What Happens After You Both Swipe Right: A Statistical Description of Mobile Dating Communications

Mobile dating applications (MDAs) have skyrocketed in popularity in the last few years, with popular MDA Tinder alone matching 26 million pairs of users per day. In addition to becoming an influential part of modern dating culture, MDAs facilitate a unique form of mediated communication: dyadic mobile text messages between pairs of users who are not already acquainted. Furthermore, mobile dating has paved the way for analysis of these digital interactions via massive sets of data generated by the instant matching and messaging functions of its many platforms at an unprecedented scale. This paper looks at one of these sets of data: metadata of approximately two million conversations, containing 19 million messages, exchanged between 400,000 heterosexual users on an MDA. Through computational analysis methods, this study offers the very first large scale quantitative depiction of mobile dating as a whole. We report on differences in how heterosexual male and female users communicate with each other on MDAs, differences in behaviors of dyads of varying degrees of social separation, and factors leading to "success"-operationalized by the exchange of phone numbers between a match. For instance, we report that men initiate 79% of conversations--and while about half of the initial messages are responded to, conversations initiated by men are more likely to be reciprocated. We also report that the length of conversations, the waiting times, and the length of messages have fat-tailed distributions. That said, the majority of reciprocated conversations lead to a phone number exchange within the first 20 messages.

[1]  I. N. A. C. I. J. H. Fowler Book Review: Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. , 2009 .

[2]  Aaron Smith,et al.  Online Dating & Relationships , 2014 .

[3]  Coye Cheshire,et al.  Who's Right and Who Writes: People, Profiles, Contacts, and Replies in Online Dating , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  M. Hallahan,et al.  The Medium Makes a Difference , 2007 .

[5]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  Evolution of Conversations in the Age of Email Overload , 2015, WWW.

[6]  Larry D. Rosen,et al.  The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[7]  J. Walther,et al.  Just say ‘‘no thanks’’: Romantic rejection in computer-mediated communication , 2011 .

[8]  Christian Rudder,et al.  Dataclysm: Who We are (When We Think No One's Looking) , 2014 .

[9]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Modeling bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[10]  Paul W. Eastwick,et al.  Online Dating , 2012, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[11]  Fraser J. M. Reid,et al.  Text appeal: the psychology of SMS texting and its implications for the design of mobile phone interfaces , 2004 .

[12]  Stephanie Tom Tong,et al.  The Confirmation and Disconfirmation of Expectancies in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2015, Commun. Res..

[13]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Romantic partnerships and the dispersion of social ties: a network analysis of relationship status on facebook , 2013, CSCW.

[14]  Tasuku Igarashi,et al.  Gender differences in social network development via mobile phone text messages: A longitudinal study , 2005 .

[15]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Lognormal distributions of user post lengths in Internet discussions - a consequence of the Weber-Fechner law? , 2013, EPJ Data Science.

[16]  M. Whitty,et al.  Cyberspace Romance: The Psychology of Online Relationships , 2006 .