How Tinder Gamified Dating Apps

Since its founding in 2012, Tinder has evolved dating apps into a game based on one’s superficial judgment. Nine years later, it’s one of the world’s most popular dating apps with an estimated 66 million monthly active users (MAU). (Statista) 50% of those MAU are members of Gen Z, ages 18 to 25. (“Tinder Newsroom — About Tinder”) Tinder broke the online dating mold and strayed away from the traditional way dating sites functioned. “Online dating sites… frequently offer users more than just a handful of profiles for side-by-side comparison. Indeed, they often present users with nearly simultaneous access to (the profiles of) many potential partners, sometimes thousands of them, who vary in complex ways across a wide range of characteristics.” (Finkel et al.) The way Tinder functions is seemingly simpler than traditional dating sites. The user makes a profile with their photo, adds a blurb about themselves, sets the setting for who they want to potentially meet, and then they’re ready to start. They swipe right on someone to Like them and swipe left to Pass. If someone they “swiped right” on Likes them back, then it’s considered a Match, and then the two can start chatting. This “double opt-in” method is primarily how Tinder broke away from traditional sites. (Tinder) The way Tinder shows profiles to the users is that it calculates a user’s Elo score weighed against a user’s (who Likes them) own Elo score. “The more right swipes that person had, the more their right swipe on you meant for your score.” (Tiffany) Tinder then shows the user other profiles that have similar scores. This is the old way Tinder works, but the new algorithm works in a very similar way, just without an official ranking associated with each users’ profile. (Tiffany)

How Tinder Works

Gamification

The new game-like features, such as the swiping, the Boosts, Rewinds, and Super Likes and the anticipation of a Match, are what gamified the dating app beyond just looking at someone else’s profile. This is a process known as Gamification, “the process of adding games or gamelike elements to something to encourage participation.” (“Gamification”) It’s a popular tactic in most industries to make activities fun and to encourage people to get involved. It’s not a new concept, but it has exploded over the last several years.

Tinder is, generally speaking, a free app. But, it also has three tiers of monthly or annual plans aside from its basic free plan, each having its unique perks, for those who want a little extra help. The basic paid plan is Tinder Plus, then Tinder Gold, where you can see who Liked you before you even start swiping, and, their most expensive plan, Tinder Platinum, which you can message someone before even Matching with them. (Tinder) As of Q3 of 2020, 10% of the 66 million MAU are paid subscribers, regardless of plan. (Statista) Non-paying users have a limit of 50 Likes every 12 hours, and every paid tier has an unlimited amount of Likes. On top of that, free users are bombarded with “reminders’’ that they can pay for a plan to remove the cap on Likes, as well as sporadic interruptions where users can purchase Boosts/Super Boosts and Super Likes. Boosts/Super Boosts are a way to get around Tinder’s Elo-like algorithm to put oneself “ahead of the line”, for a limited amount of time. Boosts promise 10 times more profile views, and Super Boosts promise up to 100 times more profiles. It is worth noting that at the time of writing this, Super Boosts aren’t available everywhere right now, it’s only available in select areas. (Tinder) In January 2021 alone, Tinder made 64.62 million USD. (Statista)

Psychology

Jeff Johnson, author of Designing with the Mind in Mind, has defined the Sunk Cost Fallacy as a “tendency to stick with a decision and even put more resources into a losing cause.” (Johnson 208) People feel that the more they put into something, they should be getting back an equal or higher return on their investment. They don’t want to feel that their time was, effectively, wasted. Such as when they are purchasing plans or individual Boosts or Super Likes. The IKEA Effect plays a similar role to the Sunk Cost Fallacy within the realm of dating and dating apps. Johnson describes the IKEA Effect as valuing things more after an effort is put into them. (Johnson 208) When users put in more money and time into swiping, or even just talking to those they Matched with, they internally place more value on the app or on the individual. The way that the payment is structured on Tinder, through these microtransactions, is the same structure that mobile games use. Microtransactions are:

Commonly refers to a business model… where users can purchase virtual goods via micropayments… Microtransactions (i.e., premium content) may include downloadable content such as story extensions (so called ‘DLCs’), additional play time, levels, new maps, virtual currency, weapons, armor, characters, or cosmetic items to customize the player’s character or items. The player pays… directly with real world currency or with some form of fantasy virtual currency (e.g., gold). (Schwiddessen and Karius 18)

Keller Gordon explains that “Certain microtransactions fall somewhere in between cosmetic enhancements and pay-to-win… While these in-game purchases can’t give you an edge against an opponent, they affect where you fall in the rankings.” (Gordon) The virtual goods that these Tinder Plus/Gold/Platinum users are paying for are the chance to put their faces in front of people for the potential chance to Match with them by using Super Likes and Boosts and by removing the 50 Likes cap. But, if people aren’t receiving those matches, the Sunk Cost Fallacy states that they’re highly likely to pay for more “Tinder DLC.” And the more they pay, the more likely they are to stay on the metaphorical “sinking ship”.

If we consider the brain chemistry that plays into this, we can see how the mix of the Sunk Cost Fallacy and Tinder ends up potentially creating an addiction. In Dr. Robert Sapolsky’s talk, he speaks about the dopamine levels between the Signal, Work, and Reward. Most people would expect that the highest point of dopamine would be once the subject gets the reward, but, the converse was true as the study went on. The highest levels of dopamine were recorded between the Signal and Work, showing that the reward was effectively meaningless and that it’s all about the anticipation of the reward. Meaning, that people keep chasing after the anticipation of the reward (especially when that reward is unpredictable), and once obtained, they just want that anticipation once more. (Sapolsky) (Henderson, and Schrader) This is easily viewed within Tinder and the structure of the app. The Signal is the user sending out Likes/Passes for the potential to get Match, which is the reward. The Work is the other users doing the same thing for other people. Effectively, when the user is swiping left or right, they are the Signal for themselves, and the Work for others, both of whom are working to be each others’ Match/Reward. So, if people keep searching for that anticipation, they’re even more inclined to purchase more Boosts, Super Likes, or even different paid tiers.

The Sunk Cost Fallacy also applies to what happens even after people Match, when they are in a relationship. People tend to stay in relationships for a little while after they should, specifically due to the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Due to the IKEA Effect, they also place a higher value on the relationship because of the time and effort that they have put into it. They feel that because of that, it’s worth sticking it out a little longer, even if they’re unhappy. (Gander) Based on several conflicting sources, the average person is a part 3 to 12 different relationships before marriage. According to Tinder, the app averages 1.5 million dates per week and has had 60+ billion total Matches. (“Tinder Newsroom — About Tinder”) There is no definite number, but it’s easy to conclude that not every first date leads to relationships. There will always be awkward first dates, and one-night stands, so those users will most likely stay on Tinder. But the ones that lead to relationships will statistically lead some users back to Tinder after a breakup. So the Sunk Cost Fallacy keeps users on Tinder, and those that end up in relationships will most likely bring them back to Tinder or another dating app/site (just to even try a different one).

Design Implications

The more user-friendly design implications of this research are to intentionally “slow down” the app. It’s a common trend on Tinder and other dating apps for people to start swiping out of boredom, so putting metaphorical speed bumps in their way will break up the habituation, or the “repeated exposure to the same perceptions [that] dulls our perceptual system’s sensitivity to them.” (Johnson 4) If there is a way to count swipes per second, then after a certain amount of swipes there should be a modal pop-up telling the user to “slow down and smell the roses” by looking at the photos of those they’re swiping on or to look at their photos.

Because Tinder’s parent company is Match Group, it can potentially learn from other intellectual property owned by the same parent company. Hinge is another popular dating app. It self proclaims to be “designed to be deleted,” meaning it understands that it’s only supposed to be temporary in that it encourages its users to make real connections with their matches. Its draw is the fact that it forces the user to pick something from the person’s profile that they like or can talk about, and send the potential match a message about said topic. (“What Is Hinge?”) It breaks up the habituation by forcing the user to make an intentional decision on each profile they come across.

On the business side of the app, Mr. Gary Swidler, the chief financial officer (CFO), of Match Group said, “You get a huge advantage by getting a lot of free users.” He explained that the more people that sign up for Tinder, the more people who will potentially pay for the “Tinder DLC” later down the line. (Bromwich) Each new user is offered a 3-day free trial to Tinder Gold, but extending that timing to a week could lead to more subscriptions further down the road since the users would have had more time to get used to those perks, then realize the limitations of the free version of the app.

Since Tinder is one of the leading dating apps worldwide and has already revolutionized how dating apps work, it can also re-revolutionize how relationships can stay together. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that Tinder could also create a section of the app for couples or even a companion app for those who are already in relationships. Adding in a way for couples to meet, or to create randomized date night suggestions that would encourage couples to stay together, and adds a potential new source of subscriptions and revenue for Tinder.

Tinder broke the mold by gamifying dating apps. They created the concept of swiping on people’s profiles in order to have the double opt-in to form Matches. They also added different tiers of perks for users to purchase. Those microtransactions, combined with the psychology behind the Sunk Cost Fallacy and the dopamine rush in the anticipation of Matches, means that Tinder has made the perfect app to keep users on their platform, for better or worse.

Works Cited

“Boost”. Tinder Help, 2021, https://www.help.tinder.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004506186-Boost. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

“Tinder Newsroom — About Tinder”. Tinder Newsroom, 2021, https://www.tinderpressroom.com/about. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

“Tinder Paid Dating Subscribers 2020 | Statista”. Statista, 2021, https://www.statista.com/statistics/992916/paid-dating-subscribers-tinder/. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

“Tinder: Monthly IAP Revenue By Region 2021 | Statista”. Statista, 2021, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200334/monthly-iap-revenue-of-tinder-by-region/. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

“U.S. Dating Apps By Audience Size 2019 | Statista”. Statista, 2021, https://www.statista.com/statistics/826778/most-popular-dating-apps-by-audience-size-usa/. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

Abolfathi, Niloofar, and Simone Santamaria. “Dating Disruption — How Tinder Gamified An Industry”. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2020, https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/dating-disruption-how-tinder-gamified-an-industry/. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

Bromwich, Jonah. “Wait, People Pay For Tinder?”. Nytimes.Com, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/style/tinder-gold.html. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

Datta, Tiyashi, and Sanjana Shivdas. “Match Tops Sales Estimates As Tinder, Hinge Keep Sparks Flying”. U.S., 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-match-group-results-idUSKBN2A22V1. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

Finkel, Eli J. et al. “Online Dating”. Psychological Science In The Public Interest, vol 13, no. 1, 2012, pp. 3–66. SAGE Publications, doi:10.1177/1529100612436522. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

“Gamification”. Merriam-Webster, 2021, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamification. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

Gander, Kashmira. “What To Do If Your Unhappy Relationship Is A Case Of ‘Sunk Cost Fallacy’”. The Independent, 2016, https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/what-do-if-your-unhappy-relationship-case-sunk-cost-fallacy-a7475266.html. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

Gordon, Keller. “Microtransactions Are Great For Game Companies, Less Fun For Players”. Npr.Org, 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/03/11/975765363/microtransactions-are-great-for-game-companies-less-fun-for-players. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

Henderson, Rob, and Jessica Schrader. “The Science Behind What Tinder Is Doing To Your Brain”. Psychology Today, 2021, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201805/the-science-behind-what-tinder-is-doing-your-brain. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

McCaffrey, Matthew. “The Macro Problem Of Microtransactions: The Self-Regulatory Challenges Of Video Game Loot Boxes”. Business Horizons, vol 62, no. 4, 2019, pp. 483–495. Elsevier BV, doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2019.03.001.

Potarca, Gina. “The Demography Of Swiping Right. An Overview Of Couples Who Met Through Dating Apps In Switzerland”. PLOS ONE, vol 15, no. 12, 2020, p. e0243733. Public Library Of Science (Plos), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243733. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

Rochat, Lucien et al. “The Psychology Of “Swiping”: A Cluster Analysis Of The Mobile Dating App Tinder”. Journal Of Behavioral Addictions, vol 8, no. 4, 2019, pp. 804–813. Akademiai Kiado Zrt., doi:10.1556/2006.8.2019.58. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

Sapolsky, Robert. “Dopamine Jackpot! Sapolsky On The Science Of Pleasure”. 2021.

Schwiddessen, Sebastian, and Philipp Karius. “Watch Your Loot Boxes! — Recent Developments And Legal Assessment In Selected Key Jurisdictions From A Gambling Law Perspective”. Interactive Entertainment Law Review, vol 1, no. 1, 2018, pp. 17–43. Edward Elgar Publishing, doi:10.4337/ielr.2018.01.02. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

Tiffany, Kaitlyn. “How The Tinder Algorithm Actually Works”. Vox, 2019, https://www.vox.com/2019/2/7/18210998/tinder-algorithm-swiping-tips-dating-app-science. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

“Tinder Subscriptions”. Tinder Help, 2021, https://www.help.tinder.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004487406-Tinder-Subscriptions. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.

“What Is Hinge?”. Hinge, 2021, https://hingeapp.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360010797253-What-is-Hinge-. Accessed 6 Apr 2021.