- By the end of the semester, you should compile an annotated bibliography with at least ten sources that you believe will be central to your research projects.
Annotated Bibliography:
Christensen, Mackenzie A. 2021. ‘“Tindersluts” and “Tinderellas”: Examining the Digital Affordances Shaping the (Hetero)Sexual Scripts of Young Womxn on Tinder.’ Sociological Perspectives 64(3): 432–449.
Christensens’s “Tindersluts” and “Tinderellas” piece looks at how individual participants may choose to follow young adult sexual and romantic scripts or develop a “hybrid hookup script.” Christensen describes how womxn of color are most likely to opt out of traditional cultural scripts. Similar to other articles that we have looked at, this article discusses how Tinder functions at least for these womxn more as a hook-up app than dating app because of its game-ified features. The womxn, however, still had to follow more traditional dating scripts that are gendered because they did not want to be labeled in certain demeaning ways, if they are too sexually forward. The article concludes with promoting that tech developers take this information to create apps that produce more equitable outcomes, as Tinder seems to create better outcomes for men and male sexual desires.
García-Gómez, Antonio. 2020. “Discursive representation of masculinity and femininity in Tinder and Grindr: Hegemonic masculinity, feminine devaluation and femmephobia.” Discourse & Society, 31(4): 390–410.
García-Gómez’s piece is interesting, as it looks at how identity is constructed on both Tinder and Grindr in a gay versus straight man comparison. It also shows how men in general perpetuate a policing of femininity which informs how they develop their own identities and enact their own masculinity. Regardless of whether the men identify as overall masculine or feminine, they try to justify femininity in a way that clearly shows opposition to it across both straight and queer. The negative association with femininity shows how these men construct their profiles and their identity to these apps, and it will be interesting to consider alongside construction of identity. However, some straight men also choose to endorse feminine practices as a way to make them seem more likeable to the women they are interested in.
Goffman, Erving. 1956. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Goffman’s book helps ground our work in classical sociological theory, and it helps makes sense of how people’s presentations of self appear on Tinder. Goffman introduces his dramaturgical model to help make sense of how individuals create certain performances in specific social situations, dependent on setting, audience, and timing. Goffman ties this to the “front” or front stage of performance, which we can physically see when someone acts out a performance (13). In contrast, there is additional a “back” or back stage of performance in which a performance is thought out and potentially fabricated (69). These two parts of Goffman’s work will be most relevant to our project, as we will be looking at how identity is constructed on this app. The front stage is clearly the profile itself, while there is a back stage element of curation as well.
Han, C. W. 2021. Racial Erotics: Gay Men of Color, Sexual Racism, and the Politics of Desire. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
In Han’s book, he considers the experience of gay men of color and discusses how gay culture and community has progressively become “whitewashed” and how sexual racism plagues the gay community in a way that prioritizes whiteness (11). While the text does not mention Tinder explicitly, it does engage in a larger discourse about how gay men of color present themselves and respond to stereotypes promoted by white gay men. Han introduces the topic of the “good gay,” which looks at how certain gay men, most often white, privileged, and embodying normative behavior, are seen as having more social worth and worthy of support (18). Han’s work also touches on the topic of “erotic capital,” which looks at the intersection of “bodily capital…, gender capital…, racial capital…, age capital… and class” (21). These terms will provide a useful lens in terms of looking into how gay men of color fair on apps like Tinder, which will be particularly interesting in the context of predominantly white Maine.
Hanson, Kenneth R. 2021. “Becoming a (Gendered) Dating App User: An Analysis of How Heterosexual College Students Navigate Deception and Interactional Ambiguity on Dating Apps.” Sexuality & Culture 25:75–92.
Hanson’s article specifically tackles the question of how straight college students define dating apps and explores how gendered differences come into play here. While the overall contextualization of these data apps revolves along lighthearted views of the apps as “fun” or a “joke,” women shared different concerns about personal safety in contrast to men, who held less concerns (83). Hanson’s data came from interviews with students primarily pursuing sociology, criminology, and biological science majors, and it focused primarily on their experience with Tinder, the most popular of the apps. The students mention the stigma of using the app, particularly in the college context, and how students fear it might make them look desperate. They also found instant gratification in the app as well, which made the app more desirable to them. In contrast to Mackee’s reading, the students, particularly female, saw Tinder as more of a hookup app, and they mention struggling to find men that were relationship oriented.
Mackee, Freddy. July-September 2016. “Social Media in Gay London: Tinder as an Alternative to Hook-Up App.” Social Media + Society: 1-10. Accessed 3 April 2022.
Mackee’s article explores gay men’s usage and perceptions of Tinder in the context of London’s gay scene through ethnographic research with men using these platforms through both online and face to face interactions. Mackee’s research group does has some limitations, as it consisted primarily of white men and is now a bit dated, as Tinder’s platform and features have changed. He does, however, successfully establish how gay men perceived Tinder at the time, as an app oppositional to gay apps that often more closely centered hooking up over actual dating. The research brings up questions of what it means for gay men to use an app made for straight people, and why can gay apps fail to meet this desire from gay men to have an actual dating app. Mackee points out how the connection between Facebook and Tinder, which is now somewhat outdated, gives Tinder a legitimacy and wholesomeness that other gay dating apps such as Grindr lack. He compares profiles between the same men’s profiles on Grindr and Tinder and sees a much less sexualized and “nicer” appearance on Tinder than on Grindr (8). He introduces the concept of “nice gay men” to show how Tinder presentations differ, showing how these men have multiple selves and presentations, reminding of Goffman’s work (8).
Miller, Brandon. 2020. “A Picture is Worth 1000 Messages: Investigating Face and Body Photos on Mobile Dating Apps for Men Who Have Sex with Men.” Journal of Homosexuality 67(13): 1798-1822.
Miller’s article looks at how men present on MSM dating apps, particularly on whether they disclose their face or their body. The findings reinforce assumptions that one might already have about these apps and the men on them. The men who showed their faces were more likely to be out, use the app longer and more often. The shirtless men often had more of a body and muscularity focus and often would share anti-effeminacy attitudes. This research relates directly back to our considerations of Goffman and presentation, and the work also cites Walther’s “Selective presentation” as well (1801). The questions for participants in the study was broken down in a variety of categories, most on sliding numerical scales. The research reinforced the highly sexualized nature of these apps, and the hyper fixation of gay men on their and other’s bodies. This research directly builds of MacKee’s article on men on dating apps in London and helps give a better sense of the self presentation gay men go through on this app. One thing that this article lacked was a discussion of race and maybe how class could play into this, though it brought out interesting discussions on femininity and muscularity that were talked about less in depth in other articles.
Peck, Alana J., Benton Johnson, and Donald A. Luidens. 2021. “Left, right, Black, and White: how White college students talk about their inter- and intra- racial swiping preferences on Tinder.” Sociological Spectrum 41(4): 304-321.
Peck, Berkowitz, and Tinkler’s article looks at how sexual racism plays into how white, heterosexual college students use Tinder. The authors tie back this masked racial preference to colorblind racist ideology that reflect larger issues of stereotypes, generalizations and also class considerations. The term “preference” allows these students to avoid overtly racist language that allow racism to be masked in these discussions. The authors’ sample of Southeastern students is interesting because they are interviewing a more conservative student body that could differ from how Bowdoin students would engage with Tinder. White men tended to be the most overtly racist but white women also shared many less overtly racist values too. They also mention that gay men tend to be the most explicit with their racial preferences, a group not looked at in this study.
Stoian, Maria-Steluța. Summer 2019. “‘Friends, dates and everything in between’: Tinder as a mediating technology.” Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology 10 (1): 49-57.
Stoian’s work looks as how Tinder functions as mediating technology that affects user experience. She looks at the mediation frame of this app, which breaks down the idea that the app is truly neutral as it can affect the perceptions and actions of its users. Additionally, the app carries a mediating “script” in which it guides the way in which a user acts on the app (51). The article briefly mentions gamification, which is a really interesting factor of mediating experience, but the article does not go into a deeper discussion of it. This article challenges the role of Tinder as a neutral force, and it begins to show how the platform itself greatly can impact user experience.
Ward, Janelle. 2017. “What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app.” Information, Communication & Society 20(11): 1644-1659.
Janelle Ward’s piece introduces the idea of “impression management” which mediates user experience on the app (1644). Impression management involves your presentation of self to others, which translates to potential partners or romantic interests, and it was originally coined by psychologist Mark Leary. Ward wants to see what impression management practices occur on Tinder, and it directly builds off our earlier work from Goffman, as it helps us understand how people might choose to present on this app. Ward found that “[p]hotos are selected in an attempt to present an ideal yet authentic self,” which reflects our findings and shows how there could be individuals who do see their profiles as authentic representations of self (1654). Ward also mentions that users describe “courting rules” that greatly mirror the hybrid hook-up script discussed in Christensen’s article (1654).