The Art of Pleasing

Abstract

This article explores the question of how heterosexual women and men present themselves on the dating platform Tinder in order to determine how their self-presentations differ, which social values they consider important and how they use creative techniques in order to stand out. Based on a combination of quantitative data and qualitative analysis, it can be stated that they use different motives and different creative strategies. For example, women rather show themselves in domestic and urban contexts and thus communicate mundanity and high demands, but also independence from men, while men present themselves as closer to nature, but also as conquerors of nature. In addition, women use oblique image cropping, filters, bokeh effects, etc. much more often than men and thus express creativity and playfulness, whereas men often post pictures that appear less creative, but more casual and thus demonstrate coolness. Overall, it becomes clear that men and women submit to assumed social desirability and reinforce stereotypes, but in doing so, they may also accomplish changes of perspective.

1. Introduction

The app Tinder is a social medium, launched in 2012 by InterActiveCorp and “perfectly suited to a mobile society [1], to a “world of radical individualism, multiple identities and dynamic relationships, unfettered markets and consumer capitalism” [2]. Tinder, whose most features are free, presents prominently pictures in portrait format to fit the typical cell phone’s screen. Each user can upload up to 10 photographs. Besides, their username appears, and they can indicate their age, their school or university and the place they live, as well as several hobbies out of a list. Furthermore, a short text with or without emoticons may be added. People from within a particular radius will be presented and based on a double opt-in system, they can match and after this communicate. The app’s focus is clearly on photographs, to the extent that several users make fun of it, writing ironical texts such as “finally, I am not reduced to my character”.

This article deals with the way people represent themselves through their photographs on Tinder. It is assumable that most people using the app hope for many and/or for suitable “likes”, be it to increase their self-esteem or to actually match and meet other users in real life with erotic or romantic intentions. In order to achieve this, people have to take and select suitable photographs referring to both motifs and aesthetics. Therefore, an analysis of photographs posted on Tinder can be a useful approach to learn something about prevailing gender norms and expectations.

1.1 Photography as a means of self-presentation

When considering self-presentations on Tinder, the following aspects are fundamental: it has long been acknowledged that photography is the “art of the person” and of their identity [3]. Photographs on dating platforms thus can convey not only the way people look, dress and pose, but also which activities and belongings are important to them and further, which aesthetics they pursue. In this context, the halo effect may also be taken into account: it is a cognitive bias in the formation of an impression and defined as a tendency “to assume that once a person possesses some good (or bad) characteristics, their other, unrelated and unknown characteristics are also likely to be consistent, that is, good or bad” [4]. Accordingly, someone who is pretty is also likely to also be seen as “beautiful on the inside” and someone who engages in wild sporting activities is likely to be thought of as adventurous, brave or cool in general. It can be assumed that the users, who are—considering their age group (see below)—probably experienced in social media, do not only more or less consciously orient their judgements to the halo effect, but also their self-presentations: they use attributes and activities as symbols.

In social media contexts in general, standards for images—aesthetics and motifs—may quickly establish themselves, as most people strive for positive feedback. On Tinder, however, heterosexual women only see profiles of heterosexual men and vice versa. While it is conceivable to occasionally change the settings of the app, for example out of curiosity, to get the other perspective, overall users probably have fewer insights that reveal anything about standards of self-presentation on Tinder. Accordingly, there should be a more general influence of social desirability, e.g. by looking at other social media.

All in all, these considerations make it likely that the staging and selection of photos on Tinder is based on a conscious or unconscious decision that is not only shaped by one’s own goals associated with online dating, but also by assumed social values: “Self-presentations provide rich data for an analysis of gender as it is constituted and produced performatively and discursively, through symbolic, repetitive, and normative expression” [5]. Consequently, the analysis of visual self-representation makes it possible to arrive at statements about a society. So this article aims to find out how heterosexual women and men present themselves, how their presentations differ and what the reasons for these differences might be.

1.2 State of research

Online dating, or more specifically, Tinder has been analysed from various points of view, e.g. looking at self-esteem [6], impression management [7], the self-representation of migrants and refugees [8], hypermasculinity and misogynism [9], awareness of privacy issues [10], up to the focus on tourism [11]. In our context, gender representation [12, 13] is particularly interesting.

In addition, there is a large body of literature on (visual) representation. A telling starting point can be the mirror experience, in which the identification is first based on an image, as well as on alienation [14] and thus resembles the photographic experience: people see themselves from a new perspective, from the outside. In this context, the indexicality of photography has to be considered and with it the connection between a person and their photograph, respectively a picture he or she has taken [3].

An interesting focus “falls on the narrative practices of users’ self-representations in social media” [15]. Self-representations often “proceed from a premise of agentic, conscious, and ‘authentic’ self-authorship. The tacit understanding at work in social media self-representations between viewers and viewed means that members of a networked public generally take a SNS personal profile as an indicator of someone’s self-chosen and ‘authentic’ identity, produced for personal use” [16]. Yet, the term authentic can be questioned—it may primarily be an authentic staging [17] in the sense of a staging which does not hide the fact that it is staged. Furthermore, the presentation may “authentically” tell something about the person, their aspirations, longing, wishes, perceptions, etc. but not necessarily reflect their authentic outer appearance and living conditions. In this context, the anticipated reactions of the audience such as envy, approval, empathy, etc. play an important role. Furthermore, photography nowadays does not only serve as described by Barthes as a chance to a capture a way of being, but to capture a body as it might [18]. Consequently, it may be interesting for people to present various ideas or ideals of the body rather than their authentic looks. Yet, it can be stated that due to their indexicality, people are (still) inclined to believe in photographs: “The epistemically special character of the photographs is revealed by this fact: we are inclined to trust them in a way we are not inclined to trust even the most accurate drawings or paintings” [19]. It also follows from these explicit or implicit truth claims that media representations have the power to “distort people’s sense of what there is to see in the social or political domains” [20].

Besides, in recent decades, the body has increasingly become the focus of scientific attention [21]: fluid social boundaries and the disappearance of traditional social classes can explain the increasing emphasis on the body, as it became necessary to differentiate oneself through deliberately and visually, developing an individual style, expressed by an active self-marketing [22]. In this process, media-mediated and reinforced body ideals move into the centre of interest. For Facebook, Gilbert Shang notices: “The dominant motif of photography […] is the presentation of the ideal body/self. This ideal body follows, but sometimes deconstructs a repertoire of normalized social body etiquettes popularized by mainstream and showbiz cultures” [23].

Gender studies offer yet one more perspective. Feminist scholars have helped to understand “the crucial role that media perform in the reproduction of gender inequality” [24]. Just to give some examples: Viki Mayer analyses the history of telephone girls who “see themselves as uniquely qualified by virtue of their gender” [25] but have difficulty advancing or changing to another position. Sonia Livingston [26] look at gender differences in girls’ and boys’ experiences of risks in online communication such as exposure to pornography, bullying and sexual messaging. Teresa Lynch [27] found out that women appear much more seldom in video games playing central roles and that sexualized secondary female characters mostly remain passive. In our context, online misogyny [28] is interesting to look at. This mainly refers to sexual harassment and trolling and was attributed to the “crisis of masculinity”, as women and girls occupied traditionally male-dominated positions in education and job life, which has led men looking for new ways to express strength ant domination. Consequently, it is useful to also look at research on masculinity. Social media are said to carry “notorious reputation for being home to hypersexual and toxic masculine expressions” [29]. So the question here is to what extent the research can confirm this assumption.

However, it has to be kept in mind that in our case, it is not about how men and women are represented, but how they represent themselves. We can assume a “male gaze” [30] referring to the photographs of women, that the women themselves take into account when staging or selecting the pictures, but at the same time, men on Tinder may consider just the opposite—the way women would look at them. These considerations already show that social desirability plays an important role. Thus, they also indicate that self-representation on Tinder can tell something about social values.

2. Visual analysis

The sample consists of 300 Tinder profiles of (presumably) heterosexual men and 300 (presumably) heterosexual women from the age of 25 to 45. The age group between 25 and 45 was selected because it covers, according to the global web index [31], more than half of the Tinder users and, unlike with younger users, it is assumable that people in the referred age group may be more mature than the 39% of very young (16–24-year-old) users. With regard to the location, the sample was taken in western Germany around the city of Cologne, a rather urban region, during the end of 2020 and the end of 2021, a time in which there were relatively strict Corona regulations, which apparently had led to an increase of the usage of the app even among people who usually would not fancy this way of meeting people [32]; therefore, it is assumable that the sample represents an even larger section of society than usual. The sample of photographs is partly based on a previous study that focused exclusively on the representation of men.

One note about “race”: as the sample was taken in Germany in an area, where there is a very high percentage of “white” population, it is not suitable to extent the argument to the self-representation of people of colour.

Looking at the ethical dimension of the research, it has to be stated that an informed consent was not possible due to the nature of the platform. However, people who do not want to show their photograph(s) and thus disclose their identities can also just use symbolic pictures or blurry photos on Tinder and those who present themselves will also be aware of the fact that not everyone who sees their profile shares the same intentions. Some users, e.g. only collect matches or primarily want to amuse themselves by the way others are portrayed, and several profile texts make it clear that the users are conscious of this. Therefore, I can assume that my research meets ethical standards.

After collecting the sample, the data were first categorized via visual analysis according to the criterion of what they (apparently) represent. In this context, it has to be mentioned that qualitative judgements always play a role when putting pictorial information into quantifiable data: “terms such as ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ are not simple distinctions. A category of image analysis such as ‘are they smiling?’ or ‘are they trying to look hot?’ or even ‘is this a selfie?’ implies that a qualitative judgement underlies the quantitative count. Unless it is taken in front of a mirror, you simply can’t be sure that this is a selfie (a self-taken image) even if the subject’s arm is outstretched in front of him or her” [33]. Another aspect is that categories usually include a certain variation of motifs: the category “portraits taken from a high angle” includes both very high and slightly elevated perspectives.

In the following, the photographs are sorted into categories according to their depicted content which will later be analysed with regard to their symbolic dimension. When comparing the profiles of heterosexual men and women, some differences and similarities stand out. Since mainly the differences will be discussed in the following, some similarities will be mentioned first: men and women show a similar number of photographs in their profiles—women on average almost 5, men on average 4.2. Among the photos, portrait pictures are found most frequently. Photos of (presumably) the person themselves appear by far the most on Tinder, including both tighter-cropped portraits and half- or full-body shots. Mostly people look directly into the camera and the general tendency to present the left cheek rather than the right also slightly predominates in both samples [34, 35]. All in all, quite few photos in swimwear or partial or concealed nudes are seen among both women and men, which may be due to the season.

Considering the angle from which the portraits were taken, it is noticeable that in 10% of the cases, women choose a low angle, which tends to convey height and dominance, and in 19% of the cases a high angle, which is associated with cuteness [36]. For men, the picture is even clearer: almost 30% of their portraits use a low angle and only 10% a higher one.

Another aspect concerns sophisticated or creative photography: women use oblique cropping or special filters, which change the picture more significantly than a soft beauty retouching or an adjustment of contrast, in almost 10% of the cases, men in less than 1%.

Looking at the location, women are seen in nature settings in 24% of the photographs, of which 8% are beach pictures. Men are shown 39% in nature settings, among them 4% beach pictures. Urban settings are found in 15% of women’s and in 8% of men’s pictures. Interiors, which on the one hand could show the home, but also hotel rooms or similar, are seen in 16% of women’s and in 8% of men’s photographs. In both samples, job-related settings are very rare, just as job-related clothing.

About 8% of the photographs of men show presumably own property such as cars or motorbikes, whereas such motifs appear in less than 1% in the women’s sample. 7% of the photos, partly overlapping with the just mentioned, show men driving cars or bikes, often the focus is rather on the person, but one can clearly see that he is sitting on the driver’s seat, for women it is less than 1%. Pictures of presumably own children or pets are quite rare in both samples.

Probably homemade items such as cakes, own sketches or paintings also rarely appear, and it is often not identifiable whether the photos are closely related to the person and their skills, whether they are meant to show a preference of the person, or whether they are meant as atmospheric photos.

Finally, about 4% of the photographs in the women’s sample and 6% of the photos in the men’s sample clearly show atmospheric scenes, usually landscapes. It remains uncertain whether the person took the pictures themselves, but in most cases this seems rather unlikely, and some photos could even be clearly identified as stock photos with the help of Google reverse search. Atmospheric photos often appear as the penultimate or last picture and suggest a certain mood or character trait. Mostly, the landscapes appear romantic or wild (Table 1).

	Women	Men
Number of photographs (300 profiles)	1461	1260
Low angle in portrait shots	10%	29%
High angle in portrait shots	19%	10%
Oblique cropping or special filters	10%	<1%
Same sex groups	4%	1%
Nature settings (among them beach)	24% (8%)	39% (4%)
Urban settings	15%	8%
Interior settings	16%	8%
With cars or motorbikes	<1%	8%
Driving cars or motorbikes	<1%	7%
Atmospheric photographs (landscapes)	6%	4%

Table 1.

Comparison of women’s and men’s photographs on Tinder.

3. Communicating values with photographs

The following step is to interpret the motives and read from them values that are perceived as socially relevant. Values “have profound, although partly unconscious, effects on people’s behaviour. The goals we pursue, as well as our more general ideas about ‘the good life,’ are influenced by the values of the culture into which we happen to have been born or raised” [37]. So there are some general cultural tendencies in terms of values. It can be argued that photos on Tinder are to be interpreted in a similar way to advertising photos: within a usually very short viewing time, they have to attract attention and interest, thus making the best possible use of this time [38]. Visual aspects are also supposed to stand for qualities that are not directly obvious, such as friendliness, courage, caring, intelligence or creativity; i.e. a halo effect has to be taken into account and used for one’s own purpose.

This raises the question of the user’s motivation. Various motivations for using Tinder have been analysed, including entertainment [39], excitement [40], knowledge about the social world [40] and strengthening self-esteem. However, these motivations can also exist in parallel or change over time: “I heard from users who revealed a hope for finding love, after initially using it for entertainment or ego-boost” [41, 42]. Different motivations, one would think, would suggest the use of different photographs, which in turn would communicate different values—for example, someone who primarily wants a lot of likes should use photographs in which they look as good as possible in terms of assumed mainstream aesthetics. In any case, however, values are communicated, be they rather the values that one assumes according to social desirability or more likely one’s very own, which are certainly also shaped by social expectations, by one’s upbringing, education and networks.

The following aspects are not meant to be a self-contained presentation, but refer to particularly striking observations.

3.1 Cute and tough

As shown above, women present themselves in a way that is connected to typical feminine features such as beauty and cuteness, which reminds on advertisements, in which women “are reduced to how they stack up to various standards of beauty and sexuality. Ad messages seek to convince audiences that adhering to such ideals is desirable and necessary for young women compared to other priorities and accomplishments” [43]. More specifically than beauty, cuteness can be seen in the sample, which is emphasized by taking photos from a high angle and is typically associated with childhood and femininity [44]. Also other features, such as large eyes— emphasized by makeup and possibly enlarged by an editing app, also point in this direction. The first scientific discussion of cuteness was described by the ethologist Konrad Lorenz, who coined the term “Kindchenschema”. The “Kindchenschema” can be observed in baby animals as well as in human infants and refers to features such as a big head, big eyes, etc. The reference to baby animals is even evident in some filters women use on their Tinder-portraits that give them the snout and ears of a puppy or a kitten.

In feminist thought, cuteness is considered an ambivalent phenomenon: it “is not just an aestheticization but an eroticization of powerlessness, evoking tenderness for ‘small things,’ but also, sometimes, a desire to belittle them or diminish them further” [45]. Thus, it is connected to vulnerability and sometimes even to the grotesque [46, 47]. Furthermore, it has been observed that “cute objects […] often lack clear identities” [48]—the gender identity also remains unclear at times, as with a baby. In this sense, de-gendering takes place and sometimes even de-humanizing appears, if one looks at the above-mentioned photo filters.

At first glance, the tendency to emphasize cuteness contradicts the finding that “the idealized and desirable has shifted towards a tougher, shrewder, and more sexually assertive” [49] feminine performativity. However, this does not have to be inconsistent with the stress on cuteness: it can be used to appear sexually attractive and to express one’s own desire and idea of sexuality, since presenting oneself as cute can be interpreted as a playful and perhaps romantic form of sexuality.

For men, the picture looks quite different. One-third of men show themselves from a low perspective, suggesting height and dominance. Cute filters do not appear in the sample of men at all. In addition, one sees a significantly larger number of photos showing men behind the steering wheel, which may suggest ability and dominance, and matches the observation, that “car cultures referring to traditional role models are thus […] manifestations of control, as they provide evidence of social and cultural stability, constancy, and the immutability of things” [50].

In traditional education, men are “not allowed to show any kind of emotional vulnerability, which is a rock-bottom requirement of traditional masculinity ideology” [51]. Toughness is the standard, even though there are cultural differences: white masculinity, according to Levant and Pryor, is characterized by restrictive emotionality, similar to many Asian cultures where “emotional toughness is one of the most central masculinity norms” [52] while Latino masculinity is based on caballerismo. Yet, Susan Bordo described how in the 1990s male clothing designers introduced “all sorts of forbidden ‘feminine’ qualities into mainstream conceptions of manliness” [53]. This has apparently not fundamentally changed the tendency towards differentiation in self-representations in the dating sector or at least not in a sustainable way.

3.2 A life of leisure

In both samples, there are very few job-related photographs, even though it can be assumed that people from different professions and social classes can be found in the sample. This may also be surprising, since online dating has been described as a new rationalized and capitalized version of love [54] and that especially visual representations of men are often associated with their job life: it has been shown that men in stock photos are often depicted as working or “rational” in a broader sense [55]. As stock images are designed to circulate particularly heavily in the media, it is likely that they are both influenced by social norms and continue to shape the image of men. Also in advertisements, men “are often depicted in positions of strength, control, and accomplishment, as seen through their physicality or savviness in work” [43].

However, the emphasis on leisure instead of work life is consistent with the selection of photos for private photo albums: “The selection of photographs structures the memory of personal lives, and snapshots construct history and reality. This construction of personal history is characterised by exclusion. Only a few, if at all any snapshots depict the workplace and colleagues. It is a history of life as leisure” [56]. According to Jorgen Christensen, the pictures taken and selected are in the context of one’s own positive memories. Particularly among men, however, certain leisure activities seem to be largely excluded: both activities that tend to take place indoors and are not very physical, such as board or video games, which according to statistics are very popular within the age group [57], and urban activities such as shopping or museum visits appear rarely, as the next point will analyse.

The focus on leisure and the omission of job life may suggest that, in the context of dating, hobbies are more important and an emphasis on leisure is more likely to convey a fulfilling life than a job. It may also play a role to pursue hobbies together with the potential partner. Furthermore, one could conclude that many users do not identify much with their occupations. This may also be due to the fact that work life changes rapidly nowadays and is seen as a less stable characteristic than, for example, a passion. Other reasons are also conceivable, such as the fact that many jobs, for example jobs in the financial sector, cannot be comprehensively represented visually.

Wealth, nevertheless, is readily conveyed, even if it is usually directly connected with professional life. In both samples, one frequently encounters images that convey wealth, e.g., in the male sample images with (presumably) one’s own car and in the female sample images in (presumably) one’s own house or in fashionable shopping situations—so it is about the fruits of labour, not about professional life itself.

3.3 Culture and nature

Women present themselves in indoor settings twice as often as men. At first glance, this seems to correspond to a very traditional image of women—that of the typical housewife. This observation matches the analysis of advertisement samples from 2006 and 2016: in 2006, women appeared less active, “girls and women were often reduced to their more submissive or passive roles—often in interior locations” [43]. In 2016, the authors found a bit more flexibility in gender roles; however, there were still clear tendencies.

However, it is important to consider the settings shown: in most cases, it is difficult to judge whether private flats, hotel rooms, exhibitions or the like are the subject, but it can be stated that indoor settings are often houses with particular furnishings and decorations, which can be interpreted on the one hand as an expression of wealth or of high demand, but also as an expression of the ability to make something look posh and/or cosy—which is related to housewifely qualities.

Furthermore, women appear twice as often in urban contexts such as shopping situations or posing at monuments. Choosing a city as setting can stand for mundanity and sophistication, but perhaps also for aspiration: the woman is not satisfied with the simple, but is used to go luxury shopping and enjoys the sophisticated, urban life. This indicates an expectation of the potential partner. On the other hand, one could also assume that she wants to show that she can also lead a good life independently of a man, since the corresponding photos were taken before the possible Tinder relationship.

Men, on the other hand, more often present pictures of themselves in nature and also use atmospheric pure nature photos more often. If we exclude the “beach” location—here we see twice as many women than men—men show up twice as often in the landscape as women do, especially in potentially domestic landscapes, which therefore says little about financial means and travel experiences. This is in line with other studies: Katarina Filipovic’s content analysis of children’s books revealed clear gender patterns that include stereotyping such as depicting men as more out-going [58]. A study on outdoor activities in Sweden showed “that there is a gender difference in both participation and in representation of outdoor recreation. The observed gender difference is not only in line with the traditional heteronormativity but also suggests that new trends in outdoor recreation are further favouring traditionally masculine modes of engagement with nature” [59]. Consequently, one could interpret this as a traditional gender role distribution: the man is the one to leave the domestic nest. However, as already mentioned, women do show up outside the home quite often, only tending to do so more often in urban contexts or at the beach.

Here, the dichotomy “nature-culture” is recognizable: humans are creatures of nature, insofar as they are their (biological) bodies, and they are a creature of culture, insofar they (by socialization), have their bodies [60]—so people are always connected to both. However, in literature, it has frequently been pointed out to the dualism of woman-nature and man-culture that “is used as justification for exploitative attitudes and actions of men toward women” [61]. This was especially stressed by ecofeminists [62, 63]: for a long time, “in Western patriarchal culture, both women and nonhuman nature have been devalued alongside their assumed opposites—men and civilization/culture” [64, 65]. Consequently, ecofeminism raises “awareness about interconnections between women’s oppression and nature’s domination in the attempt to liberate women and nature from unjust subordinations” [66]. In the context of Tinder, the opposite is evident: men are more connected with the domain of nature, women rather with the cultivated.

One explanation may be that men want to appear less as creatures of nature, but as adventurers and conquerors of nature, for example when they are seen climbing mountains or mountain biking. However, such motifs only make up a smaller part of photos of men and nature. Showing people in nature can be related to transferring characteristics of nature to the person, such as the wild and untameable, which suggests sexual attractiveness. Nature as a mirror of the soul is an idea from the era of Romanticism, a counter-movement to Classicism, which focused on aesthetic clarity and is associated with the Enlightenment. Possibly a new romanticism can be discerned here, which in turn prioritizes feelings over reason [67].

Further, one could interpret that while men appear more in nature, women are more likely to show up in “cultivated” or culturally overformed settings—the city—or in such nature that is associated with something that comes from the cultivated modern era: holidays spent on the beach. Women thus appear to be more influenced by cultural techniques—one could also say: more subject to cultural techniques—which also fits with the observation that women use photo filters more often and post more creative or more thoughtfully composed photos.

3.4 Creativity and casualness

The aforementioned foci on leisure and nature can also be linked to the fact that men are more likely to post pictures that look like they were taken casually and follow a snapshot aesthetic. This is remarkable, as “since 2006, there has been a noticeable rise in what has popularly been called the ‘metrosexual.’ This ‘new man’ is a young, urban, and heterosexual male who, ignoring previous, more ‘macho’ ideals for men, is concerned about how his hair looks, what clothes he wears, and how nicely he is groomed” [43]. It has been concluded, that “acceptable notions of masculinity have shifted closer to more traditionally feminine concerns of sharp clothes and a well-groomed body” [43], so that there are overall more notions of masculinity, which the heterosexual male role can be shaped in more diverse ways.

Yet, even though one might initially think that beautifully staged and edited pictures are likely to be more successful, casual-looking photos can also communicate something desirable about the man portrayed: he is authentic and does not need any special effort—and this lack of investment into coolness is ultimately considered cool [68]. The man is self-confident enough to assume that he will please without any special effort.

With women, however, this phenomenon is much less noticeable. Here, one sees far more photographs that seem to have been taken ambitiously, for example, that work with effects such as depth of field, that have been subjected to beauty editing or that use special filters or unusual picture details. Here, we can distinguish between two overlapping aspects: on the one hand, there are pictures that have primarily been designed and edited to make the user look particularly pretty; on the other hand, pictures have been designed creatively. The former serve to emphasize the beauty of the woman—even if this is done at the expense of the aforementioned coolness or, if the editing is obvious, at the expense of credibility. The latter, on the other hand, emphasize another aspect: creativity. “Self-representations on SNSs are not conventionally understood or contextualized by their viewers as ‘art,’ as explicitly or intentionally creative […] self-presentations” [69]. Nevertheless, the creative, playful or artistic-looking photos reveal something about the user, that this is someone who may possess these very qualities.

4. Conclusion: reinforcing stereotypes or promoting empathy?

The self-representations of heterosexual women and men on the social medium Tinder illustrate creative authorship: people show themselves as portraits, in different settings, with or without image manipulation and sometimes even express themselves only through images of objects or nature. So, with the exception of the format, the way of representation is not determined or completely uniform. Nevertheless, there are very clear tendencies—for example, almost exclusively rather physical leisure activities are shown, so that one can assume that those who do not spend their leisure time in this way are either less Tinder-savvy or do not present their leisure activities. The bodies depicted also appear quite homogeneous or, one could conclude by analogy: those who do not conform to a certain ideal—slim, trained, youthful-looking, rather mainstream than subcultural—apparently avoid corresponding photos or are altogether less represented on Tinder. From these observations, one can draw the conclusion that—typical for social media [70]—social desirability regarding looks plays an important role and may possibly be more significant than the search for a truly suitable partner.

Furthermore, there are clear differences in how heterosexual men and women present themselves. Analyses of such aspects have often been grounded on the assumption that “socially constructed gender roles can negatively impact on one’s individual life chances, especially in terms of one’s sense of self-worth, social perceptions of women and their career prospects” [71] and that “male-female differences in self-presentation parallel, and possibly intensify, gender norms offline” [72]. From the data of this study, one could indeed read traditional or reactionary tendencies: women tend to present themselves as cute, men as tough. Women seem to put more effort into their self-presentation, for example by using well-composed, filtered and creative photographs—although many men’s “wilful negligence” can also be understood as well-considered self-presentation. Thus, it may be hard to say who finally puts more effort into the photographs, but heterosexual men and women try in different ways, because they want to convey different values. It can be concluded that women want to be associated with cuteness, beauty and creativity, perhaps also with a certain aspiration for a good life, while men want to be associated with toughness and coolness. Women tend to communicate that they want to be perceived in a certain way, that they want to please, whereas men, on the other hand, demonstrate that they do not need to please—ironically, as it may sound—in order to please.

The stronger association of women with indoor and urban settings and of men with nature can be interpreted differently, but does not necessarily have to be seen as a connection between women and the domestic sphere, as was the case in the 1970s [24], since the mundane, the city or particularly elegant interiors in the sample also tend to have female connotations. In this sense, women appear rather as creatures of culture, men as creatures of nature—which has often been presented in reverse in the literature [73]. Overall, women present themselves more diversely than men, which—assuming that men are not generally less creative than women [74]—suggests that men choose their pictures less consciously or are more subject to the perceived social desirability of masculinity.

Thus, the data remain partly ambiguous with regard to their interpretation, but it becomes clear that heterosexual men and women choose different strategies of self-presentation and apparently assume that different attributes make them desirable to the opposite sex. The basis for self-presentation, however, is apparently—as the relative similarity among each sample reveals—grounded on the desire to conform to social desirability. Apparently, the Tinder helps to socially anchor ideas of femininity and masculinity.

On the other hand, it can be noted that, for a successful self-presentation, people of both sexes presumably perform a change of perspective, i.e. imagine how they will be perceived by the recipient. This change of perspective may promote empathy and thus may include positive aspects as well. In addition, the presentation on Tinder, such as on other social media [75] could lead to a greater engagement with one’s own identity, desires and goals.