SWIPE ME IF YOU CAN: CULTURAL AND GENDERED USES OF TINDER IN TURKEY

Öz

Dating apps have become a worldwide trend since Tinder. The predominantly An-glo-American literature generally pays less attention to how they are used in and affected by different cultural contexts. Based on an online survey (N=915), this study explores Tinderers’ motivations, swiping strategies, and the context of using Tinder in Turkey in relation to gender. First, the paper finds that although Tinderers mostly use the app for casual sex, socialization and entertainment emerged as other popular motivations. Second, we find some support for the “status vs. beauty” ste-reotype though physical appearance is also the top criterion for women. Lastly, un-like the Anglo-American contexts, we find that the social stigma around Tinder in Turkey is more likely to affect women who limit their use to contexts that they as-sociate with privacy. Defining Tinder as an algorithmic cultural object, this paper highlights how technology and culture are intertwined in a relation of co-production.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Online dating
• Dating app
• Mate selection
• Motivation
• Social stigma

SIKIYSA KAYDIR: TINDER’IN TÜRKİYE’DEKİ KÜLTÜREL VE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYETÇİ KULLANIMLARI

Öz

Flört uygulamaları, Tinder’la birlikte dünya çapında bir popülarite kazandı. Ağırlık-lı olarak Anglo-Amerikan bağlamlara odaklanan çalışmaların bulunduğu literatür, genellikle bu teknolojilerin farklı kültürel bağlamlarda nasıl kullanıldığını ve bu kültürel bağlamlardan nasıl etkilendiğini göz ardı etmektedir. Çevrimiçi anket yön-temine dayanan bu çalışma (N=915), Türkiye’de Tinder kullanan kişilerin motivas-yonlarının, kaydırma, yani eş seçme, stratejilerinin ve Tinder’ı kullanma bağlamla-rının toplumsal cinsiyetle olan ilişkisini keşfetmektedir. Bulgular, öncelikle, Tin-der’cıların uygulamayı çoğunlukla seks amaçlı ilişkiler için kullansa da sosyalleşme ve eğlencenin diğer popüler motivasyonlar olarak öne çıktığını göstermektedir. İkinci olarak, fiziksel görüntünün de kadınlar için başat kriter olduğunu gözlemle-sek de “statü-güzellik” kalıbını destekleyen bazı bulgularla karşılaştık. Son olarak, Anglo-Amerikan bağlamların aksine, Türkiye’deki Tinder’a dair toplumsal damga-nın kadınları erkeklere nazaran daha fazla etkilediğini, kadınların uygulamayı özel alanlarda kullanmayı tercih ederek kullanımlarını kısıtladıklarını gözlemledik. Tin-der’ı algoritmik kültürel obje olarak tanımlayan bu çalışma, teknoloji ve kültürün nasıl bir eş üretim ilişkisi içerisinde olduğunun altını çizmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevrimiçi flört
• flört uygulaması
• eş seçimi
• motivasyon
• toplumsal damga

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, S. (2014). The cultural politics of emotion (2nd ed). Edinburgh: Ed-inburgh University Press.
2. Alam, S. S., Islam, Md. Md. R., Mokhbul, Z. K. M., & Makmor, N. B. (2018). Factors affecting intention to use online dating sites in Malaysia. Interna-tional Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4.28), 192-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n10p155
3. Albury, K., Burgess, J., Light, B., Race, K., & Wilken, R. (2017). Data cul-tures of mobile dating and hook-up apps: Emerging issues for critical social science research. Big Data & Society, July-December, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717720950
4. Altan-Olcay, Ö. (2009). Gendered projects of national identity formation: The case of Turkey. National Identities, 11(2), 165-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/14608940902891336
5. Anderson, M., Vogels, E. A., & Turney, E. (2020, February 6). The virtues and downsides of online dating. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/06/the-virtues-and-downsides-of-online-dating/
6. Arum, R., Roksa, J., & Budig, M. J. (2008). The romance of college attend-ance: Higher education stratification and mate selection. Research in Social Stratifi-cation and Mobility, 26, 107-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2008.02.003
7. Bauman, Z. (20039. Liquid love: On the family of human bonds. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
8. Baumgartner, S. E., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2010). Unwanted online sexual solicitation and risky sexual online behavior across the lifespan. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 439-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.07.005

9. Birger, J. (2015). Date-onomics: How dating became a lopsided numbers game. New York: Workman Publishing.
10. Birgün. (2019, December 16). “Türkiye’de her 80 kişiden biri Tinder kullanıyor.” [One person in every 80 individuals in Turkey use Tinder]. Birgün. https://www.birgun.net/haber/turkiye-de-her-80-kisiden-biri-tinder-kullaniyor-280213
11. Bivens, R., & Hoque, A. S. (2018). Programming sex, gender, and sexuality: Infrastructural failures in the “feminist” dating app Bumble. Canadian Journal of Communication, 43, 441-459. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2019v44n3a3375
12. Blackwell, D. L., & Lichter, D. T. (2000). Mate selection among married and cohabiting couples. Journal of Family Issues, 21(3), 275-302. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F019251300021003001
13. Blossfeld, H. P. (2009). Educational assortative marriage in comparative per-spective. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 513-530. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115913
14. Blossfeld, H. P., & Timm, A. (Eds.) (2003). Who marries whom? Educa-tional systems as marriage markets in modern societies. Kluwer Academic Publish-ers.
15. Bryans, B. (2018). Texts so good he can’t ignore: Sassy texting secrets for attracting high-quality men (and keeping the one you want). South Carolina: Cre-ateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
16. Bryant, K., & Sheldon, P. (2017). Cyber dating in the age of mobile apps: Understanding motives, attitudes, and characteristics of users. American Communi-cation Journal, 19(2), 1-15.
17. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolution-ary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
18. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolu-tionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204-232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204
19. Chappetta, K. C., & Barth, J. M. (2016). How gender role stereotypes affect attraction in an online dating scenario. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 738-746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.006
20. Chin, K., Edelstein, R. S., & Vernon, P. A. (2018). Attached to dating apps: Attachment orientations and preferences for dating apps. Mobile Media & Commu-nication, 7(1), 41-59. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2050157918770696
21. Clemens, C., Atkin, D., & Krishnan, A. (2015). The influence of biological and personality traits on gratifications obtained through online dating websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.058
22. Cohen, L. (2015). World attending in interaction: Multitasking, spatializing, narrativizing with mobile devices and Tinder. Discourse, Context & Media, 9, 46-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2015.08.001
23. David, G., & Gambre, C. (2016). Screened intimacies: Tinder and the swipe logic. Social Media + Society, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2056305116641976
24. Duguay, S. (2017). Dressing up Tinderella: Interrogating authenticity claims on the mobile dating app Tinder. Information, Communication & Society, 20(3), 351-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1168471
25. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408-423. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
26. EkşiSözlük. (2018). “Tinder’a düşmüş Türk kızı” [The Turkish girl who has slid into Tinder]. Retrieved from https://eksisozluk.com/tindera-dusmus-turk-kizi--5583224.
27. Ergin, M., Rankin, B., & Gökşen, F. (2019). Education and symbolic vio-lence in contemporary Turkey. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(1), 128-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1500274
28. Ettin, E. (2014). Love at first site: Tips and tales for online dating success from a modern-day matchmaker. Texas: River Grove Books.
29. Felmlee, D. H., & Kreager, D. A. (2017). The invisible contours of online dating communities: A social network perspective. Journal of Social Structure, 18(1), 1-27.
30. Ferris, L., & Duguay, S. (2020). Tinder’s lesbian digital imaginary: Investi-gating (im)permeable boundaries of sexual identity on a popular dating app. New Media & Society, 22(3), 489-506. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444819864903
31. Galloway, A. R. (2006). Gaming: Essays on algorithmic culture. Minneap-olis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
32. Gatter, K., & Hodkinson, K. (2016). On the differences between Tinder ver-sus online dating agencies: Questioning a myth. An exploratory study. Cogent Psy-chology, 3, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1162414
33. Gewirtz-Meydan, A., & Ayalon, L. (2018). Forever young: Visual represen-tation of gender and age in online dating sites for older adults. Journal of Women & Aging, 30(6), 484-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2017.1330586
34. Gillespie, T. (2015). Platforms intervene. Social Media + Society, April-June 2015, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2056305115580479
35. Greenfield, R. (2013, February 27). Tinder: A hook-up app woman actually use. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/tinder-hook-app-women-actually-use/317875/
36. Gudelunas, D. (2012). There’s an app for that: The uses and gratifications of online social networks for gay men. Sexuality & Culture, 16(4), 347-365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-012-9127-4
37. Hance, M. A., Blackhart, G., & Dew, M. (2018). Free to be me: The relation-ship between the true self, rejection sensitivity, and use of online dating sites. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(4), 421-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1389684
38. Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010a). Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review, 100(1), 130-163. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.100.1.130
39. Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010b). What makes you click? – Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative Marketing Economics, 8, 393-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-010-9088-6
40. Hoehn, L. (2015). You probably shouldn’t write that: Tips and tricks for creating online dating profile that doesn’t suck. Pennsylvania: Running Press.
41. Holden, M. (2020, February 27). How to use Tinder for hooking up (and more). Askmen. Retrieved from https://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith/dating-with-tinder.html
42. Ilkkaracan, P. (Ed.). (2008). Deconstructing sexuality in the middle east: Challenges and discourses. Hampshire and Berlington: Ashgate.
43. Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
44. Illouz, E. (2019). The end of love: A sociology of negative relations. New York: Oxford University Press.
45. Illouz, E., & Finkelman, S. (2009). An odd and inseparable couple: Emotion and rationality in partner selection. Theory and Society, 38(4), 401-422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-009-9085-5
46. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London and New York: Routledge.
47. Kreager, D. A., Cavanagh, S. E., Yen, J., & Yu, M. (2014). “Where have all the good men gone?” Gendered interactions in online dating. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12072
48. Krüger, S., & Spilde, A. C. (2019). Judging books by their covers – Tinder interface, usage and sociocultural implications. Information, Communication & So-ciety. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1572771
49. Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G. J. O., Valentine, K. A., Jiang, Y. F., & Balliet, D. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choic-es in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo-gy, 105(5), 757-776. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/1396
50. Mason, C. L. (2016). Tinder and humanitarian hook-ups: The erotics of so-cial media racism. Feminist Media Studies, 16(5), 822-837. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2015.1137339
51. McGloin, R., & Denes, A. (2018). Too hot to trust: Examining the relation-ship between attractiveness, trustworthiness, and desire to date in online dating. New Media & Society, 20(3), 919-936. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444816675440
52. McKinlay, C. (2013). Optimal cupid: Mastering the hidden logic of OkCupid. South Carolina: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
53. Mevzu. (2020, June 1). It’s a match! [Video] YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_H0TEchxmg&ab_channel=Mevzu%3A
54. Miller, D., & Horst, H. A. (2012). The digital and the human: A prospectus for digital anthropology. In D. Miller & H. A. Horst (Eds.), Digital anthropology (pp. 3-35). London and New York: Berg Publishers.
55. Murray, S., & Ankerson, M. S. (2016). Lez takes time: Designing lesbian contact in geosocial networking apps. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 33(1), 53-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2015.1133921
56. Narin, B. (2018). A netnography study about Wapa as a mobile dating appli-cation. Journal of Cultural Studies, 5(2), 343-367.
57. Oyer, P. (2014). Everything I ever needed to know about economics I learned from online dating. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
58. Öztürk, S. (Director). (2020). Dijital flörtleşme [Digital Flirting] [Documen-tary series]. Blutv.com
59. Peters S., & Salzsieder, H. (2018). What makes you swipe right? Gender similarity in interpersonal attraction in a simulated online dating context. Journal of Psychological Research, 23(4), 320-329. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.24839/2325-7342.JN23.4.320
60. Pozsar, M. H., Dumitrescu, A. I., Piticas, D., & Constantinescu, S. (2018). Dating apps in the lives of young Romanian women. A preliminary study. Analize – Journal of Gender and Feminist Studies, 11, 216-238. Retrieved from http://www.analize-journal.ro/library/files/numarul_11/11_11_pozsar_et_al_216-238.pdf
61. Ranzini, G., & Lutz, C. (2017). Love at first swipe? Explaining Tinder self-presentation and motives. Mobile Media & Communication, 5(1), 80-101. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2050157916664559
62. Richey, L. A. (2016). “Tinder humanitarians”: The moral panic around rep-resentations of old relationships in new media. Javnost – The Public: Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, 23(4), 398-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2016.1248323
63. Rudder, C. (2014). Dataclysm: Who we are (when we think no one’s look-ing). New York: Crown Publishers.
64. Schrock, A. R. 2015. Communicative affordances of mobile media: Portabil-ity, availability, locatability, and multimediality. International Journal of Communi-cation, 9(18), 1229-1246. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3288
65. Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2016, February 29). 5 facts about online dating. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/29/5-facts-about-online-dating/
66. Sumter, S. R., & Vandenbosch, L. (2019). Dating gone mobile: Demograph-ic and personality-based correlates of using smartphone-based dating applications among emerging adults. New Media & Society, 21(3), 655-73. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444818804773
67. Sumter, S. R., Vandenbosch, L., & Ligtenberg, L. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.009
68. Tappé, M., Bensman, L., Hayashi, K., & Hatfield, E. (2013). Gender differ-ences in receptivity to sexual offers: A new research prototype. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 7(2), 323-344. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v7i2.121
69. Timmermans, E., & Caluwé E. D. (2017). To Tinder or not to Tinder, that’s the question: An individual differences perspective to Tinder use and motives. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 110, 74-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.026
70. Tong, S. T., Hancock, J. T., & Slatcher, R. B. (2016). Online dating design and relational decision making: Choice, algorithms, and control. Personal Relation-ships, 23, 645-662. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12158
71. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2019). Population by attained education level and sex, 2008-2019. Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1018
72. Vuzharov, M. (2019). UX & fomo: Looking for love or looking for options? Digital Age in Semiotics & Communication, 11, 77-91. https://doi.org/10.33919/dasc.19.2.5
73. Ward, J. 2017. What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app. Information, Communication & Society, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1252412
74. Webb, A. (2013). Data, a love story: How I cracked the online dating code and met my match. New York: Penguin.