Romantic relationship initiation and escalation through mobile dating apps: Affordances,modality weaving,and paradoxical beliefs

Mate selection and relationship development via mediated matchmakers

Technologies may be novel or transient artifacts, but human relationships are enduring. Although MDAs may seem novel, they serve a relational purpose that has been fulfilled by friends, family, and professionals for centuries: matchmaker. Critical to our understanding of MDAs is the long history of mediated matchmaking through personal ads, mail-based introductory services, telephone lines, broadcast programs (e.g., radio call-in shows, television dating game shows), video dating, online forums, chatrooms, and dating websites (see Fox & Frampton, 2023, for review).

Matchmakers can be useful for navigating what is commonly described as the “dating market.” In the 1970s, economists began to theorize how relationship initiation, relationship development, and marriage are governed by market principles (see review by Chiappori, 2020). Although these models vary, they hold some common assumptions. First, each individual has a market value, and individuals seek the highest value mate. Second, mate value is determined by the quantity and quality of the supply as well as the demand presented by others seeking mates. Third, market factors dictate the optimal strategies for obtaining a mate (Chiappori, 2020).

According to these market models, finding a mate is a costly process; it requires time, effort, and emotional investment to find and evaluate potential mates (Chiappori, 2020). Interpersonal theorizing makes similar claims about relationship development. Often, little is known about potential mates, creating initial feelings of uncertainty (Berger, 1979; Knobloch & Solomon, 2003). In emerging relationships, individuals can experience self-uncertainty (i.e., doubt about their own readiness for, role in, or commitment to the relationship), partner uncertainty (the same doubts about the other person), or relationship uncertainty (i.e., doubts about the status or future of the relationship; Knobloch, 2007). Uncertainty can contribute to turbulence (Knobloch, 2007), and many relationships may be initiated and dissolved.

Adelman and Ahuvia (1991) argue that when individuals have not succeeded in finding a mate on their own, they seek out a market intermediary to help. These intermediaries may be informal, such as friends, or formal, such as a professional matchmaker or dating service. Individuals employ intermediaries to help with three critical market processes. Searching involves identifying and acquiring information about potential partners to reduce initial uncertainty about availability and basic compatibility. Matching involves evaluating information and deciding which partners should be pursued. Interacting is described as “the myriad of complicated interactions through which two people form or reject a romantic relationship” (Ahuvia & Adelman, 1992, p. 454). The primary goal of interacting is to reduce uncertainty about the partner and the growing relationship to determine whether to proceed.

The searching-matching-interacting (SMI) framework (Adelman & Ahuvia, 1991) offers several strengths for investigating relationship initiation and escalation via MDAs. First, it avoids the problems with stage-based approaches to relationship development, and instead focuses on processes (see Duck, 2016). Second, few relationship development theories elaborate behaviors that occur before initiation; thus, examining this model and its durability in modern contexts can stimulate much-needed theorizing. Third, many theories focus on the couple as a unit, theorizing relationship development as a joint dyadic process. The SMI framework accommodates relationship initiation and development with multiple partners concurrently, which is crucial because MDAs allow users to communicate with multiple partners at once (Thomas et al., 2022).

A final strength is that the elaboration of the SMI framework explicitly addressed mediated market intermediaries, drawing on previous research on singles advertisements in print media (e.g., Harrison & Saeed, 1977), video dating (e.g., Woll & Cozby, 1987), and computer-based matchmaking agencies (e.g., Sindberg et al., 1972). The model is a vanguard in this sense, as mediated relationship development was largely ignored by relationship research and theorizing at the time.

Very few empirical studies have even considered this framework in online environments (see a notable exception by Scharlott & Christ, 1995) or actually tested how participants perceive or experience these processes. Mediated channels have evolved dramatically since the SMI framework debuted (Adelman & Ahuvia, 1991), and it remains largely unexplored despite a widely cited synthesis by Finkel et al. (2012) arguing for its potential for studying dating websites. Given Adelman and Ahuvia argued that relationship development “is shaped, in part, by the ways the channel facilitates the searching for, matching with, and interacting with a potential partner,” as distinct channels, MDAs warrant investigation to assess the applicability of the framework (p. 274).

RQ1: How do users experience searching, matching, and interacting as they initiate and escalate relationships through MDAs?

Affordances of mobile dating applications

Ahuvia and Adelman (1992) described several mediated market intermediaries and which tasks they fulfilled within the SMI framework. However, they stopped short of explicating how particular channels enabled these processes. Features are objective elements designed as part of the technology (e.g., available functions, layout, choice architecture), whereas affordances are properties that emerge when a user interacts with an object (Fox & McEwan, 2017; Gibson, 1979). Whereas features objectively exist or not, affordances vary based on the individual and how they interact with an object. Theoretically, it is important to understand how these attributes manifest and vary across channels; not only does this help elucidate why channels have different uses and effects, it also helps researchers anticipate the uses and effects of novel channels with similar affordances (Fox & McEwan, 2017). Over time, explicating the roles these attributes play in searching, matching, and interacting could help advance the SMI framework to a more predictive model.

Previous research has identified several affordances relevant to MDAs. Visibility is crucial so that users can see and be seen by prospective partners (Blackwell et al., 2015; Whitty, 2008). By definition, MDAs offer mobility, as apps can be used wherever an individual takes their phone; further, using geolocation data, some apps also enable locatability so that users can identify options within their proximity no matter where they are (Blackwell et al., 2015).

Features like profile creation and messaging work similarly on many MDAs, although users’ practices vary widely within and across apps (see review by Wu & Trottier, 2022). Crafting a profile or writing a message is typically asynchronous and affords editability. On most MDAs, the bandwidth of communication, or the number of cues that can be transmitted through a channel (Fox & McEwan, 2017), is limited, as users can only exchange static photographs and text-based messages. Collectively, these affordances facilitate selective self-presentation, enabling online daters to put forward their best selves (Ellison et al., 2006; Ranzini & Lutz, 2017).

Critically, users’ perceptions of affordances shape how they experience a technology and communicate in their relationships (e.g., Coduto, 2024; Fox et al., 2021; Frampton & Fox, 2018). Thus, it is likely that perceived affordances are shaping how MDA users search, match, and interact with potential partners, although this is not explicated in the SMI framework.

RQ2: How do perceived affordances shape users’ experiences with MDAs and searching, matching, and interacting processes?

Media repertoires in developing relationships

In their extended theorizing of the SMI framework (Adelman & Ahuvia, 1991), Ahuvia and Adelman (1992) elaborated a typology of market intermediaries given differences in how searching, matching, and interacting functions unfold. They claimed most contemporary mediated intermediaries only facilitated searching. Singles advertisements (via print media, telephone, and computer bulletin boards), video dating, party lines, and “online networks” only facilitated access to a dating pool and information about prospects. They noted computer dating services enable both searching and matching as agencies used computers to assess compatibility and recommend a short list of potential mates. Ahuvia and Adelman identified no mediated market intermediaries that fulfilled the interacting function, suggesting that couples who meet through one channel must transition to another channel to accomplish the interacting function. However, the SMI framework stops short of explaining how other channels may complement or work alongside the market intermediary to fulfill the interacting function and achieve the individual’s goals.

Unlike the market intermediaries described by Ahuvia and Adelman (1992), most MDAs have a feature akin to texting that enables one-on-one communication between potential partners. It is possible that users are achieving the interacting function through the app. It is also possible that users are only sticking to surface level information exchange, however. For example, they may be using it solely to coordinate a face-to-face meeting. According to theorizing on such modality switching (Ramirez Jr & Zhang, 2007; Ramirez et al., 2015), this transition to face-to-face allows partners to garner much more information about each other than was possible through text-based communication.

Given the expansiveness of modern media repertoires (or the array of different channels an individual may choose from, Reagan, 1996), those on the dating market have many channels to choose from to achieve their interacting needs. McEwan (2021) argued that rather than a single modality switch, dyads in modern developing relationships are more likely to engage in modality weaving, selecting different channels to seek out more information and meet evolving needs. If Ahuvia and Adelman’s (1992) original theorizing holds and MDA users are not just interacting via MDAs but other channels, it is worth understanding how other channel options come to influence potential partners’ interactions.

RQ3: When and why do users employ other channels in addition to MDAs when searching, matching, and interacting?

A final goal of our study was to extend beyond the scope of the SMI framework to explore whether MDAs were perceived as useful and successfully performing the role of intermediary. In previous research, MDA users have cited the advantages of using MDAs to initiate relationships, such as saving time or having more options than other channels (e.g., LeFebvre, 2018; Thomas et al., 2022). Users of other dating market intermediaries have made similar claims, however, with minimal evidence these benefits led to greater success in accomplishing one’s goals (e.g., videodaters; Woll & Cozby, 1987). Further, some difficulties have been noted by users of MDAs and other mediated market intermediaries (e.g., Coduto et al., 2020; Ellison et al., 2006; Woll & Cozby, 1987). It remains unclear how users perceive the performance of MDAs and whether they feel they are successful in their role as intermediaries. Thus, we asked:

RQ4: To what extent do MDA users accomplish their goals through searching, matching, and interacting?

Procedure

Interviews took place in a private room on campus or a private location of the participant’s choosing. When participants arrived, they were greeted by the interviewer (one of the authors of the study) and given a consent form. After providing consent, participants completed a demographic questionnaire. Respondents were then asked if they were comfortable being videorecorded; all participants agreed. The interviewer followed a semi-structured interview guide.

Interviews were conducted in two rounds; our first round concluded when we perceived saturation, and then we conducted a second round to facilitate member checking and validation of observations. Interviews lasted between 18 and 68 minutes, averaging 40 minutes.

Analysis

We employed a grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) using a collaborative coding process. First, the authors coded two interviews together, then coded two additional interviews separately and reviewed them. We then divided the remaining interviews and engaged in initial coding separately; both authors observed all interviews and cross-examined coding to facilitate validity via investigator triangulation (Flick, 2004; Steinke, 2004).

We began with initial (open) coding (Charmaz, 2006). We also used in vivo coding to identify language that participants chose to describe their experiences (e.g., ghosting, Snaps, catfish; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). After initial coding, we performed multiple rounds of focused, collaborative theoretical coding (e.g., affordances, modality switching, SMI processes) to address the research questions and explore new themes that had emerged (Charmaz, 2006). Conducting open coding first helps to preserve the authenticity and thus validity of the data (Charmaz, 2006; Steinke, 2004). Throughout the coding process we engaged in the constant comparative method to identify, elaborate, and clarify categories and promote consistency (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Categories were further examined within each participant’s interview and across participants to determine salience, recurrence, and contradictions (the latter particularly emerging with RQ4).

Interview notes were compiled in NVIVO 11 software (Richards, 1999), and relevant nodes were created to analyze the data.

Searching and matching

Individuals took advantage of apps and their associated affordances to search for and match with potential partners (RQ1, RQ2, RQ4).

Reducing uncertainty through secret tests

In contrast to other mediated market intermediaries (e.g., video dating, Woll & Cozby, 1987), our participants reported gleaning minimal information about partners in the searching process on MDAs. Users of apps like Tinder and Bumble reported that receiving a “match” from the system reduced some uncertainty about mutual attraction, but not about intentions. Thus, users employed secret tests, or covert strategies intended to reduce uncertainty about the partner and relationship (Baxter & Wilmot, 1984). Secret tests were often incorporated very early in the matching process, often in the first message exchanges, to determine compatibility of relational goals (e.g., a hookup, a dating relationship; RQ1, RQ4).

In separation tests, the individual creates distance from the partner or minimizes communication to see how the partner will react (Baxter & Wilmot, 1984). The asynchronicity of messaging afforded MDA users control over timing and pacing (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004), enabling these tests. Several heterosexual women participants reported waiting for the man to message them first after getting matched by an app. One participant even mentioned a friend’s “Bumble Bible” that explained how women should time messages to men. Although some of this was attributed to gendered expectations (see also Comunello et al., 2021), women also administered this test as part of the matching process to determine whether the man was truly interested in them and invested enough to pursue a relationship, or whether he had merely swiped several women indiscriminately (a practice reported above by several of our male participants).

Participants also reported the use of directness tests to assess goal compatibility during matching, which involve explicit communication about one’s feelings or the relationship to see how partners react (Baxter & Wilmot, 1984). A few women reported men sending messages in the first few exchanges as straightforward as “Let’s hook up” (18W). Although repelled, these women were able to expedite the matching process and eliminate these men from their pool. One man (21M) suggested that the ability to employ a directness test about sexual interest was an advantage of MDAs: “I’ve said things I would never say in person,” including “sexual pickup lines.” He noted if you were going to ask someone on the app if they were interested in sex, the best practice was to express that immediately rather than starting a conversation. He had not, however, found success with this tactic.

Indirect suggestion tests include hinting or joking to try to reduce uncertainty (Baxter & Wilmot, 1984). Several women reported that men would employ indirect suggestion tests, such as hinting or implying, to gauge whether women were receptive to hooking up. Several women described receiving a late night “You up?” (3W) or “What are you doing?” (18W). If they replied, the conversation would eventually lead to an invitation to meet face-to-face immediately. Although men never directly ask about sex, women learned to recognize these tactics as hookup attempts and saw them as red flags in the matching process.

Interacting and modality weaving

In addition to secret tests in the matching process, we also observed a new type of indirect suggestion test employed in the interacting process. Participants often suggested modality switches to hint that they liked the partner and wanted to continue the relationship, but in a new channel. Rather than making a direct disclosure about their feelings, participants would propose a modality switch, usually under the guise of convenience: “Once we’ve built enough rapport and trust. I’ll be like, I’m not on here [the app] as much, so might as well message me because I will reply quicker” (32M). If the target agreed to communicate outside of the app, it was interpreted as shared interest in escalating the relationship. As 23M noted, a romantic interest sharing their phone number “is a big deal.” Indeed, participants reported agreeing to introduce a new modality was a significant step.

Thus, we further consider how additional channels fit into the SMI framework, particularly considering how individuals interact in MDAs. Because Ahuvia and Adelman (1992) did not identify a mediated market intermediary that facilitated the interacting function, we explored MDAs (RQ1) but also inquired about the use of other channels (RQ3). Many of our participants were acclimated to developing relationships using the type of messaging most common on MDAs (limited to text and images). A couple of participants preferred to communicate solely through MDAs until meeting face-to-face, and thus initiated interacting within their chosen app. The vast majority, however, tapped into their media repertoires (Reagan, 1996). Although the SMI framework explains the functions performed by market intermediaries, our findings demonstrate users often augment or even supplant the intermediary and accomplish these functions with other channels.

Our participants typically reported using three to five different channels to interact with partners before they interacted face-to-face (RQ3). Thus, the paradigmatic shift described by the modality switching framework (from text-based messages to a face-to-face meeting) was very rare (Ramirez Jr & Zhang, 2007). Instead, new channels were introduced gradually as the relationship developed, usually one at a time, building to a face-to-face first date. Participant 32M noted, “There’s stages. You can’t just come out and give them your number. That’s pretty sketchy.”

Uncertainty is high when initial contact is made, and participants typically wanted to stay on the app to limit their accessibility and facilitate conversational control, as most apps make it easy to terminate an interaction or block another user. 10M said that he would message matches exclusively in Tinder for “at least a week, strictly for safety reasons” before sharing his Snapchat. Conversational control allowed participants a feeling of security when engaging with unknown others in these online spaces. Similar to 10M, after some trust had built, most participants shared social media such as Instagram and Snapchat with a potential partner first because it allowed them to interact in different ways and acquire more information about their partner. 31M explained that exchanging higher bandwidth video messages privately on Snapchat “feels a bit more real than just the pictures someone chose to put on their account. So, it’s like a nice bridge for it, because I don’t want to just give them my phone number.” Some participants noted that messages on Snapchat lack persistence, as they disappear after being viewed (Fox & McEwan, 2017), so they perceived this channel as optimal for riskier or more intimate disclosures.

As 31M indicated, offering one’s phone number was not only functional, but often symbolic. Incorporating the phone into the dyadic media repertoire was viewed as a sign of trust and many perceived it as a meaningful relationship step (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004). One participant, 11W, put it succinctly: “Texting feels more personal” than interacting via MDAs or social media. Texting affords more synchronous communication as well as greater accessibility, something that participants wanted to protect. As 29M stated, “Can’t really control so much once they have your phone number.” Given the foreseeable risks, exchanging phone numbers was typically described as the last channel introduced before meeting face-to-face. A few participants like 29M insisted on waiting until after a successful FtF encounter to disclose their phone number (similar to Hardey, 2004). Notably, the only channel participants consistently mentioned dropping from their relational repertoire was the dating app; usually participants switched from the app to texting. Otherwise, different channels were employed for different reasons, highlighting the use of modality weaving in developing relationships (McEwan, 2021).

Another key finding offers additional richness to understanding modality weaving in developing relationships. Given that disclosing a phone number was seen as a risky step by many, participants typically introduced new modalities not just to escalate the relationship, but also as a verification process to reduce uncertainty. Many participants cited being concerned about getting “catfished,” or matching with someone who turned out to be a scam artist or completely different from their online self-presentation. Deception has long been a concern of online daters, and our participants were no different. 7W noted, “I’ve read a lot about catfishing… and I know people can lie.” 20M also felt this was a common risk: “There’s a lot of catfishes these days.” Participants often proposed new channels that were perceived as reducing uncertainty and affording identifiability. Due to high visibility, network association, and persistence (Fox & McEwan, 2017), participants could glean extensive information from social networking sites like Instagram. 5M said Instagram made it easy to cross-check for visual evidence of the interests and hobbies a woman listed in her app profile, a form of triangulation (Heino et al., 2010). 10M felt Snapchat’s affordances were far superior for verification, particularly the ability to communicate via synchronous video.

For many of our participants, their modality switching logic was contradictory: Switching from a dating app to another platform for interacting requires trust, but often, a switch occurs because users don’t trust the potential partner yet. Our analysis revealed many such paradoxes and tensions exist as users navigate relationship initiation and escalation via MDAs.

Tensions and paradoxes in goal attainment

As participants considered the advantages and disadvantages of searching, matching, and interacting on MDAs, several tensions and contradictions emerged relevant to goal attainment (RQ4). Many of these contradictions that participants experienced are indicative of the complicated relationships people have with technologies more broadly.