Eine interessante Studie behandelt die Frage, ob Männer bzw Frauen auf Tinder positiv bzw negativ auf einen bestimmten Grad der Ausbildung reagieren:
To ensure that the pictures we used for the profiles were similar in terms of attractiveness, we scored 32 (16 male, 16 female) different pictures
on Amazon Mechanical Turk (hereafter: ‘MTurk’),14 and selected 8 pictures (four male, four female) that 493 workers on MTurk judged to be similar in level of attractiveness.
• Master (5 years) in Business Engineering (hereafter: ‘Ma+’)
• Master (4 years) in Public Administration and Management (hereafter: ‘Ma–’)
• Bachelor (3 years) in Business Management (hereafter: ‘Ba+’)
• Bachelor (3 years) in Office Management (hereafter: ‘Ba–’).The ranking of these education levels was based on the average starting wage for graduates from each of these studies when leaving school. Graduates with a Master in Business Engineering earn the most, graduates with a Master in Public Administration and Management earn the second most, and so on.
Die Tabelle muss man so lesen, dass „Male Subjects“ die Männer auf Tinder sind, die auf die Profile reagiert haben. Sie starteten also 472 Unterhaltungen mit den Frauen, während die Frauen 5(!) starteten. Die Männer gaben den Frauen 1100 Likes, die Frauen den Männern 81 (!). Von 1.800 Frauen blieben (in diesem recht eingeschränkten Szenario) 684 ohne Match, während 1.116 ein Match hatten, die männlichen Profile erhielten von den Frauen 1719 Mal kein Match und nur 81 mal ein Match.
Table 1 gives an overview of the frequency of the different outcomes. When considering all subjects, about one third (33.2%) of our profiles (hereafter: ‘the evaluated profiles’) received a (super)like.However, this conceals remarkable differences between the male subjects and female subjects. Indeed, male subjects (super)liked 61.9% of the female evaluated profiles, while female subjects (super)liked only 4.5% of the male evaluated profiles. This finding is in line with previous research on online dating in general (Todd et al., 2007; Fiore, Taylor, Zhong, Mendelsohn, & Cheshire, 2010) and on Tinder in particular (Tyson, Pera, Haddadi, & Seto, 2016). Indeed, Tyson et al. (2016, p. 1) argue that this is due to a feedback loop: ‘men are driven to be less selective in the hope of attaining a match, whilst women are increasingly driven to be more selective, safe in the knowledge that any profiles they like will probably result in a match’. Additionally, this finding is in line with previous research in evolutionary psychology, and more specifically with parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972). This theory argues that women have a greater parental investment and are therefore looking for the most high-quality partner possible, in order to obtain high-quality offspring, therefore being more selective. Conversely, men have a smaller parental investment and are looking to maximise the quantity of offspring, resulting in them being less selective.Very few subjects used the superlike option, i.e. only 1.4% of all matches came about in this way. This finding is in line with the limited amount of superlikes available to Tinder users (see footnote 10). Finally, we note that male subjects started a conversation with the female evaluated profiles much more often (42.3%) than the other way around (6.2%). The explanation for this finding is similar to the explanation in the previous paragraph for the higher selectiveness of women (compared with men) with regard to (super)liking a certain profile.