In this study, I critically examined young people’s representations of digital dating, exploring beliefs about identity, relationships, and ‘genuine connection.’ With Tinder reporting 366 million users in 2022 and projections of 450 million by 2028 (Statista, 2024), digital dating remains central to contemporary relationships.
For generations raised in an ‘always-on’ digital world, the boundaries between mediated and non-mediated interactions are increasingly blurred. This raises questions about how they conceptualize the relationship between embodied and digital identities and what implications this has for the belief systems shaping their approach to modern connection (Lüders, Dinkelberg & Quayle, 2022).
The notion of authenticity is central to the tension on dating apps between curating an appealing, individual persona and striving for an honest connection in romantic relationships. Since Giddens (1991) and Beck (1992) theorized reflexive identity construction in risk society nearly thirty years ago, relationship dynamics have been shaped by growing pressures to make the ‘right’ choices. Dating app infrastructures (Plantin & Punathambekar, 2018) amplify these pressures, as users curate profiles for appeal while striving to ‘be real’ and mitigating the risks of potential fraud, such as “catfishing.” Platforms like OK Cupid reflect concerns about authenticity and fraud, positioning themselves as enablers of “real” connections and promising users the opportunity to find “serious” relationships. Against this background, my study explored how young people navigate authenticity, self-optimization, and strategic self-presentation on dating apps.
Researching (representations of) digital dating
Given the crucial role dating apps play in shaping contemporary intimate connections, digital dating has become a rich area of sociological and psychosocial investigation (e.g., Duguay, 2017; Christensen, 2021), focusing on dating app users, app characteristics, and the motifs and risks of using them (cf. Castro & Barrada, 2020, for a systematic review). In terms of data, existing studies have mainly approached the subject from a quantitative standpoint, often using surveys and self-reported data to examine what users “think” or “want” (e.g., Pew Research Center, 2023).
In contrast to views of language as merely the ‘content’ of people’s minds, my study adopted a discourse-oriented perspective on online dating representations, understanding language in use as constitutive of shared social practices (Edwards & Potter, 2001; Fairclough, 2003; Wodak & Meyer, 2016). Previous discursive analyses of digital dating have explored aspects such as politeness strategies on Tinder (Kavroulaki, 2022), deception on dating profiles (Toma & Hancock, 2012), and how users’ relationship goals shape linguistic choices (van der Zanden et al., 2019). However, little attention has been given to young people’s reflective, informal discourse about their digital dating experiences. To address this gap, my study focused on metadiscourse, offering unique insights into the social norms and beliefs surrounding digitally enabled connections.
Data and methods
This study used a triangulated approach to discourse analysis (KhosraviNik & Unger, 2016), drawing on two datasets: a semi-structured focus group interview conducted in June 2023 with seven undergraduate English students and an open-question online survey. The 50-minute focus group discussion allowed participants, familiar with each other, to engage naturally. Transcripts were analyzed using Member Categorization Analysis (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998) and the appraisal framework (Martin, 2000), focusing on self-representational “I”-statements and explanatory clauses with “because.” The survey gathered responses from 43 students aged 18–40 at the Universities of Vienna and Lancaster, yielding a 9,000-word corpus. Responses were analyzed using Wmatrix 5.0 (Rayson, 2008) to identify semantic fields and prominent themes, which were then examined through conceptual analysis.
Insights from the focus group interview: skepticism toward users, not apps
Semantic categorization of “I”- and “because”-clauses revealed that most first-person statements were cognitive processes (e.g., “I think,” “I am not sure”), indicating participants’ distancing from emotional engagement with online dating. Participants predominantly viewed digital dating positively, framing apps as enablers that facilitate honest expression and offer convenience in managing face threats without “hav[ing] to look at the person.” Apps were also associated with choice, enabling users to “choose what [they] want” based on personal taste and adapt to their “current life situation.”
This is interesting insofar as social media have been theorized as recursive systems where context and behavior are reciprocally related (Lüders, Dinkelberg & Quayle, 2022), challenging the notion that dating apps simply provide platforms for people to manage aspects of their ‘real’ lives and engage in the same types of relationships as they would in other contexts. Yet, participants also expressed ambivalence about whether dating apps merely facilitate existing behaviors or actively shape interactions.
The majority of negative evaluations of dating apps focused on the risk of users intentionally creating a false image of themselves, such as by “building up expectations” based on “photos [that] are likely to be modified.” Some respondents were more critical of the apps themselves, arguing that digital dating, in general, is a “more superficial” way of getting to know others, as it “focuses too much on appearance.”
Findings from the survey: filter, sort it, choose, delete it
The aim of the open-question Google survey was to gather more metadiscourse on the topic of interest, produced by various participants under different conditions, thus allowing for a quantitatively oriented, corpus-based analysis to complement my focus group interview analysis. After annotating the data for parts of speech and semantic categories using Wmatrix 5.0 (Rayson 2008), I examined the semantic fields automatically identified as prominent in the data.
As I was particularly interested in the notion of genuineness in digitally enabled relationships, it was noteworthy that Wmatrix identified the categories “Likely” and “Degree: Boosters” among the most frequent in my corpus. Examining these paradigms revealed what respondents framed as certain, on the one hand, and what they linguistically foregrounded as “more than expectable” on the other.
In line with my focus group findings, analysis of these semantic categories revealed a stronger orientation towards certainty in participants’ representations of dating apps as tools for self-presentation. Respondents expressed confidence in dating apps’ ability to manage relationships, highlighting features like profile customization and filtering as positive affordances, as illustrated by the examples in Table 1 below:
| Category | Events framed as ‘certain’ |
| Customization | You can filter You can sort You can put an age range Labels can be chosen |
| Efficiency | [you can] reduce the time spent Spend as little time as possible per potential match |
| Control | You can somewhat control One can decide You can let be |
| Flexibility | You can branch out You can easily search for people |
| Certainty | You can be sure that […] |
| Simplicity | A simple delete will take all the weirdness |
Table 1: Focus group respondents’ representations about dating apps framed as certain
In contrast, when discussing how genuine young people perceive digitally enabled relationships, skepticism was directed more at users than the apps themselves. The conceptual profile of adverbially “boosted” processes highlighted categories like “genuineness,” “positive attributes,” and “personality.” Users were depicted as either “sincere” or “pretenders” who “leave out” negative traits to “seem perfect,” often associated with being “confident” or “insecure.” These findings align with earlier results: while dating apps were positively viewed as opportunities, doubts were raised about the sincerity of their users, as illustrated by examples (i) and (ii) below:
- as you said it’s an opportunity for you to meet different people and you can get to know a lot of people
- it can get serious but it also like there are a lot of people on these platforms who just don’t mean it serious uhm
Summary and implications: beyond ‘real’ vs. ‘fake’?
In this pilot study, I explored young people’s opinions on online dating by qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing a focus group interview transcript and a corpus of responses to an open-ended survey. The study aimed to identify prominent conceptualizations in my respondents’ representations of online dating, focusing specifically on the role of genuineness in digitally enabled communication and relationships. Broadly, respondents viewed dating apps as means to an end, with perceptions of superficiality, fakeness, or sincerity largely depending on users’ intentions and their ability to detect fraud in digital discourse.
These findings suggest that respondents’ beliefs contrast with researchers’ observations (e.g., Petroni, 2019) about the role of language in online persuasion (romantic, professional, or other) – specifically, that it matters less what you write or show and more how you use the features provided by the app to craft a particular image. Thus, being perceived as superficial on dating apps might not reflect a lack of desire to be ‘real,’ but rather strategic choices in profile design. This suggests that the platform is not as neutral as it might seem. Instead, it offers a system of semiotic choices that both enable creative identity expression and shape what can be expressed.
What I found to receive little attention in discussions about genuineness on dating apps – both in the focus group interviews and survey responses – is critical reflection on the stereotypical ideas likely influencing identity performance online and offline. As the digital and non-digital spheres of interaction increasingly merge, the question of ‘reality versus online’ may become less relevant. Instead, more research is needed on the normative ideas shaping which identities can be performed and are deemed likable or attractive on dating apps. These platforms not only reflect but also shape how we conceptualize and practice romantic relationships today.
Thompson (2022) examined the dating app Bumble, which claims to empower women by letting them “make the first move.” She argues that this design pressures women to take control of interactions, requiring constant investment to maintain connections. From signalling interest, users face time constraints to initiate chats, turning the app into a disciplinary technology (Foucault, 1977: 136). Finding a partner becomes less about opportunity and more about mastering the app. This raises the question: is constructing a “datable self” (Duguay, 2016: 7, cit. in Thompson, 2022) any less real than excelling in other aspects of life? As dating apps integrate into social structures (Blommaert, 2019: 1), the divide between online and offline interactions fades.
In light of this, I find some of the most intriguing questions for future research to be how datable identities are constructed in discourse on and about social media, and how the creation of intimate bonds intersects with broader societal issues that complicate human connection.
Dr. Eva Triebl is a is a member of #YouthMediaLife and obtained her PhD in Applied English Linguistics at the University of Lancaster, UK. Specialized in pragmatically oriented Critical Discourse Studies, she explores how patterned linguistic choices in digital contexts relate to wider societal beliefs about identity and relationships.
References
Antaki, Charles & Sue Widdicombe (Eds.). (1998). Identities in Talk. Sage Publications Ltd.
Beck, Ulrich (1992). Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. Los Angeles/London: Sage.
Blommaert, Jan (2019). Political discourse in post-digital societies. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies 236. https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/48995700/TPCS_236_Blommaert.pdf
Castro, Ángel & Juan Ramón Barrada (2020). Dating apps and their sociodemographic and psychosocial correlates: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (18), 6500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186500
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121420950756
Duguay, Stefanie (2017). Dressing up Tinderella: interrogating authenticity claims on the mobile dating app Tinder. Information, Communication & Society 20 (3): 351–367. . https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1168471
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2001). Discursive Psychology. London [etc.]: Sage.
Fairclough, Norman (2003). Analysing Discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London, New York: Routledge.
Giddens, Anthony (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kavroulaki, Evanthia (2022). ‘Congratulations! You just won the title for ‘worse Tinder opening line’. Inappropriate behaviour and impoliteness in online dating. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 10 (1): 13–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00063.kav
KhosraviNik, Majid & Johann W. Unger (2016). Critical discourse studies and social media: Power, resistance and critique in changing media ecologies. In: Wodak, Ruth & Michael Meyer (Eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. 3rd Ed. London [etc.]: Sage. 205–233.
Lüders, Adrian, Alejandro Dinkelberg & Michael Quayle. 2022. Becoming “us” in digital spaces: How online users creatively and strategically exploit social media affordances to build up social identity. Acta Psychologica 228. 103643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103643 (accessed 14 April 2024).
Martin, J.R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (Eds.). Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 142–175.
Petroni, Sandra (2019). How social media shape identities and discourses in professional digital settings: self-communication or self-branding? In: Bou-Franch, Patricia & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (Eds.). Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 251–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92663-6
Pew Research Center (2023). From looking for love to swiping the field: online dating in the U.S. Published by Colleen McClain & Risa Gelles-Watnick. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2023/01/PI_2023.02.02_Onilne-Dating_FINAL.pdf (November 2024).
Plantin Jean-Christophe & Aswin Plantin (2019). Digital media infrastructures: pipes, platforms, and politics. Media, Culture & Society 41 (2): 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718818376
Rayson, Paul (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13 (4): 519–549.
Statista (2024). Digital market outlook: dating service users worldwide 2018-2028, by segment. Published by Stacy Jo Dixon. https://www.statista.com/forecasts/891146/eservices-dating-services-online-user-by-segment-worldwide
Thompson, Riki. 2024. Beyond the gender binary: digital dating, discourse, design, and normativity. In: Stefania Maci & Mark McGlashan (Eds.). Critical) Discourse Studies and the (New?) Normal: Analysing Discourse in Times of Crisis. 301–330.
Toma, Cathalina L. & Jeffrey T. Hancock (2012). What lies beneath: the linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication 62 (1): 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01619.x
Van der Zanden, Tess, Alexander P. Schouten, Maria B. J. Mos & Emiel J. Krahmer (2020). Impression formation on online dating sites: effects of language errors in profile texts on perceptions of profile owners’ attractiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 37 (3): 758–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519878787
Wodak, Ruth & Michael Meyer (Eds.) (2016.) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. 3rd Edition. Los Angeles [etc.]: Sage.