the life history framework, this research advances our understanding of how personality shapes real-world mating outcomes that originate in digital contexts.

Tinder-dates (dating via apps) have become part of today’s dating market.^1–4 In Germany alone, Tinder reports roughly 2.6 million monthly users.⁵ Of the 16–29-year olds, 77 percent in 2023 had Tinder-dates, compared to 66 percent of those aged 30–49.⁶ While associations of individual dating app use are well investigated,^7–10 mating success as captured through Tinder-dates or Tinder-sex (intercourse with a Tinder-date) is not. Instead of treating dating apps as novel places, exploring reported motives, or conducting descriptive research lacking a strong theoretical paradigm, we reframe them as human leks and examine how people’s life history strategies, reflected in their interpersonal style (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), sexual style (sociosexual attitudes, desires, behaviors), and search strategies (satisficing, alternatives), predict success in finding dates or sex through the apps.

Individuals can be described alongside a life history theory continuum from slow to fast¹¹ (high/low parental care, high/low investment in mutualistic relationships). Fast individuals expend more effort in reproduction, which should result in the use of more strategies (interpersonally, sexually, search style) associated with short-term mating. The everyday traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy¹² are manifestations of an interpersonal style tending toward a fast-life history.^10,13–15 The sexual style of fast-life history can be captured via the following facets of sociosexuality¹⁶: attitudes, desires, and behaviors. We aim to expand previous results from use toward dating-app success.⁷ Different life history strategies in mate-search styles¹⁷ are captured via a faster satisfaction with the current match (satisficing) and an expanded search for mates (alternative search). Satisficing could increase and alternative search might decrease mating options. Similar strategies¹⁸ were already described as fast (e.g., lowering standards, searching farther) and slow (e.g., abstinence).

“Mars and Venus”

A core tenant of life history theory is that men are more likely to be “fast” compared with women.^19–21 Men worldwide score higher in the Dark Triad traits,²² sociosexuality,²³ and more willingly lower their standards (physical attractiveness) for short-term mates, whereas women keep their standards (intelligence, social status^24,25). Women have a higher minimal investment in their children and carry a greater risk for choosing the wrong partner than men^26,27 and—despite modernization—still bear more social costs for casual sex.²⁸ From a feministic perspective, these phenomena are socially constructed,²⁹ toxic masculine,³⁰ or patriarchic dating conditions,^31,32 and dating apps can overcome them.^33,34 Women can now engage freely and be empowered in casual dating,³⁵ use developments of technology like the contraception pill, and go partner “shopping” on dating apps.³⁶ Eventually, act like “men” (fast-life strategists). Postfeminists regard women’s sexual liberation (celebrating sexual liberty and pleasure among mostly young feminine women³⁷) as still based on visual-centered principles^38,39 like on social media and dating apps. They criticize that sexual empowerment^37,40,41 comes at costs for the overall inequalities between the sexes and instead emphasize the individual’s choice,³⁷ which goes beyond a bodily understanding of oneself.⁴² Both feministic perspectives also note the higher sexual market value of (young) women.^41,43 Yet, life history theory can better explain why males live faster as they are less desirable especially in the beginning.⁴⁴ Moreover, partner preferences^45,46 are similar worldwide, and sex differences⁴⁷ in personality increase in liberal societies (Northern Paradox).^22,23,48 Thus, we expect to replicate indicators of a faster life strategy in men for interpersonal, sexual, and probably search styles. Despite human personality being regarded universal⁴⁹ and the Internet and smartphones working identically in different countries, we conduct the study within a cultural space. Germany is a country with an old and strong women’s rights movement⁵⁰ and a feministic focus in their current policy.⁵¹ Women are free in their partner choice and the use of dating apps. So, we consider it a good place to conduct this study.

(Digital) Leks

In the animal kingdom, some species’ males use a particular territory to display their courtship to attract mates. Females visit these leks only for copulation.^52,53 Leks are labeled as classical (close and visible to each other) or exploded (dispersed⁵⁴). Leks only evolve in species with high densities, low locomotion costs, and most importantly when males have no positive effect on female reproductive success (neither parental care nor food shared).⁵⁵ Yet, females reduce the imposed costs by males⁵³ and visit leks only for copulation.⁵² Males increase their mating chances when on a lek fighting for the most central, worthy places.⁵⁵ On Tinder (a) women can examine theoretically potential male partners’ profiles (analog to classical leks), but her competitors’ profiles are invisible (analog to exploded leks), and (b) both sexes can look for mates. Both characteristics would be special and unique for human digital leks. And like animals exploring a lek, frequent dating app users perceive more available mates.⁵⁶ If Tinder is a digital lek and successfully finding mating opportunities is a function of phenotypic traits like in nonhumans, we would expect that people’s personality should predict their success.⁵⁷

Concerns Surrounding Dating Apps

Infotainment productions like The Tinder Swindler highlight public concerns about dating app misuse. While we do not explore these issues in detail, we acknowledge potential risks such as antisocial online behaviors like inauthentic self-presentation,⁵⁸ cyber dating abuse,⁵⁹ trolling, or cyberstalking,⁶⁰ which are more common among individuals with elevated dark personality traits. Economic crimes, including online romance fraud, are also increasing and becoming industrialized,⁶¹ affecting both men and women.⁶² Nonetheless, most users are more likely disappointed by unresponsive matches or bad dates than by online scams.

Current Study

In this study, we advance research on individual differences in dating apps use by portraying Tinder as a digital human lek, where people signal potential mates. We expect that success in finding dates and arranging sexual liaison vary based on life history strategies. Thus, we measure the mating success of people—both men and women—on Tinder, focusing on fast interpersonal, sexual, and search styles.

Methods

Participants

Data of 495 (288 men, 207 women) German-speaking respondents (2.50€ incentive), aged 16–70 (M = 41.99, SD = 14.18), were collected.

Procedure

We aimed for 470 participants to detect small correlations (r = 0.10, α = 0.05; width = 0.10).⁶³ Ethical approval was granted by Johannes Kepler University’s psychological board in spring 2020, and results were presented on March 7, 2023. Participants consented to the tracking panel at the survey’s start, completed a series of online questionnaires, and were debriefed and thanked. The data were also used in another study.¹⁴

Measures

We used the German 9-item Naughty Nine Scale⁶⁴ to capture narcissism (ω = 0.83), Machiavellianism (ω = 0.80), and psychopathy (ω = 0.62). We captured sociosexual attitudes (ω = 0.85), sociosexual desires (ω = 0.88), and sociosexual behavior (ω = 0.74) through the German version of the 9-item Sociosexuality Inventory-Revised.¹⁶ We captured satisficing (ω = 0.66) and alternative search (ω = 0.67) via the Short Maximization Inventory.⁶⁵ We asked if participants “ever went on a date organized via dating applications” (yes/no); and “how many sexual partners did you meet via dating applications?”. Data for reported Tinder-sex partners were skewed; thus, we created a binary variable for Tinder-sex (yes/no).

Results

Who goes on dates via Tinder?

Those who attended Tinder-dates (M = 35.53, SD = 11.64) were younger (t = −6.28, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.71) than those who have not attended Tinder-dates (M = 45.08, SD = 14.27). Overall, 31 percent of participants were reported to have gone on Tinder-dates with no sex differences between men (61 percent) and women (χ² = 0.97, p = 0.33, Φ = 0.04). We then ran a series of 2 (sex: men and women) × 2 (Tinder-date: yes and no) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with the traits as dependent variables. We found no interactions for Tinder-dates (Table 1), but individuals going on Tinder-dates had faster life history strategies as seen in the narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sociosexual desires, attitudes, and behaviors. In addition, men were more psychopathic and more “interested” in casual sex.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Differences for Participant’s Sex, Tinder-Dates, and Tinder-Sex (i.e., Sex or Dates Organized via Dating Apps)

	Participant’s sex				Tinder-dates				Tinder-sex
	M (SD)		t	d	M (SD)		t	d	M (SD)		t	d
	Men (n = 288)	Women (n = 207)	t	d	No (n = 342)	Yes (n = 153)	t	d	No (n = 360)	Yes (n = 135)	t	d
Narcissism	3.49 (1.46)	3.56 (1.53)	−0.46	−0.04	3.26 (1.40)	4.09 (1.53)	−5.94**	−0.58	3.35 (1.48)	3.96 (1.44)	−4.12**	−0.42
Machiavellianism	2.97 (1.40)	2.80 (1.40)	1.35	0.12	2.69 (1.33)	3.37 (1.44)	−5.09**	−0.49	2.76 (1.37)	3.29 (1.41)	−3.81**	−0.38
Psychopathy	2.92 (1.22)	2.48 (1.22)	3.95**	0.36	2.62 (1.15)	2.97 (1.39)	−2.92**	−0.28	2.66 (1.19)	2.94 (1.33)	−2.26*	−0.23
Sociosexual attitudes	3.30 (1.18)	2.73 (1.29)	5.09**	0.46	2.88 (1.25)	3.46 (1.18)	−4.83**	−0.47	2.84 (1.25)	3.65 (1.08)	−6.63**	−0.67
Sociosexual desires	2.95 (1.14)	2.18 (0.91)	8.04**	0.73	2.36 (1.04)	3.22 (1.06)	−8.14**	−0.82	2.37 (1.04)	3.30 (1.03)	−8.88**	−0.90
Sociosexual behaviors	2.71 (1.12)	2.36 (0.91)	2.99**	0.33	2.41 (0.98)	2.89 (1.14)	−4.21**	−0.46	2.38 (0.95)	2.99 (1.17)	−5.26**	−0.60
Satisficing	3.78 (0.58)	3.81 (0.60)	−0.57	−0.05	3.76 (0.58)	3.86 (0.60)	−1.68	−0.16	3.76 (0.58)	3.89 (0.61)	−2.14*	−0.22
Alternative search	3.84 (0.60)	4.02 (0.69)	−2.94**	−0.27	3.92 (0.67)	3.92 (0.67)	−0.05	< 0.01	3.93 (0.67)	3.87 (0.65)	0.93	0.09

p < 0.05.

p < 0.01.

Who has sex via Tinder?

Those who had Tinder-sex (M = 37.92, SD = 11.75) were older (t = 2.06, p = 0.04, Cohen’s d = 0.33) than those who had no Tinder-sex (M = 33.81, SD = 13.44). Among the 135 participants, more men (66 percent) than women (34 percent) had Tinder-sex (χ² = 4.58, p = 0.03, Φ = −0.10). Of all individuals going on Tinder-dates, 84 percent had Tinder-sex. We ran a series of 2 (sex: men and women) × 2 (Tinder-sex: yes and no) ANOVAs with the traits as dependent variables. We found interactions indicating that only men having Tinder-sex were more psychopathic (F[2, 175] = 5.27, p = 0.02, η_p² = 0.04) and sociosexual desiring (slightly; F[2, 175] = 3.69, p = 0.06, η_p² = 0.03) than women with no sex difference among the ones not having Tinder-sex; further, women were only lower on satisficing (F[2, 175] = 4.47, p = 0.04, η_p² = 0.03) when not having Tinder-sex with no sex differences among individuals having Tinder-sex. Individuals who had Tinder-sex also had a faster life history strategy as seen in their Dark Triad traits, sociosexuality, and satisficing (Table 1).

Discussion

Previous research studied personality-associated dating app use, overlooking personality-associated dating app success. We investigated mating success on dating apps (Tinder-dates, Tinder-sex) and explored associated interpersonal, sexual, and search styles as fast-life history indicators.¹¹ Considering Tinder a digital lek helps align the findings with known biological mechanisms. Phenotypes lead to mating success or failure (on a lek⁶⁶), and in humans, personality traits can be regarded as phenotypes.⁶⁷ Dating app users tend to live fast, reflected in their high levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sociosexual desires.^7,11,68 Individuals use different strategies to expand their mate pool,¹⁸ yet dating app users’ search strategies remain unidentified, particularly in a life history context.

Expanding dating app research, we found that individuals with a fast-life strategy exhibited in their interpersonal, sexual, and search styles had greater mating success. Differences in interpersonal styles were larger for Tinder-dates (d = −0.45) than for Tinder-sex (d = −0.34), whereas sexual style differences were larger among individuals having Tinder-sex (average Cohen’s d = −0.72) than in those on Tinder-dates (d = −0.65). Interpersonal styles may be crucial for arranging and attending dates, whereas the sexual styles are more important when the actual act of mating⁶⁹ is close. Compared with Tinder-dates, those successful in Tinder-sex were less picky with their partner choice. Once on a date, fast-living individuals might lower their standards to enable more mating opportunities. Tinder’s short-term mating character resembles the mating environment at biological leks, where animals also differ in applied mating strategies.^58,70

Looking deeper into the differences between men and women, whether they went on a Tinder-date or not, reveals similar personality manifestations. However, those engaging in Tinder-sex differed as follows: men were more psychopathic and sociosexually desiring. Surprisingly, psychopathic men in general report fewer sexual partners,¹⁴ but appear to find more partners on dating apps. Psychopathy may not only indicate an exploitative sexual strategy⁷¹ but also could be a tactic to identify vulnerable individuals open for interpersonal exploitation.^72,73 While previous research linked sociosexual attitudes and behaviors but not desires to dating app use,⁷ we found associations with mating success on dating apps, especially in men, who further scored higher than women when engaging in Tinder-sex. Taking both findings together, psychopathic men might be better in identifying women who are open for uncommitted sexual encounters, arrange dates with them, and, based on their strong desire, focus on the date’s outcome. Turning to search strategies, women having Tinder-sex were easier satisfied with their partner choice compared with women not having Tinder-sex, who were pickier than men not having Tinder-sex. These women might have invested many resources into picking a good profile and chat with potential mates on the digital lek that they more willingly accept some in-person disappointments (sunk cost effect).⁷⁴ Or they could be driven by female empowerment,^35,37 female sexual agency,⁷⁵ or have stronger family desires and, therefore, more willingly use sex as a reproduction tactic.⁷⁶ Regarding these observations in the light of hypergamy, findings on female choice on dating apps are still mixed.^56,72 We encourage future research to investigate the open aspects such as effects of age, the use of contraception, desire of fertility,⁷⁶ group pressure via envy,⁷⁷ revenge on the ex,¹⁵ borderline psychopathy,⁷⁸ tendencies for vulnerability and exploitation,⁶⁰ and how to reduce unwarranted social and individual consequences for women engaging in short-term mating.^28,79 The latter might be of minor importance in our sample, but could be more important in less liberal societies. At the same time, we do not know yet if liberalism in Germany or Germanic culture amplifies, decreases, or does not impact individual differences in fast life strategies among men in the context of dating apps. In sum, men showed little variation in their fast life strategies, but these strategies slightly differed from previous offline findings. Whereas women show mixed life history strategies depending on whether engaging in Tinder-sex (fast) or not (slow). This fast history strategy enables women to find more mating partners, but would not have been predicted by theories on female mate choices (e.g., error management,²⁶ earning⁴⁶).

Coming back to the discussion around women’s benefits of the sexual liberation,^38,42 we consider our findings to underline postfeminists’ observation that mating success on dating apps is rooted in “cool girl” behaviors,⁸⁰ profiting from the visual-centered principle of highly visual apps⁸¹ like Tinder.⁴² These apps attract individuals who tend toward uncommitted sex, who lower their standards, and use them more intensely––especially women who use visual platforms longer than men do.⁸² This again could amplify the use and these tendencies over time.⁸³ We might change over time, but probably central human partner preferences and corresponding behaviors are relatively stable, as the example of the feminist app⁸⁴ Bumble shows.⁸⁵ After 10 years, the feministic approach of keeping women in charge of initiating conversations did not succeed on dating apps and was dropped as 70 percent of the female users felt burnt out over it.⁸⁶ However, zooming out from the individual perspective, a digital lek fosters a short-term mating environment. If dating apps reflect this, as suggested here, they may lower the societal cost of sex for the first time in human history. Constant access to casual encounters could, in turn, undermine the formation and maintenance of romantic relationships and raising children together. Ultimately, women’s sexual freedom in this digital lek may reduce men’s need to commit because of the abundance of available options. Future research should explore this analogy.

Limitations

Even our study has shortcomings, like using personality traits as fast-life history indicators. While valid, this approach does not capture other important traits like neuroticism or the dark traits’ facets, which could illuminate effects of borderline⁷⁸ or dysfunctional impulsivity.⁶⁰ We did neither assess individuals’ pre-Tinder-date online interactions (e.g., online self-presentation) nor whether they were looking for short-term, long-term, or both kind of partners. We used WEIRD cross-sectional data,⁸⁷ limiting generalization and causality insights, and omitted investigating sexual minorities^88,89 or intersectional, non-Western sexual minorities.^90,91 Furthermore, we did not explore participant’s cultural history or other subjective experiences such as the feeling of marginality and lack of inclusiveness in some countries,^92,93 nor did we sample different cultures for comparison.

While between- and within-sex differences in interpersonal styles were limited to psychopathy, we recommend further investigation and comparison of potential outcomes of Machiavellianism because of their relatedness.⁹⁴ In addition, men’s overreporting and women’s underreporting of sexual behaviors^95,96 should temper interpretations of null effects and encourage future research on women’s satisficing in Tinder-sex. Finally, antisocial behaviors in Tinder-dates such as catfishing,⁹⁷ cyber dating abuse,⁵⁹ or ghosting⁹⁸ were beyond the scope of this study.

Still, we added another piece into the puzzle of the fast-history strategy characterization of “dark” individuals.¹⁷ Future research should explore biological analogies in online dating⁹⁹ and investigate if mating success leads to more offspring.¹⁰⁰ A multidisciplinary approach could integrate various findings of the Tinder-world by conceptualizing it as a human digital lek. This perspective could merge independent research on life history and the Dark Triad traits, including niche picking,¹⁰¹ mate search,¹⁷ locations,¹⁰² sociosexuality,¹⁶ sexual exploitation,⁶⁷ and the social and (cross)cultural contexts.¹⁰³ Clear definitions of the human digital lek are necessary to understand its operation among different individuals, densities, and cultures.

Conclusion

We expanded on what is known about dating apps by investigating sex and dates organized through these apps. In the light of life history strategies, we used interpersonal styles, sexual style, and search styles to provide a nuanced picture of individuals engaging in mating via dating apps. Individuals with a fast interpersonal style, as indicated by the Dark Triad traits, and a fast sexual style, as captured via sociosexuality, had more dates and sex via these apps. Compared with previous research, this study linked sociosexual desires to mating success on dating apps. Men differed more when it came to Tinder-dates, while only those with elevated psychopathy and sociosexual desire had more Tinder-sex. We confirmed women’s higher investment in finding a potential someone on Tinder, but also observed that once on a date, they lowered their standards when engaging in Tinder-sex. Similarities, but not complete congruence, existed between online and offline behaviors, visible in the differences between Tinder-dates and Tinder-sex. The personality and sex differences regarding Tinder-dates underlined the importance to differentiate both steps in investigating human mating. By characterizing dating apps as digital leks, we provide and discuss an integrative perspective on individual- and group-level differences, their origins, mechanisms, and potential implications. Our findings suggest a fast-life history strategy among dating app users as measured by various interpersonal styles and provide new insights into understanding mating success via dating apps.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

P.K.J. was partially supported by a grant from the Czech Science Foundation (23-05379S) and a grant from the National Science Center of Poland (2019/35/B/HS6/00682).

References

Gesselman

, Druet

, Vitzthum

. Mobile sex-tech apps: How use differs across global areas of high and low gender equality. PLoS One, 2020; 15(9):e0238501; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238501

Ilmiawan

, Nafisah

, Nisa

, et al. Popular dating apps in Indonesia and the United States. Bull Soc Inform App, 2022; 5(2):88–96; doi: 10.31763/businta.v5i2.405

Neyt

, Baert

, Vandenbulcke

. Never mind I’ll find someone like me—Assortative mating preferences on Tinder. Personal Individual Diff, 2020; 155:109739; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109739

Poerwandari

, Berliana

. Dating apps and risky sexual behaviors among young adults in large cities in Indonesia. Psychological Res Urban Society, 2022; 5(2):4–18; doi: 10.7454/proust.v5i2.145

Harms

. Online-Dating: Daten und Fakten zur Partnersuche über das Internet. [Online-dating: Data and facts on the partner search via the internet]. Statista; 2024. Available from: https://de.statista.com/themen/885/online-dating/#topicOverview

Rabe

. Anteil der befragten Internetnutzer, die Online-Dating-Dienste nutzen, nach Altersgruppen in Deutschland im Jahr 2023. [Proportion of internet users surveyed who use online dating services by age group in Germany in 2023.]. Statista; 2024. Available from: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/968467/umfrage/online-dating-nutzer-nach-altersgruppen-in-deutschland/

Botnen

, Bendixen

, Grøntvedt

, et al. Individual differences in sociosexuality predict picture-based mobile dating app use. Personal Individual Diff, 2018; 131:67–73; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.021

Castro

, Barrada

, Ramos-Villagrasa

, et al. Profiling dating apps users: Sociodemographic and personality characteristics. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020; 17(10):3653; doi: 10.3390/ijerph17103653

Harrison

, McAnulty

, Canevello

. College students’ motives for in-person meetings with dating application matches. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2022; 25(2):130–134; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2021.0031

10.

Freyth

, Batinic

. How bright and dark personality traits predict dating app behavior. Personal Individual Diff, 2021; 168:110316; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110316

11.

Figueredo

, Vásquez

, Brumbach

, et al. The K-factor: Individual differences in life history strategy. Personal Individual Diff, 2005; 39(8):1349–1360; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.009

12.

Furnham

, Richards

, Paulhus

. The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review: Dark Triad of personality. Social & Personality Psych, 2013; 7(3):199–216; doi: 10.1111/spc3.12018

13.

Dufner

, Rauthmann

, Czarna

, et al. Are narcissists sexy? Zeroing in on the effect of narcissism on short-term mate appeal. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 2013; 39(7):870–882; doi: 10.1177/0146167213483580

14.

Freyth

, Jonason

. Overcoming agreeableness: Sociosexuality and the Dark Triad expanded and revisited. Personal IndividualDiff, 2023; 203:112009; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.112009

15.

Lyons

, Messenger

, Perry

, et al. The Dark Tetrad in Tinder: Hook-up app for high psychopathy individuals, and a diverse utilitarian tool for Machiavellians? Curr Psychol, 2022; 41(2):659–666; doi: 10.1007/s12144-019-00589-z

16.

Penke

, Asendorpf

. Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. American Psychological Association; 2011. doi: 10.1037/t05284-000

17.

Jonason

, Foster

, McCain

, et al. Where birds flock to get together: The who, what, where, and why of mate searching. Personal Individual Diff, 2015; 80:76–84; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.018

18.

White

, Czerwiński

, Mulhearn

, et al. How disgust predicts the adoption of mate shortage solutions. Personal Individual Diff, 2022; 196:111734; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111734

19.

Valentova

, Moraes Junior

, Štěrbová

, et al. The association between Dark Triad traits and sociosexuality with mating and parenting efforts: A cross-cultural study. Personal Individual Diff, 2020; 154:109613; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109613

20.

Buss

, Schmitt

. Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev, 1993; 100(2):204–232; doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204

21.

Clark

, Hatfield

. Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. J Psychol Hum Sexuality, 1989; 2(1):39–55.

22.

Jonason

, Żemojtel‐Piotrowska

, Piotrowski

, et al. Country‐level correlates of the Dark Triad traits in 49 countries. J Pers, 2020; 88(6):1252–1267; doi: 10.1111/jopy.12569

23.

Schmitt

. Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behav Brain Sci, 2005; 28(2):247–275; doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000051

24.

Jonason

, White

, Al-Shawaf

. Should I stay or should I go: Individual differences in response to romantic dealmakers and dealbreakers. Personal Individual Diff, 2020; 164:110120; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110120

25.

, Bailey

, Kenrick

, et al. The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2002; 82(6):947–955; doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947

26.

Haselton

, Buss

. Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2000; 78(1):81–91.

27.

Trivers

. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual Selection & the Descent of Man. Aldine de Gruyter; 1972, pp. 136–179.

28.

Koehn

, Jonason

. Costs of short-term mating for women. In: Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. ( Shackelford

, Weekes-Shackelford

., eds.) Springer: Cham; 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3662-1

29.

Christensen

. “Tindersluts” and “Tinderellas”: Examining the digital affordances shaping the (hetero)sexual scripts of young Womxn on Tinder. Sociological Perspectives, 2021; 64(3):432–449; doi: 10.1177/0731121420950756

30.

Hess

, Flores

. Simply more than swiping left: A critical analysis of toxic masculine performances on Tinder Nightmares. New Media Soc, 2018; 20(3):1085–1102; doi: 10.1177/1461444816681540

31.

Tanner

, Q Tabo

. Ladies first: The influence of mobile dating applications on the psychological empowerment of female users. Informing Sci J, 2018; 21:289–317; doi: 10.28945/4137

32.

Sobieraj

, Humphreys

. The Tinder Games: Collective mobile dating app use and gender conforming behavior. Mobile Media Commun, 2022; 10(1):57–75; doi: 10.1177/20501579211005001

33.

Mason

. Tinder and humanitarian hook-ups: The erotics of social media racism. Feminist Media Studies, 2016; 16(5):822–837; doi: 10.1080/14680777.2015.1137339

34.

McWilliams

, Barrett

. Online dating in middle and later life: Gendered expectations and experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 2014; 35(3):411–436; doi: 10.1177/0192513X12468437

35.

Ndlela

, Tanner

. The perceived psychological empowerment of women using mobile dating applications: The case of tinder. In SOTICS 2018: The Eighth International Conference on Social Media Technologies, Communication, and Informatics. IARIA; 2018.

36.

DeMasi

. Shopping for love: online dating and the making of a cyber culture of romance. In Introducing the New Sexuality Studies. Routledge; 2011, pp. 222–230.

37.

Gill

. Post-postfeminism?: New feminist visibilities in postfeminist times. Feminist Media Studies, 2016; 16(4):610–630; doi: 10.1080/14680777.2016.1193293

38.

Lee

. Mediated superficiality and misogyny through cool on Tinder. Social Media + Society, 2019; 5(3):1–11.

39.

Elias

, Gill

. Beauty surveillance: The digital self-monitoring cultures of neoliberalism. Eur J Cultural Studies, 2018; 21(1):59–77; doi: 10.1177/1367549417705604

40.

Dobson

. “Sexy” And “Laddish” Girls: Unpacking complicity between two cultural imag(inations)es of young femininity. Feminist Media Studies, 2014; 14(2):253–269; doi: 10.1080/14680777.2012.713866

41.

Thompson

, Donaghue

. The confidence trick: Competing constructions of confidence and self-esteem in young Australian women’s discussions of the sexualisation of culture. Women’s Studies International Forum, 2014; 47:23–35; doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2014.07.007

42.

Morris

, Dobson

. Tinder marketing and transnational postfeminist media cultures: “Modern” women as single, not sorry? Feminist Media Studies, 2023; 23(8):4269–4284; doi: 10.1080/14680777.2023.2166972

43.

McRobbie

. The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social Change. Sage: London; 2009.

44.

Gill

. The affective, cultural and psychic life of postfeminism: A postfeminist sensibility 10 years on. Eur J Cultural Stud, 2017; 20(6):606–626; doi: 10.1177/1367549417733003

45.

Buss

, Greiling

. Adaptive individual differences. Journal of Personality, 1999; 67(2):209–243; doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.00053

46.

Buss

. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci, 1989; 12(1):1–14; doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00023992

47.

Del Giudice

, Booth

, Irwing

. The distance between Mars and Venus: Measuring global sex differences in personality. PLoS One, 2012; 7(1):e29265; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029265

48.

Walter

, Conroy-Beam

, Buss

, et al. Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychol Sci, 2020; 31(4):408–423; doi: 10.1177/0956797620904154

49.

McCrae

, Costa

. Personality trait structure as a human universal. Am Psychol, 1997; 52(5):509–516.

50.

Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Feminismus und Geschichte der Frauenbewegung in Deutschland. [Translation: Feminism and history of the women’s movement in Germany]. Foundation of the German Social Democratic Party; 2020. Available from: https://www.fes.de/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=60183&token=80c96c58915ad09320f9178ade6224a104098bdf

51.

Brechenmacher

. Germany Has a New Feminist Foreign Policy. What Does It Mean in Practice? Carnegie—Endownment for International Peace; 2023. Available from: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/03/germany-has-a-new-feminist-foreign-policy-what-does-it-mean-in-practice?lang=en

52.

Westcott

. Leks of leks: A role for hotspots in lek evolution? Proc R Soc London B Biol Sci, 1994; 258:281–286.

53.

Wrangham

. Female choice of least costly males; a possible factor in the evolution of leks. Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie, 1980; 54(4):357–367; doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1980.tb01252.x

54.

Trail

. Why should lek-breeders be monomorphic? Evolution, 1990; 44(7):1837–1852; doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb05254.x

55.

Isvaran

. Lek territory size and the evolution of leks: A model and a test using an ungulate with a flexible mating system. Front Ecol Evol, 2021; 8:539061; doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.539061

56.

Jonason

, Thomas

. Being more educated and earning more increases romantic interest: Data from 1.8 M online daters from 24 nations. Hum Nat, 2022; 33(2):115–131; doi: 10.1007/s12110-022-09422-2

57.

Luoto

. An updated theoretical framework for human sexual selection: From ecology, genetics, and life history to extended phenotypes. Adaptive Hum Behav Physiol, 2019; 5(1):48–102; doi: 10.1007/s40750-018-0103-6

58.

Willis

, Oliver

, March

. Dating in the dark: Vulnerable narcissism predicts inauthentic self-presentation in online dating. Telematics Informatics, 2023; 81:101985.

59.

Branson

, March

. Dangerous dating in the digital age: Jealousy, hostility, narcissism, and psychopathy as predictors of Cyber Dating Abuse. Comput Hum Behav, 2021; 119:106711; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106711

60.

March

, Grieve

, Marrington

, et al. Trolling on Tinder® (and other dating apps): Examining the role of the Dark Tetrad and impulsivity. Personal Individual Diff, 2017; 110:139–143; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.025

61.

Wang

, Topalli

. The cyber-industrialization of catfishing and romance fraud. Computers in Human Behavior, 2024; 154:108133; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.108133

62.

Kassem

, Carter

. Mapping romance fraud research–a systematic review. JFC, 2024; 31(4):974–992; doi: 10.1108/JFC-06-2023-0160

63.

Schönbrodt

, Perugini

. At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 2013; 47(5):609–612; doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009

64.

Küfner

ACP

, Dufner

, Back

. The Dirty Dozen and the Naughty Nine: Short scales for the assessment of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Diagnostica, 2015; 61(2):76–91; doi: 10.1026/0012-1924/a000124

65.

Ďuriník

, Procházka

, Cígler

. The Short Maximization Inventory. Judgm Decis Mak, 2018; 13(1):123–136; doi: 10.1017/S1930297500008871

66.

Imperio

, Lombardi

, De Marinis

, et al. Female mating tactics in lekking fallow deer (Dama dama): Experience explains inter-individual variability more than costs. Sci Rep, 2020; 10(1):3598; doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-58681-5

67.

Roberts

. A revised sociogenomic model of personality traits: Revised sociogenomic model of. Personality. Journal of Personality, 2018; 86(1):23–35; doi: 10.1111/jopy.12323

68.

Sevi

. The dark side of tinder: The Dark Triad of personality as correlates of Tinder use. J Individual Diff, 2019; 40(4):242–246; doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000297

69.

The Bloodhound Gang. (1999). The Bad Touch [Single]. Hooray for Boobies. Geffon Records.

70.

HöGlund

, Montgomerie

, Widemo

. Costs and consequences of variation in the size of ruff leks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 1993; 32(1):31–39; doi: 10.1007/BF00172220

71.

Jonason

, Girgis

, Milne-Home

. The exploitive mating strategy of the Dark Triad traits: Tests of rape-enabling attitudes. Arch Sex Behav, 2017; 46(3):697–706; doi: 10.1007/s10508-017-0937-1

72.

Black

, Woodworth

, Porter

. The Big Bad Wolf? The relation between the Dark Triad and the interpersonal assessment of vulnerability. Personal Individual Diff, 2014; 67:52–56; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.026

73.

Denardo Roney

, Falkenbach

, Aveson

. Psychopathy and victim selection: Does nonverbal decoding or empathy impact vulnerability ratings? J Interpers Violence, 2021; 36(3–4):NP1698–N1719NP; doi: 10.1177/0886260517742914

74.

Arkes

, Blumer

. The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behav Hum Decision Processes, 1985; 35(1):124–140; doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4

75.

Gill

. Empowerment/Sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism & Psychology, 2008; 18(1):35–60; doi: 10.1177/0959353507084950

76.

Potarca

. The demography of swiping right. An overview of couples who met through dating apps in Switzerland. PLoS One, 2020; 15(12):e0243733; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243733

77.

Jonason

, Czerwiński

, Brewer

, et al. Three factors of the Intrasexual Competition Scale? Personal Individual Diff, 2023; 213:112312; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2023.112312

78.

Blanchard

, Dunn

, Sumich

. Borderline personality traits in attractive women and wealthy low attractive men are relatively favoured by the opposite sex. Personal Individual Diff, 2021; 169:109964; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109964

79.

Freyth

. Dating app users after two years: A Dark Triad amplification. SPTP, 2022; 22(1):23–31; doi: 10.21697/sp.2022.22.1.02

80.

Thompson

. “I can be your Tinder nightmare”: Harassment and misogyny in the online sexual marketplace. Feminism Psychol, 2018; 28(1):69–89; doi: 10.1177/0959353517720226

81.

Marengo

, Longobardi

, Fabris

, et al. Highly-visual social media and internalizing symptoms in adolescence: The mediating role of body image concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018; 82:63–69; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.003

82.

Freyth

, Batinic

, Jonason

. Social media use and personality: Beyond self-reports and trait-level assessments. Personal Individual Diff, 2023; 202:111960; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111960

83.

Stein

J-P

, Krause

, Ohler

. Every (Insta)Gram counts? Applying cultivation theory to explore the effects of Instagram on young users’ body image. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2021; 10(1):87–97; doi: 10.1037/ppm0000268

84.

Yashari

. Online dating forever. Vanity Fair; 2015. Available from: https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/bumble-app-whitney-wolfe

85.

Safronova

. Women on Bumble No Longer Have to Make the First Move. The New York Times; 2024. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/style/bumble-dating-apps.html#:∼:text=As%20dissatisfaction%20with%20online%20dating,in%20control%20is%20shifting%20course.&text=As%20the%20sheen%20on%20dating,reporting%20bad%20experiences%20on%20them

86.

Topping

. ‘A lot of effort to get one date’: Bumble app makes women’s first move easier. The Guardian; 2024. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/may/04/a-lot-of-effort-to-get-one-date-bumble-app-makes-womens-first-move-easier

87.

Henrich

, Heine

, Norenzayan

. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci, 2010; 33(2–3):61–83.

88.

Hahn

, You

, Sferra

, et al. Is it too soon to meet? Examining differences in geosocial networking app use and sexual risk behavior of emerging adults. Sexuality Culture, 2018; 22(1):1–21; doi: 10.1007/s12119-017-9449-3

89.

Landovitz

, Tseng

C-H

, Weissman

, et al. Epidemiology, sexual risk behavior, and HIV prevention practices of men who have sex with men using GRINDR in Los Angeles, California. J Urban Health, 2013; 90(4):729–739; doi: 10.1007/s11524-012-9766-7

90.

Chan

, Chui

DLT

, Yanagi

. Cultural-psychological differences, social acceptance of same-sex relationships, and dating app use motives of young GBMSM: A comparative study across Hong Kong, Taipei, and Osaka. J Sex Res, 2024:1–11; doi: 10.1080/00224499.2024.2317806

91.

Chan

. How sociocultural context matters in self-presentation: A comparison of U.S. and Chinese profiles on Jack’d, a mobile dating app for men who have sex with men. Int J Commun, 2016; 10; doi: 1932–8036/20160005

92.

Adam

, Brennan

, Davies

, et al. Dating apps and shifting sexual subjectivities of men seeking men online. Sexuality Culture, 2024; doi: 10.1007/s12119-024-10231-1

93.

Toledo

. The coloniality of dating apps: Racial affordances and Chinese men using gay dating apps in Sydney. Int J Commun, 2023; 17; doi: 1932–8036/20230005

94.

Grosz

, Harms

, Dufner

, et al. Reducing the overlap between Machiavellianism and subclinical psychopathy: The M7 and P7 scales. Collabra: Psychology, 2020; 6(1):17799; doi: 10.1525/collabra.17799

95.

Jonason

. A mediation hypothesis to account for the sex difference in reported number of sexual partners: An intrasexual competition approach. Int J Sex Health, 2008; 19(4):41–49; doi: 10.1300/J514v19n04_05

96.

Jonason

, Fisher

. The power of prestige: Why young men report having more sex partners than young women. Sex Roles, 2009; 60(3–4):151–159; doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9506-3

97.

Mosley

, Lancaster

, Parker

, et al. Adult attachment and online dating deception: A theory modernized. Sexual Relationship Therapy, 2020; 35(2):227–243; doi: 10.1080/14681994.2020.1714577

98.

Jonason

, Kaźmierczak

, Campos

, et al. Leaving without a word: Ghosting and the Dark Triad traits. Acta Psychol (Amst), 2021; 220:103425; doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103425

99.

Olmeda

. Towards a statistical physics of dating apps. J Stat Mech, 2022; 2022(11):113501; doi: 10.1088/1742-5468/ac9bed

100.

Carter

, Lyons

, Brewer

. Lifetime offspring and the Dark Triad. Personal Individual Diff, 2018; 132:79–83; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.017

101.

Penke

, Jokela

. The evolutionary genetics of personality revisited. Curr Opin Psychol, 2016; 7:104–109; doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.08.021

102.

Jonason

, Betes

, Li

. Solving mate shortages: Lowering standards, searching farther, and abstaining. Evol Behav Sci, 2020; 14(2):160–172; doi: 10.1037/ebs0000174

103.

MacDonald

. Cross-cultural comparison of learning in human hunting: Implications for life history evolution. Hum Nat, 2007; 18(4):386–402; doi: 10.1007/s12110-007-9019-8