{"id":84,"date":"2019-05-03T10:41:34","date_gmt":"2019-05-03T02:41:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/?p=84"},"modified":"2019-05-03T10:45:23","modified_gmt":"2019-05-03T02:45:23","slug":"finding-the-balance-between-the-authentic-and-ideal-self-in-the-self-presentation-of-users-on-mobile-dating-app-tinder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/2019\/05\/03\/finding-the-balance-between-the-authentic-and-ideal-self-in-the-self-presentation-of-users-on-mobile-dating-app-tinder\/","title":{"rendered":"Finding the Balance between the Authentic and Ideal Self in the Self-Presentation of Users on Mobile Dating App, Tinder"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

 <\/strong>
Abstract:<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper explores the balance that Tinder users seek to attain in terms of the level of their authentic yet ideal self-presentation on the dating app. By considering factors such as other social networking sites, impression management, projection on ones most desirable and ideal self, and traditional dating sites, it is found that the user\u2019s yearning to appear desirable to potential partners is balanced equally in part of the user\u2019s wish to appear as authentic as their real self, offline. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Individuals have long been devising the means\nfor presenting themselves in the most desirable way possible to potential\npartners even before the rise of mobile dating apps like Tinder (Ward, 2017).\nFrom newspaper clippings to dressing oneself up before entering the public\nsphere, the departure from these old-school ways have transformed the way in\nwhich individuals choose to portray themselves, consequently introducing\nacademics to question the level of authenticity that Tinder users choose to display\non the platform. In this paper I have chosen to address the level of\nauthenticity and self-presentation seen on Tinder profiles through the relation\nto other social networking sites such a Facebook, impression management\nstrategies, the desire to project one\u2019s most desirable self, the difference\nbetween traditional dating sites and Tinder and then tying all of the above in\nwith credibility. Tinder users, like many individuals seeking to find\nacceptance in the presentation of their identity, must find the right balance\nof their real and authentic self, yet enough of their ideal self to appear\nappealing to potential partners on the dating platform. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social Networking Sites\n<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unlike the popular social networking site\nFacebook, which seeks to connect its users with friends and families \u2013\nbasically any other individual the user already knows or may be connected to\nalready outside of this proposed medium (Ranzini,& Lutz, 2017) \u2013 Tinder, a mobile dating app, does the opposite with a\npurpose to connect its users with potential partners, therefore pressuring the\nuser to project their best self forward. This is then when the level of\nauthentic self-presentation is heavily questioned. With\nFacebook becoming a norm for personal communication, the freedom to explore\nidentity experimentation has been lost, hence compelling users to identify and\n\u2018perform\u2019 with their actual rather than their ideal self on the platform (Ranzini & Lutz, 2017).\nDue to this, the level of authenticity of Facebook users can be seen as widely\nlegitimized. Because of this, Tinder uses Facebook to help legitimize their\nplatform and its users. Duguay (2017) writes about how the welcome screen of\nTinder prompts users to login through their Facebook account, synchronizing\ntheir name, age, location, friends list and \u2018likes\u2019 on Facebook. Seeing as how\nthe dating app may present some problems through meeting strangers and sharing\nlocations, the app uses Facebook as its safeguard for any potential misgivings\nthat may arise. This situates Facebook as the means for verifying that the\nother user is in fact \u2018real\u2019, as CEO Mark Zuckerberg\u2019s assertion with its \u2018real\nname requirement\u2019 policy (Duguay, 2017, Van Der Nagel, and Frith, 2015).\nBy aligning Tinder with Facebooks need for its authentic users, we are\nencouraged to believe that the users of Tinder are as \u2018rea\u2019 as the family and\nfriends we know and come to communicate with in our daily lives through\nFacebook. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Impression Management<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Impression management\nis widely demonstrated through Tinder and it begins with choosing one\u2019s profile\nphoto. Unlike Facebook, Tinder users heavily rely on it to make a \u2018good first\nimpression\u2019 to its implicated audience. Users attempt to control and guide\npotential partners impressions through controlled methods by manipulating\nsetting, behaviour and appearance (Goffman, 1959). Unlike in \u2018real life\u2019, these\nusers are able to have more control over their environment and are therefore\nbetter situated in performing their \u2018best selves\u2019, therefore questioning the\nlevel of authenticity they are portraying. Due to the reduced cues and\nincreased control demonstrated by the platform, its users are easily able to\nuse Tinder as a novel technological environment for impression management.\nAlthough Tinder synchronises its user\u2019s basic information derived from their\nFacebook account such as their name and age, the users have the freedom to\nchoose what photos to display and an optional text to give a brief \u2018bio\u2019. They\ncan also choose to link their Instagram accounts to their account to allow the\ncurious an even \u2018deeper\u2019 insight into their lives. Although we can claim that\nthe level of authentic self can be presented through the linking of these other\nsocial networking sites, Tinder is still a platform that allow its users to\nexplore other and ideal selves of their own identity. Past research has\nsuggested that in the context of mediated dating environment, individuals are\nincredibly motivated to control the impression they create (Ward, 2017),\nimpression management thus takes an important role in allowing users to\nhighlight information that they perceive to be desirable to potential partners.\nRather than openly lying, users have found a way to employ strategic authenticity\nby portraying their best selves on the platform (Ranzini & Lutz, 2017). This step of\nimpression management is considered impression construction, this can be done\nwhen a Tinder user decides what to write on their bio or which picture to\ndisplay (Duguay, 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Identity can be\nincredibly ambiguous in the disembodied world of the virtual community, but\nhighly essential when communicating and understanding with others online\n(Donath, 1999).\nUnlike Facebook, there is a drastic difference in the way an individual\ncommunicates with their connected peers when compared to an \u2018unknown audience\u2019\nof potential platforms on Tinder. Goffman (1959) famously writes about the\nperformance of individuals, referring to the back-stage \u2013 the private area,\nwhere the individual can relax from their \u2018play\u2019 and the front stage, where the\nindividuals can be seen \u2018playing their part\u2019 \u2013 the observational space, in this\ncase, the user\u2019s Tinder profile. Users have the freedom to choose whoever they\nwish to be, deliberately picking claims of self that can closely resemble or\ndiffer from the reality of their true selves depending on what they believe can\nbe seen as most desirable for their audience. For example, a user may choose to\ndisplay pictures of themselves with the most likes on Facebook, their argument\nbeing that this has received this much attention by my current peers, this will\nsurely draw the attention of a potential partner. Although the negative stigma\nthat has surrounded dating apps like Tinder is slowly shrinking due to the\nincrease popularity of said platforms, (Ranzini & Lutz 2017) the degree of trust in\nauthenticity of the users is and can still be seen as questionable. Duguay,\n(2017) writes about how mobile dating\napps and sites such as Tinder require the need to confirm that potential partners\n\u201care not misinterpreting themselves and are safe to meet in person.\u201d (p. 351).\nAt the end of the day, users can look through another individual\u2019s bio, photos,\nsocial media account, but can still be surprised by what greets them in \u2018real\nlife\u2019 upon meeting with said individual. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Desirable Self<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a fragile\nbalance between managing the impression of others and authenticity (Mascheroni, Vincent, and Jiminez, 2015),\nand this is the scale that Tinder users struggle to balance. Just how much of\ntheir real and \u2018authentic\u2019 self is enough to appeal to be \u2018real\u2019, and to mix\nthat with their ideal or \u2018best\u2019 self in representing their identity through\nTinder. Users seek closure in the likeness of their profiles with other users,\nthe self-presentations are peer-mediated and legitimated through the matches\nthey receive. It is not uncommon for individuals to strive for an identity\nwhich can be seen as acceptable and desired by others (Van Der Nagel, and Frith, 2015).\nIn relation to this, research has shown that the level of authentic versus\nideal self-presentation is in correlation to the individual\u2019s self-esteem. Ranzini, G., & Lutz, C. (2017) believe\nthat users with higher self-esteem are more likely to portray more authentic\nand less deceptive selves on the platform. These users are expected to\nsummarize their identity through the reduced cues offered by the platform and\nhope for the success of a \u2018match\u2019. This puts a massive pressure on presenting\none\u2019s best self on what they believe their ideal potential partner could be\nlooking for, therefore putting an emphasis on a more deceptive self.  Unlike in face-to-face communication, certain\nhabits and characteristics are much easier to conceal. It is easier for an\nindividual to say, \u201cI can speak and understand five different languages\u201d than\nfor them to demonstrate this skill. However, through online communication there\nare other things an individual still cannot conceal, such as improper grammar\nor lack of English skills. An individual can only reach as far as their current\nand real identity will allow them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Traditional Dating\nSites <\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although\nTinder is relatively new, the act of meeting a potential partner online is not\n(Ward, 2017). What puts Tinder apart from the old and traditional dating\nwebsites like OKCupid and eHarmony, however, is the lack of detailed\ndescription being asked of the user. The platform uses GPS and connect others\nwithin a chosen radius, therefore strengthening the connection between online\nand offline and giving the users an incentive to meet one another outside of\nthe app (Ranzini & Lutz 2017). The parallel existence of the two\nindividuals of both online and offline, knowing just how far away the other\nperson is allows users a sense of security and authenticity in the realness of\nthe other user. A feat that traditional dating sites have struggled to do so\nwith, and therefore creating the negative stigma around the distrust of who may\nbe on the other side of the screen. Duguay (2017) suggests that this\nco-presence and mobile intimacy allows for the intensifying immediacy as well\nas ability for users to meet. The flexibility of mobile app dating has allowed\nfor the flexible boundaries between the online and offline worlds, with users\noften taking their conversations straight out of Tinder and straight onto a\ndifferent social networking site to communicate such as Facebook or to even\ntext. Turkle (1997) argues that the blurring boundaries between these two\ndiffering platforms present new opportunities for the individuals to then\nportray a truer and more authentic self. By using a separate platform to\nfurther communicate with one another, the user is able to validate their\nauthentic self by sharing more information to present with consent. For\nexample, by sharing and choosing to communicate on Facebook after a Tinder\nencounter, the individual is allowing the potential partner access to whatever\nor whomever may be displayed on their profile. This can range from embarrassing\ntagged photos by family members or friends, to recent activities performed by\nthe individual.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tinder\nusers most prominent concerns are the act of misinterpreting themselves,\nexaggerating or lying in their profiles (Duguay, 2017). At the end of the day\nthe only person who loses is the individual who lies about themselves. When an\nindividual has more control over their self-presentation as is the case of\nsocial environments like dating apps, in comparison to a face-to-face\nsituation, they are more prone to portray their best self-possible. The level\nof authenticity may stagger but it is not lost as identity can be seen as an\nextension of oneself (Anderson, 2005 as cited by Duguay, 2017).  Research has shown that users are constantly\nchanging and updating their profiles, striving to achieve the ideal balance\nbetween authentic and ideal selves in hope to not only demonstrate the kind of\nperson they are but what their ideal potential partner may be like (Ward,\n2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tinder\nis a classic platform to experiment on self-presentation and identity, along\nwith the level of authenticity of its participating users. The struggle to\nbalance the authentic and ideal self-presentation of Tinder users continue as\nindividuals work hard in concealing enough personal information to keep their\nsecurity and safety but display enough to remain authentic and real and\ndesirable to potential partners. The projection of identity cannot always be\ndeemed as authentic, as even in the public and private sphere, individuals are\nstill only displaying a \u2018performance \u2018of their extended selves (Goffman, 1959).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and deception\nin the virtual community. In P. Kollock, & M.A. Smith (Eds.), Communities\nin Cyberspace<\/em> (pp. 29-59). New York: Routledge.
\nhttp:\/\/smg.media.mit.edu\/people\/Judith\/Identity\/IdentityDeception.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duguay, S. (2017) Dressing\nup Tinderella: interrogating authenticity claims on the mobile dating app\nTinder, Information, Communication\n& Society<\/em>,20:3, 351-367, DOI: 10.1080\/1369118X.2016.1168471<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goffman, E. (1959). The\npresentation of self in everyday life. Middlesex: Retrieved from: https:\/\/monoskop.org\/images\/1\/19\/Goffman_Erving_The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hodkinson, P. (2015). Bedrooms and\nbeyond: Youth, identity and privacy on social network sites. New Media\nand Society<\/em>. DOI: 10.1177\/1461444815454<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mascheroni, G. Vincent, J. and\nJiminez, E. (2015). “Girls are addicted to likes so they post semi-nakend\nselfies”: Peer mediation, normativity and the construction of identity\nonline. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on\nCyberspace, 9<\/em>(1), DOI: 10.5817\/CP2015-1-5<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World\nWide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social\nnetworks. First Monday,<\/em> 14<\/em>(3). Retrieved from: https:\/\/firstmonday.org\/ojs\/index.php\/fm\/article\/view\/2162<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ranzini,\nG., & Lutz, C. (2017). <\/a>Love at first\nswipe? Explaining Tinder self-presentation and motives. Mobile Media & Communication, <\/em>5(1), 80\u2013101. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/2050157916664559<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turkle, S. (1997). Constructions\nand Reconstructions of Self in Virtual Reality. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture\nof the Internet<\/em>. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
\nhttp:\/\/www.mit.edu\/~sturkle\/pdfsforstwebpage\/ST_Construc%20and%20reconstruc%20of%20self.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple Subjectivity\nand Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociological\nInquiry<\/em>, 67(1).
\nhttp:\/\/www.mit.edu\/~sturkle\/pdfsforstwebpage\/ST_Multiple%20Subjectivity.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Van Der Nagel, E. and Frith, J.\n(2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining\nthe social practices of r\/Gonewild. First Monday, 20<\/em>(3), Retrieved\nfrom http:\/\/www.ojphi.org\/ojs\/index.php\/fm\/article\/view\/5615\/4346<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ward,\nJ. (2017) What are you doing on\nTinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app.<\/em> Information, Communication & Society<\/em>, 20 (11),1644-1659, DOI: 10.1080\/1369118X.2016.1252412<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Creative<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  Abstract: This paper explores the balance that Tinder users seek to attain in terms of the level of their authentic yet ideal self-presentation on the dating app. By considering factors such as other social networking sites, impression management, projection on ones most desirable and ideal self, and traditional dating sites, it is found that… Continue reading Finding the Balance between the Authentic and Ideal Self in the Self-Presentation of Users on Mobile Dating App, Tinder<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":82,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[34,35,17,22,10,33],"class_list":["post-84","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-identity","tag-dating-apps","tag-ideal-self","tag-identity","tag-online-identity","tag-self-presentation","tag-tinder"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/82"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=84"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":92,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84\/revisions\/92"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}