Beyond the Female Love-Male Sex Binary: A Non-representational Approach to Online Dating

Yıl 2021, , 7 - 35, 08.03.2021

Gözde Cöbek

https://doi.org/10.18691/kulturveiletisim.811624

Cited By: 1

Öz

Based on a critical literature review, this paper reveals that online dating studies on heterosexual users’ motivations and mate preferences reproduce two gendered as well as heteronormative arguments. First, women use dating technologies for seeking love whereas men prefer them for arranging casual sex activities. Second, men are inclined to prioritize physical appearance while women tend to value status during mate selection or swiping in e-dating language. The article calls these beauty-status and love-sex dichotomies as the female love-male sex binary which has become a persistent myth through a continuous reproduction. This critical literature review problematizes the binary logic embedded in the literature on heterosexual online dating. To move beyond such duality, it suggests an affective turn which attracts the attention to the mostly neglected things in e-dating studies which focus on heterosexual individuals, namely the body, its capacity, and the affectivity of non-human things like atmospheres as well as images. Among various inspiring techniques in non-representational methodologies, it proposes video reenactment, cyberflaneur or technical walkthrough, and sensory writing techniques to study the online dating phenomenon and to understand motivations as well as swiping strategies of heterosexual online daters.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Non-representational methodology, affect, online dating, emotion, mate selection

Beyond the Female Love-Male Sex Binary: A Non-representational Approach to Online Dating

Öz

Eleştirel literatür taramasına dayanan bu çalışma, heteroseksüel bireylerin motivasyonlarına ve eş seçim tercihlerine odaklanan çevrimiçi flört çalışmalarının, iki cinsiyetçi ve heteronormatif argüman ürettiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Söz konusu çalışmaların birinci argümanı, kadın kullanıcıların flört teknolojilerini aşk amaçlı, erkeklerinse seks amaçlı kullandığıdır. İkinci argüman; eş seçimi -e-flört dilinde “kaydırma”- esnasında erkeklerin fiziksel görüntüye önem verme eğilimi gösterirken kadınların statüye dikkat ettiğini öne sürmektedir. Bu makale, güzellik-statü ve aşk-seks ikiliklerine, mütemadiyen tekrar edilerek günümüzde kalıcı bir mite dönüşmüş, aşk kadını-seks erkeği ikiliği adını vermektedir. Bu eleştirel literatür okuması, heteroseksüel çevrimiçi flört literatüründeki gömülü ikili mantığı sorunsallaştırmaktadır. Böylesi bir ikiliği aşmak adına, duygulanımsal bir dönüş önererek heteroseksüel bireylere odaklanan e-flört çalışmalarında genellikle göz ardı edilen şeylere dikkat çekmektedir; bedene, bedenin kapasitesine ve atmosferler, imajlar gibi beşerî olmayan şeylerin duygulanımsal etkilerine. Temsili olmayan metodolojilerdeki tekniklerden ilham alan bu çalışma; çevrimiçi flört olgusunu çalışmak, heteroseksüel bireylerin motivasyonları ve eş seçim stratejilerini anlamak için video canlandırma, siber flanör ya da teknik yürüyüş ve duyusal yazım tekniklerini önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Temsili olmayan metodoloji, duygulanım, çevrimiçi flört, duygu, eş seçimi

Kaynakça

• Abramova, Olga, et al. (2016). “Gender Differences in Online Dating: What Do We Know So Far? A Systematic Literature Review.” 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI. New York: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). 3858-3867
• Ahmed, Sara. (2014). The Cultural Politics of Emotion (2nd edition). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Alam, Syed Shah, et al. (2018). “Factors Affecting Intention to Use Online Dating Sites in Malaysia.” International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4.28): 192-198.
• Almjeld, Jen. (2014). “A Rhetorician’s Guide to Love: Online Dating Profiles as Remediated Commonplace Books.” Computers and Composition, 32: 71-83.
• Alterowitz, Sheyna Sears-Roberts and Mendelsohn, Gerald A. (2009). “Partner Preferences Across the Life Span: Online Dating by Older Adults.” Psychology and Aging, 24(2): 513-517.
• Anderson, A., Goel, S., Huber, G., Malhotra, N., and Watts, D. J. (2014). ‘Political Ideology and Racial Preferences in Online Dating’, Sociological Science, 1: 28-40.
• Anderson, Ben. (2009). “Affective Atmospheres.” Emotion, Space and Society, 2: 77-81.
• Anderson, Ben and Harrison, Paul. (2010). “The Promise of Non-representational Theories.” Taking-place: Non-representational theories and geography. In Ben Anderson and Paul Harrison (eds.). Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate. 1-34.
• Arum, Richard et al. (2008). “The Romance of College Attendance: Higher Education Stratification and Mate Selection.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 26: 107-121.
• Ash, James. (2009). “Emerging Spatialities of the Screen: Video Games and the Reconfiguration of Spatial Awareness.” Environment and Planning A, 41: 2105-2124.
• Ash, James. (2010a). “Teleplastic Technologies: Charting Practices of Orientation and Navigation in Videogaming.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35: 414–430.
• Ash, James. (2010b). “Architectures of Affect: Anticipating and Manipulating the Event in Processes of Videogame Design and Testing.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28: 653-671.
• Atuk, Tankut (2020). “Cruising in the Research Field: Queer, Feminist, and Cyber Autoethnography.” International Review of Qualitative Research, 13(3): 351-364.
• Atuk, Tankut (forthcoming). “Cruising in-between Immunity and Community: A Virtual Ethnography of Cruising in Istanbul.” Sexualities: 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460720973893
• Badiou, Alain and Truong, Nicolas. (2012). In Praise of Love. London: Serpent’s Tail.
• Başar, Ömer. (2010). Asymmetries of Men and Women in Selecting Partner. MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University.
• Bates, Charlotte. (2014). “Intimate encounters: Making Video Diaries about Embodied Everyday Life.” Video Methods: Social science research in motion. In Charlotte Bates (ed.). New York and London: Routledge. 10-26.
• Bauman, Zygmunt. (2003). Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
• Berlant, Lauren (ed.) (2004). Compassion and the Culture of Politics of an Emotion. London: Routledge.
• Berlant, Lauren. (2011a). “A Properly Political Concept of Love: Three Approaches in Ten Pages.” Cultural Anthropology, 26(4): 683-691.
• Berlant, Lauren. (2011b). Cruel Optimism. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
• Biehl, Joao. (2005). Vita: Life in a Zone of Social Abandonment. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Birger, Jon. (2015). Date-onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game. New York: Workman Publishing.
• Bivens, Rena and Hoque, Anna Shah. (2018) “Programming Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: Infrastructural Failures in the “Feminist” Dating App Bumble.” Canadian Journal of Communication, 43: 441-459.
• Blossfeld, Hans-Peter. (2009). “Educational Assortative Marriage in Comparative Perspective.” Annual Review of Sociology, 35: 513-530.
• Brand, Rebecca J. et al. (2012). “What Is Beautiful Is Good, Even Online: Correlations between Photo Attractiveness and Text Attractiveness in Men’s Online Dating Profiles.” Computers in Human Behavior, 28: 166-170.
• Bruch, Elizabeth. E. and Newman, M. E. J. (2019). “Structure of Online Dating Markets in U. S. Cities.” Sociological Science, 6: 219-234.
• Bryans, Bruce. (2018). Texts So Good He Can’t Ignore: Sassy Texting Secrets for Attracting High-quality Men (and Keeping the One You Want). South Carolina: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.
• Bryant, Katherine and Sheldon, Pavica. (2017). “Cyber Dating in the Age of Mobile Apps: Understanding Motives, Attitudes, and Characteristics of Users.” American Communication Journal, 19(2): 1-15.
• Buss, David M. (1989). “Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1): 1-49.
• Buss, David M. and Schmitt, David P. (1993). “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating.” Psychological Review, 100(2): 204-232.
• Casimiro, Claudia. (2014). “Portuguese Online Dating: Exploring Gender Differences in Self-presentations.” Revista Teknokultura, 11(1): 117-141.
• Casimiro, Claudia. (2015). “Self-presentation in the Portuguese Online Dating Scene: Does Gender Matter?” Online Courtship: Interpersonal interactions across borders. In I. Alev Degim et al. (eds.). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. 71-95.
• Chappetta, Kelsey C. and Barth, Joan M. (2016). “How Gender Role Stereotypes Affect Attraction in an Online Dating Scenario.” Computers in Human Behavior, 63: 738-746.
• Clemens, Chris, et al. (2015). “The Influence of Biological and Personality Traits on Gratifications Obtained through Online Dating Websites.” Computers in Human Behavior, 49: 120-129.
• Condie, Jenna, et al. (2018). “Tinder Matters: Swiping Right to Unlock Research Fields.” In Doing Research in and on the Digital: Research Methods Across Fields of Inquiry. Cristina Costa and Jenna Condie (eds.). London: Routledge. 102-115.
• Curington, Celeste Vaughan, et al. (2015). “Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website.” American Sociological Review, 80(4): 764-788.
• Damasio, Antonio. (2003 [1999]). “From the Feeling of What Happens.” What is an Emotion? In Richard Solomon (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. 152-157.
• David, Gaby and Cambre, Carolina. (2016). “Screened Intimacies: Tinder and the Swipe Logic.” Social Media + Society, April-June 2016: 1-11.
• Davis, Eden M. and Fingerman, Karen L. (2016). “Digital Dating: Online Profile Content of Older and Younger Adults.” Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 71(6): 959-967.
• Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Felix. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Felix. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
• Duguay, Stefanie. (2017). “Dressing Up Tinderella: Interrogating Authenticity Claims on the Mobile Dating App Tinder.” Information, Communication & Society, 20(3): 351-367.
• Duncombe, Jean and Marsden, Dennis. (1998). “’Stepford Wives’ and ‘Hollow Men’? Doing Emotion Work, Doing Gender and ‘Authenticity’ in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships.” Emotions in Social Life. In Gillian Bendelow and Simon J. Williams (eds.). London and New York: Routledge. 209-224.
• Dwivedi, Amitabh Vikram. (2015). “From Arranged to Online: A Study of Courtship Culture in India.” Online Courtship: Interpersonal interactions across borders. In I. Alev Degim, et al. (eds.). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. 133-147.
• Ekşi Sözlük. “OkCupid.” Accessed September 15, 2020. https://eksisozluk.com/okcupid--841343?p=1
• Ettin, Erika. (2014). Love at First Site: Tips and tales for online dating success from a modern-day matchmaker. Texas: River Grove Books.
• Felmlee, Diane H., and Kreager, Derek A. (2017). “The Invisible Contours of Online Dating Communities: A Social Network Perspective.” Journal of Social Structure, 18(1): 1-27.
• Finkel, Eli J., et al. (2012). “Online Dating: A Critical Analysis from the Perspective of Psychological Science.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1): 3-66.
• Frohlick, Susan and Migliardi, Paula. (2011). “Heterosexual Profiling.” Australian Feminist Studies, 26(67): 73-88.
• Fu, Tao (2015). “What Are the Shengnv Looking for in Online Heterosexual Dating and Courtship? A Content Analysis of Shanghainese Women’s Personal Profiles on jiayuan.com.” Online Courtship: Interpersonal Interactions Across Borders. In I. Alev Degim, et al. (eds.). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. 186-207.
• Gatter, Karoline and Hodkinson, Kathleen. (2016). “On the Differences between Tinder versus Online Dating Agencies: Questioning a Myth. An Exploratory Study.” Cogent Psychology, 3: 1-12.
• Gewirtz-Meydan, Ateret and Ayalon, Liat. (2018). “Forever Young: Visual Representations of Gender and Age in Online Dating Sites for Older Adults.” Journal of Women & Aging, 30(6): 484-502.
• Gillespie, Tarleton. (2015). “Platforms Intervene.” Social Media + Society, April-June: 1-2.
• Green, Deidre Nicole. (2018). “The Freedom to Love: On the Unclaimability of (Maternal) Love.” Analize – Journal of Gender and Feminist Studies, 11: 125-149.
• Hardey, Michael. (2002). “Life beyond the Screen: Embodiment and Identity through the Internet.” The Sociological Review, 50(4): 570-585.
• Harris, Anne M. (2016). Video as Method: Understanding Qualitative Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
• He, Qiao-Qiao, et al. (2013). “Potentials-attract or Likes-attract in Human Mate Choice in China.” PLoS ONE, 8(4): e59457.
• Hemmings, Clare. (2005). “Invoking Affect.” Cultural Studies, 19(5): 548-567.
• Hennion, Antoine. (2007). “Those Things That Hold Us Together: Taste and Sociology.” Cultural Sociology, 1(1): 97-114.
• Hess, Aaron and Flores, Carlos. (2016). “Simply More Than Swiping Left: A Critical Analysis of Toxic Masculine Performances on Tinder Nightmares.” New Media & Society, 1-18.
• Highmore, Ben. (2016a). “Taste After Bourdieu.” New Formations: A Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics, 87: 159-163. Highmore, Ben. (2016b). “Taste as Feeling.” New Literary History, 47(4): 547-566.
• Hitsch, Günter J., et al. (2010a). “Matching and Sorting in Online Dating.” American Economic Review, 100(1): 130-163.
• Hitsch, Günter J., et al. (2010b). “What Makes You Click? – Mate Preferences in Online Dating.” Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8: 393-427.
• Hochschild, A. R. (1983) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of human feeling, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
• Hochschild, Arlie Russell. (2003). “Love and Gold.” In The Commercialization of Intimate Life: Notes from Home and Work. California: University of California Press. 185-197.
• hooks, bell. (2004). The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney: Atria Books.
• Huber, Gregory A., and Neil Malhotra. (2017). “Political Homophily in Social Relationships: Evidence from Online Dating Behavior.” The Journal of Politics, 79(1): 269-283.
• Illouz, Eva. (2007). Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
• Ingold, Tim. (2015). “Foreword.” Non-representational Methodologies: Re-envisioning Research. In Phillip Vannini (ed.). New York and London: Routledge. vii-x.
• Jakobsson, Niklas and Lindholm, Henrik. (2014). “Ethnic Preferences in Internet Dating: A Field Experiment.” Marriage and Family Review, 50(4): 307-317.
• Johnson, James H. (2017). Dating_missrepresentation.com: Black Women’s Lived Love-hate Relationship with Online Dating. PhD Dissertation, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
• Kreager, Derek A., et al. (2014). “Where Have All the Good Men Gone? Gendered Interactions in Online Dating.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2): 387-410.
• Lange, Benjamin P., et al. (2019). “The Name Is the Game: Nicknames as Predictors of Personality and Mating Strategy in Online Dating.” Frontiers in Communication, 4(3): 1-11.
• Lange, Rense, et al. (2015). “Drive to Marry and Social Prescription in Chinese Online Daters.” Interpersona, 9(2): 135-147.
• Laurier, Eric and Philo, Chris. (2006). “Possible Geographies: A Passing Encounter in a Café.” Area, 38 353–364.
• Leys, Ruth. (2010). “How Did Fear Become a Scientific Object and What Kind of Object Is It?” Representations, 110(1): 66-104.
• Leys, Ruth. (2011). “The Turn to Affect: A Critique.” Critical Inquiry, 37(3): 434-472.
• Light, Ben, et al. (2018). “The Walkthrough Method: An Approach to the Study of Apps.” New Media & Society, 20(3): 881-900.
• Lin, Ken-Hou and Lundquist, Jennifer. (2013). “Mate Selection in Cyberspace: The Intersection of Race, Gender, and Education.” American Journal of Sociology, 119: 183-215.
• Lindsay, Megan. (2015). “Performative Acts of Gender in Online Dating: An Auto-ethnography Comparing Sites.” Online Courtship: Interpersonal interactions across borders. In I. Alev Degim, et al. (eds.). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. 242-261.
• Lutz, Catherine. (1988). Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesian Atoll and Their Challenge to Western Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Martin, Emily. (2013). “The Potentiality of Ethnography and the Limits of Affect Theory.” Current Anthropology, 54(7): 149-158.
• Massumi, Brian. (1995). “The Autonomy of Affect.” Cultural Critique, 31: 83-109.
• McGloin, Rory and Denes, Amanda. (2018). “Too Hot to Trust: Examining the Relationship between Attractiveness, Trustworthiness, and Desire to Date in Online Dating.” New Media & Society, 20(3): 919-936.
• McGrath, Allison R., et al. (2016). “Differing Shades of Color: Online Dating Preferences of Biracial Individuals.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(11): 1920-1942.
• McWilliams, Summer and Barrett, Anne E. (2014). “Online Dating in Middle and Later Life: Gendered Expectations and Experiences.” Journal of Family Issues, 35(3): 411-436.
• Menkin, Josephine. A., et al. (2015). “Online Dating Across the Life Span: Users’ Relationship Goals.” Psychology and Aging, 30(4): 987-993.
• Myers, Fred R. (1988). “The Logic and Meaning of Anger among Pintupi Aborigines.” Man, 23(4): 589-610.
• Newett, Lyndsay, et al. (2017). “Forming Connections in the Digital Era: Tinder, a New Tool in Young Australian Intimate Life.” Journal of Sociology, 1-16.
• OkCupid. https://www.okcupid.com/. Accessed September 17, 2019.
• Ong, David. (2016). “Education and Income Attraction: An Online Dating Field Experiment.” Applied Economics, 48(19): 1816-1830.
• Ong, David and Wang, Jue. (2015). “Income Attraction: An Online Dating Field Experiment.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 111: 13-22.
• Oyer, Paul. (2014). Everything I Ever Needed to Know About Economics I Learned from Online Dating. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
• Paterson, Mark. (2009). “Haptic Geographies: Ethnography, Haptic Knowledges and Sensuous Dispositions.” Progress in Human Geography, 33: 766–788.
• Peters, Sierra and Salzsieder, Hannah. (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.
• Phua, Voon Chin and Moody, Keyana P. (2019). “Online Dating in Singapore: The Desire to Have Children.” Sexuality & Culture, 23: 494-506.
• Pink, Sarah. (2009). Doing Sensory Ethnography. London: SAGE.
• Pink, Sarah. (2012). Situating Everyday Life: Practices and places. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Potarca, Gina and Mills, Melinda (2015). “Racial Preferences in Online Dating across European Countries.” European Sociological Review, 31(3): 326-341.
• Pozsar, Marie Henriete, et al. (2018). “Dating Apps in the Lives of Young Romanian Women. A Preliminary Study.” Analize – Journal of Gender and Feminist Studies, 11: 216-238.
• Ranzini, Giulia and Lutz, Christoph. (2017). “Love at First Swipe? Explaining Tinder Self-presentation and Motives.” Mobile Media & Communication, 5(1): 80-101.
• Rosaldo, Michelle Z. (1983). “The Shame of Headhunters and the Autonomy of Self.” Ethos, 11(3): 135-151.
• Roscoe, Philip and Chillas, Shiona. (2014). “The State of Affairs: Critical Performativity and the Online Dating Industry.” Organization, 21(6): 797-820.
• Rudder, Christian. (2014). Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One’s Looking). New York: Crown Publishers.
• Scheff, Thomas J. (1988). “Shame and Conformity: The Deference-emotion System.” American Sociological Review, 53(3): 395-406.
• Schwarz, Sascha and Hassebruck, Manfred. (2012). “Sex and Age Differences in Mate-selection Preferences.” Human Nature, 23: 447-466.
• Seta, Gabriela de and Zhang, Ge. (2015). “Stranger Stranger or Lonely Lonely? Young Chinese and Dating Apps between the Locational, the Mobile and the Social.” Online Courtship: Interpersonal Interactions Across Borders. In I. Alev Degim, et al. (eds.). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. 167-185.
• Shaw, Frances. (2016) “’Bitch I Said Hi’: The Bye Felipe Campaign and Discursive Activism in Mobile Dating Apps.” Social Media + Society, October-December: 1-10.
• Skopek, Jan, et al. (2011). “The Gendered Dynamics of Age Preferences: Empirical Evidence from Online Dating.” Journal of Family Research, 23(3): 267-290.
• Snitko, Jessica R. (2016). Millennial Matchmaker or Just a Game? The Uses and Gratifications of Tinder. MA thesis, Purdue University.
• Spinoza, Baruch. (1994). A Spinoza Reader: The Ethics and Other Works. New Jersey and West Sussex: Princeton University Press.
• Sprecher, Susan, et al. (2008). “TheBusinessofLove.com: Relationship Initiation at Internet Matchmaking Services.” Handbook of Relationship Initiation. In Susan Sprecher, et al. (eds.). New York and Hove: Psychology Press. 249-265.
• Sritharan, Rajees, et al. (2010). “I Think I Like You: Spontaneous and Deliberate Evaluations of Potential Romantic Partners in an Online Dating Context.” European Journal of Social Psychology, 40: 1062-1077.
• Stewart, Kathleen. (2007). Ordinary Affects. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
• Stewart, Kathleen. (2011). “Atmospheric Attunements.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29: 445-453.
• Stewart, Kathleen. (2017). “In the World That Affect Proposed.” Cultural Anthropology, 32(2): 192-198.
• Stoller, Paul. (2004). “Sensuous Ethnography, African Persuasions, and Social Knowledge.” Qualitative Inquiry, 106: 817–35.
• Su, Xixian and Hu, Haibo. (2019). “Gender-specific Preference in Online Dating.” EPJ Data Science, 8: 12.
• Sumter, Sindy R., et al. (2017). “Love Me Tinder: Untangling Emerging Adults’ Motivations for Using the Dating Application Tinder.” Telematics and Informatics, 34: 67-78.
• Thomas, Reuben J. (2019). “Online Exogamy Reconsidered: Estimating the Internet’s Effects on Racial, Educational, Religious, Political and Age Assortative Mating.” Social Forces, 98(3): 1257-1286.
• Thrift, Nigel. (2007). Non-representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. New York: Routledge.
• Thrift, Nigel. (2010). “Understanding the Material Practices of Glamour.” The Affect Theory Reader. In Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth (eds.). Durham and London: Duke University Press. 289-308.
• Thrift, Nigel and Dewsbury, John-David. (2000). “Dead Geographies – and How to Make Them Live.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18: 411-432.
• Timmermans, Elisabeth and Caluwé, Elien de. (2017). “To Tinder or not to Tinder, That’s the Question: An Individual Differences Perspective to Tinder Use and Motives.” Personality and Individual Differences, 110: 74-79.
• Tommasi, Natalia. (2004). Differences Between Heterosexual Males and Females in Presentation of Self and Qualities Desired in a Partner in Online Dating Services. PhD Dissertation, The University of Texas.
• Tsunokai, Glenn T., et al. (2014). “Online Dating Preferences of Asian Americans.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(6): 796-814.
• Uiorean, Oana. (2018). “Love as an Instrument of Oppression: Plato’s Symposium and Contemporary Gender Relations.” Analize – Journal of Gender and Feminist Studies, 11: 85-101.
• Vannini, Philip. (ed.) (2015). Non-representational Methodologies: Re-envisioning Research. New York and London: Routledge. Ward, Janelle. (2016). “What Are You Doing on Tinder? Impression Management on a Matchmaking Mobile App.” Information, Communication & Society, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1252412
• Webb, Amy. (2013). Data, a Love Story: How I Cracked the Online Dating Code and Met My Match. New York: Penguin.
• White, Daniel. (2011). The Affect-emotion Gap: Soft-power, Nation Branding, and Cultural Administration in Japan. PhD Dissertation, Rice University.
• Zakelj, Tjasa, et al. (2015). “Internet Dating as a Project: The Commodification and Rationalization of Online Dating.” Druzboslovne Razprave, 31(78): 7-24.