Unveiling romance in categories: exploring compatibility in Tinder conversations

2.1 Homogamy in online dating from a positivist perspective

Research in social psychology has explored the formation of relationships and homogamy in online dating contexts. The focus of this research has primarily been on partner preferences and mate selection. For example, Hitsch et al. (2010) study users’ self-reported preferences for various attributes, such as age, education, race, and income, and examine how these preferences influence the likelihood of initiating contact and receiving responses from potential partners. Their findings suggested a preference for homogamous relationships. In this line of research, it has also been observed that mate preferences, self-presentation, and self-disclosure influence the likelihood of forming homogamous relationships (Bruch and Newman 2018; Gibbs et al. 2006).

Other studies pay special attention to the social dynamics and network structures that might facilitate or hinder the formation of homogamous relationships (Fiore et al. 2010; Lewis and Lundquist 2008; Wang et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2019). In another line of research, Toma et al. (2008) examine how deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles might influence partner selection and lead to potential mismatches between users with varying characteristics. In the particular context of the dating app Tinder, Sumter et al. (2017) explore the motivations of emerging adults for using this app. Through quantitative analysis of survey responses, they have identified the role of perceived compatibility and shared interests in users’ motivations for using Tinder.

2.2 The MCA approach to romantic relationships

In positivist social psychology, relationships are understood to be things that we ‘have’, frequently portrayed as fixed, concrete entities. Their states are often considered independent variables that influence communication patterns and outcomes (Mandelbaum 2003: 207). Further, “this approach to relationships treats them as social structural entities that ‘exist’ outside of discourse, taking ‘spouse’ or ‘supervisor,’ for instance, to be social categories, from which ways of talking follow“ (Mandelbaum 2003: 208). Within ethnomethodological approaches to relationships, instead of considering relationships as possessions, we shift our perspective to view them as ongoing accomplishments that we create and sustain through continuous interactions (Conroy 1999; Mandelbaum 1987, 2003). Relationships are understood as assemblages of interpersonal interactions, where relational talk forms the fundamental building blocks, rather than being a mere outcome of pre-existing social structures or roles (Mandelbaum 2003). In such an approach, showing the dynamics of a relationship often involves analyzing how partners collaboratively engage in specific actions geared towards “performing intimacy” or, as our analyses show, “doing compatibility.”

In line with this concept of relationships as practical accomplishments, Pomerantz and Mandelbaum (2005) employ MCA to examine existing relationships and demonstrate how they are enacted in ordinary interactions. In particular, they show how interactants continually sustain and update their relationships with each other “through talking and acting in ways that are recognizably bound with relationship categories” (p. 153).

In studies of first encounters, Maynard and Zimmerman (1984) show that unacquainted pairs (which were sociology college students) made use of “pre-topical sequences” to generate topical talk and “do acquaintedness.” The initial question in such sequences would invite recipients to categorize themselves in relation to membership categorization devices (MCDs) like year in school, academic major, local residence, and sociology class. They conclude by noting that exhibiting co-membership (i.e., similarity) and co-participation do not predict progress in the conversation, but rather create a conducive environment for such conversation to occur in a patterned manner. Exhibiting co-membership, therefore, sets the stage for further talk, but it does not predict its occurrence. In the same vein, Svennevig (1999, 2014) reveals that unacquainted people use the “self-presentational sequence” (comprising a request for self-presentation, the self-presentation, and a response to the self-presentation) in initial interactions to get acquainted and (eventually) develop a relationship. Again, the request for self-presentation would invite the recipient to categorize themselves according to various MCDs.

MCA has also been used to explore initial encounters between potential romantic partners in speed dating interactions. Korobov (2011) shows that mate-preference expressions are categorically gendered and are anticipated during initial interactions between potential romantic partners, implying the normative character of gendering these preferences. Additionally, conventional mate preferences seldom foster reciprocal affiliation, while mate preferences expressed in resistance to gender norms tend to serve as a precursor for alignment and affiliation. Furthermore, Korobov and Laplante (2013) examine how individuals utilize improprieties during speed-dating interactions to foster affiliation and intimacy. Specifically, two types of improprieties – negative category attributions of non-present individuals and insults directed at the present interlocutor – constitute significant actions contributing to reciprocal affiliation. Interestingly, improprieties, rather than being antagonistic, serve to foster intimacy due to their potential to be challenging.

In an entirely different context, Andréasson and Evaldsson (2023) also employ MCA to investigate how preteen children utilize relationship categories in their ordinary conversations to navigate and determine what qualifies as appropriate in terms of romantic feelings within their peer group. They reveal how claims of “liking someone” and “being together” (indicating a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship) are met with resistance and dissent from their peers.

4.1 Initial exploration of compatibility

This section examines the initial identification work performed by the matched Tinder users to get acquainted and explore their mutual compatibility. In this initial exploration, as we shall see below, the users tend to probe their putative co-membership (i.e., compatibility) in non-relational categories or MCDs like “occupation”, “location”, “hobbies”, or “sports”. As demonstrated in a previous study (Roca-Cuberes et al. 2023a), the primary interactional device employed by matched users to get to know each other and explore compatibility is the “elicited self-disclosure sequence” (ESDS), which comprises five moves: (1) one party (elicitor) asks a question to elicit a disclosure from recipient; (2) the recipient produces a prompted disclosure; (3) the recipient reciprocates a similar question; (4) the elicitor reciprocates similar information; and (5) selected disclosures are, eventually, positively assessed by either interlocutor to display affiliation.

Consider extract (1) below which presents the beginning of the conversation between MP19 and FI19 following their match.

Male (M); Female (F); Research Participant (P); Interlocutor (I); Stated age (number)

Here we see the employment of two ESDSs (messages 12–17, 20–27). As we may appreciate, the questions invite the recipients to categorize themselves with respect to various MCDs or categories, and the responses reveal the specific categories from these MCDs with which the recipients identify. Instead of the sequential structure, the focus of our analysis is on the use of membership categories by the matched Tinder users to accomplish acquaintedness and scrutinize their affinity.

Before initiating a conversation, the matched Tinder users already possess some minimal knowledge about each other’s categorial incumbencies, which informs their process of identification when they start interacting via chat. In their profiles, Tinder users self-categorize themselves from a whole variety of MCDs like gender, age, and sexual orientation (these three must be entered to create a profile and, therefore, generate an expectation of reciprocity in potential matches), plus others like location (estimated by the Tinder algorithm and shown as distance between users), and optionally, hobbies, sports, or occupation. The photos in those profiles might also serve the same purpose of identification since they are typically conceived to index membership within those or other MCDs.

MP19, for example, is shown in his profile as being “male” (inferred from his male first name), “aged 19”, being at a certain distance from another user’s “location”, and having an interest in the “hobbies” or “sports” of “skating”, “music”, and “surf”. Further, Tinder notifies matched users before their eventual interaction that they are already members of the standard relational pair: match-match. As a SRP, they have certain moral obligations toward each other, the most important of which is starting a conversation. This is exactly what happens with MP19’s greeting in message 1 (“Hellooooo”), which opens their conversation, and is responded to with another greeting by FI19 with “Hey” (message 2).

After the greeting exchange, MP19 utters the conventional conversation opener “how’s it going” (message 3) to which FI19 reveals that she’s doing “Great” (message 4), “But bored” (message 5). After this she reciprocates with a similar question (“You?”, message 6), which is responded to by MP19 with “Fiiine here doing online classes” (message 8). With this, he reveals his membership in the category “student” from the device “occupation”. By replying “Same” (message 9), FI19 discloses that she is also a “student”, hence projecting co-membership in the category “student”.

After realizing that they are co-members of the category “student”, they go on to explore whether they also share membership in the more specific category of “university student” and eventually discover that they are also co-members of this category as well: FI19 studies “Political science” (message 13) and MP19 “Music and fine arts” (message 15). This last message is then assessed by FI19 with “Wow but that’s amazing” to build affiliation and relational intimacy. MP19, being a member of the category “music and fine arts student”, is understood to have an interest and expertise in “music”, and seems to want to discover with his follow-up message, “What music do you listen to?” (message 20), i.e., whether FI19 shares similar tastes in music. FI19’s answer in message 23 conveys an eclectic taste in music, which is also shared and corroborated by MP19 with his “Me too a lot of varieeety” (message 25). Their tastes in music are category-bound to “eclectic music listener” of which, again, they are co-members.

4.2 Further exploration of compatibility

This section looks into the identification work performed by the matched Tinder users in later stages in their conversations to further explore their mutual compatibility. As we shall see below, after having discovered their co-membership in non-relational categories, their exploration of compatibility now progresses by probing their positioning and possible alignment in relational categories like “single” or “partner”.

Extract (2) reproduces a fragment of a very long, on and off, conversation between MP61 and FI50. Before this fragment, they have both been chatting for five days and have exchanged approximately 240 messages. In those five days, they have been performing much identification work and have explored and discovered their co-membership in a whole variety of categories or MCDs: they are both “single”, “separated”, “parents” of a single child (and both children are female of a similar age), “employed”, practice regularly diverse “sports”, and enjoy similar “hobbies” like socializing or watching TV.

Male (M); Female (F); Research Participant (P); Interlocutor (I); Stated age (number)

MP61 and FI50 have been talking about the ongoing Covid-19 lockdown (at the time of data collection) and potential post-lockdown life (messages 1 and 2), after which MP61 shifts topics and launches an ESDS with the question “Have you been single for a while?” (message 3) as the first move in the sequence, which is further developed with “without a partner” (message 4). Like in extract (1), the question invites the recipient to self-categorize with respect to a category or MCD. In this case, the target category is “single” and MP61 wants to find out how long FI50 has been a member of this category. Answers to this question would be inferentially-rich in that, for example, if FI50 made herself an incumbent of a category like “long-term single”, that could pose an issue of incompatibility. Predicates like “difficulty in initiating and maintaining a relationship”, “lack of interest in relationships”, or “loneliness”, may be category-bound to “long-term single” and could hinder relationship development.

However, FI50 reveals that she has been without a partner for “7 months” (message 5), a reasonable period that makes her a member of the category “temporarily single”. MP61, after being asked, then replies that he “separated 10 years ago” (message 9) and has been “without a stable partner for two years” (message 11). This would make him a member of the category “long-term single” and potentially associate him with the previously mentioned predicates. FI50 probes further with “And you haven’t had a partner” (message 12) and “Not convinced by any of them?” (message 14) to ascertain whether the same predicates may apply to MP61.

MP61’s response in message 15 (“It’s not easy, I don’t fall in love with a broom in a skirt”) is noteworthy since it comprises a distinct (in this context) positive predicate associated with the category “long-term single”: that of “being selective”. In doing this, he is not only furnishing a good reason for being a “long-term single”, but he also distances or differentiates himself from possible “typical male” predicates like “being unselective”. This differentiation, as Edley and Wetherell (1997) and Widdicombe and Wooffitt (1995) illustrate, implies rejecting category membership by exhibiting how one does not hold the typical features of a category.

In this particular case, differentiation serves MP61 to position himself as resistant to normative “typical male” behavior. Moreover, as Korobov (2011) suggests, the idiosyncrasy attained through resistance to category-bound behavior may also be a prominent approach for creating commonality or intimacy. In effect, FI50’s positive assessment (“That’s better”, message 16) of MP61’s statement in message 15 conveys reciprocal resistance to category conformity and thereby functions to foster alignment, affiliation and intimacy. Subsequently, MP61 details the predicates a woman should possess for him to fall in love (17, 20, 24, 25, 27), which FI50 positively assesses and endorses (messages 19, 23, 26, 28), fostering further affiliation.

The combination of MP61’s perceptions and FI50’s positive assessments operates to intersubjectively align their perspectives so as to make both users co-members in the category of “people who understand the kinds of traits that someone should have to make you fall in love with them”. It also works to corroborate that they are both candidates to be members of the SRP “romantic partner” – “romantic partner” and in the process they have displayed significant progress in accomplishing commonality, intimacy and compatibility.

In extract (3), following their ‘match’, FP45 and MI44 engage in an uninterrupted conversation for about 10 min before the start of extract. MI44, an Italian citizen and resident, is communicating in Italian, a language FP45, a Spanish resident in Spain, has a significant command of due to her previous time in Italy. They are shown to be 900 km apart by Tinder. After initial greetings, their conversation has covered the challenges of distance, the choice of language for communication, and MI44’s job. After this, FP45 shifts topic and asks MI44 “What are you doing on tinder?” (message 1).

Male (M); Female (F); Research Participant (P); Interlocutor (I); Stated age (number)

The question in message 1 initiates an ESDS and constitutes a common discursive resource matched Tinder users employ to probe their interlocutors’ relationship preferences, ascertain their affinity, and decide if pursuing the conversation further is worthwhile. When posed early in the interaction (as above), it denotes a no-nonsense approach that heavily constrains possible answers. This is because a response that projects a different kind of “relationship” than that entertained by the questioner could potentially result in the termination of the communication (see (4) below). Perhaps due to this constraint, the response MI44 provides in message 2 (“Nothing in particular, I meet new people”) turns out to be so equivocal concerning his “relationship preferences”. Clearly, MI44 – who is a user of a dating app, self-identified as “heterosexual” to create a profile and therefore can only be matched with “women” – cannot be on Tinder to do “Nothing in particular, I meet new people”. He can only be on Tinder to meet “women” (a category from the device “gender”), “heterosexual” (from the device “sexual orientation”), in a certain “age” range, and not only members of the very generic category “people”.

After his equivocal answer in message 2, MI44 reciprocates with a similar question (“You”, message 3), which is responded to with “Looking for the fairy tale” (message 5) by FP45. In her reply FP45 conveys that she is seeking a traditional relationship, making herself an incumbent of the category “traditional partner” when she is in a relationship. In this traditional relationship, the man should be a “prince charming” (message 5), thereby also a “traditional partner”. However, MI44 no longer seems to believe in traditional relationships because “Unfortunately, I thought I was the prince charming at least 5/6 times in my life…then instead I realized that nowadays everything has changed” (message 10). If any, there should be a single traditional relationship in a lifetime, making it incompatible with potential membership in the category “prince charming” at least 5/6 times. However, according to MI44, that is unfortunate, which suggests that he made an effort to be a “traditional partner” but struggled to find a counterpart who reciprocated the same. This is so because “nowadays everything has changed”.

FP45 then asks “Why did everything change?”, which MI44 answers with two messages: “Because now everything is faster, more frivolous, devoid of feelings” (message 12) and “You just fuck and that’s it” (message 13). These predicates are definitely not attachable to the category “traditional partner” that FP45 is seeking. MI44 carefully distances himself from these predicates by describing them in the third person (in the original Italian), thereby making “others,” and not himself, the potential incumbents of the category “people who look for fast, frivolous, and sexual relationships”. FP45, in message 16 (“When I see a guy who only wants this, bye”), exhibits her incompatibility with members of the latter category. She then describes what she understands should be the typical features of a traditional relationship: it should be a beautiful story (message 17) like that of our grandparents (message 18). This is followed by what she estimates as crucial in a “traditional male partner”: “The man who courts the woman is for me the most basic thing” (message 19).

Note how, unlike MP61 (in extract (2)), FP45’s last messages project conformity to gender-appropriate – in this case, “typical female” – conduct. She endorses category membership by positioning herself as complying with normative category predicates. MI44’s “I agree” (message 20), in turn, serves to produce affiliation, align their perspectives, convey compatibility, and project co-membership of the relational category “traditional partner”. Her portrayal as a “traditional partner” is then further reinforced with her “I’m very old-fashioned for this” (message 21).

4.3 Discovering critical incompatible membership

In the process of performing the necessary identification work to explore their affinity, matched Tinder users may eventually discover potential membership in categories that one or both deem critically incompatible. Instances from our data demonstrate that membership in potentially conflicting categories (for example, smoker – non-smoker, or, as in the examples below, single – committed, adventurous person – controlling person) may result in the termination of the exploration, communication and potential relationship.

Extract (4) is a fragment of the rather short conversation between FP48 and MI48 that unfolded over a span of three days, punctuated by extended gaps between messages. Prior to the current exchange, they have discovered their co-membership in the MCD location and have been enquiring about the absence of personal photos in their profiles. FP48’s profile picture features a plum and MI48’s a car with an elderly man sitting on it, intended to be funny.

Male (M); Female (F); Research Participant (P); Interlocutor (I); Stated age (number)

As can be observed, MI48 and FP48 are complimenting each other on their respective profile photos (messages 1 and 2), which they find amusing (message 3). After a gap of about 20 min, MI48 initiates an ESDS with the question “Are you in a committed relationship, do you have a partner??” (message 4), framed as important through emphatic punctuation. This question is designed to determine the category to which FP48 belongs within the MCD “relationship status”.

FP48’s response (“I don’t and you??? Otherwise I wouldn’t be here”, message 5), given after about 8 h, conveys her membership in the category “single” – which might be inferred via the consistency rule – and reciprocates with a similar question, also framed as important through emphatic punctuation. In the same message, FP48 adds, “Otherwise I wouldn’t be here”. It is worth noting the use of “here” in the message. “Here” might be heard as a location formulation that constitutes a particular kind of category. As Schegloff (1972) has shown, place formulations can be selected from among a range of referentially adequate alternatives. Typically, place formulations are recipient designed, suggesting that in their co-selection, members perform an MCA of their recipients. This allows members to see their recipients as incumbents of a particular category and design their location formulations accordingly. “Here”, a type of place reference (a “demonstrative”; see Levinson and Wilkins 2006), does not designate an identifiable location. However, being recipient designed, the formulation “here” invokes co-membership in the category “Tinder user” with MI48, hence indexing “Tinder” as the referenced location. This is unproblematically understood by MI48, as he does not initiate in the subsequent message a repair sequence to address his understanding of “here”.

Overall, FP48’s turn (message 5) works to claim membership in the category “single” and to signal that this membership is a necessary condition (at least for her) to be on Tinder. MI48’s ensuing answer, (“I do…”, message 6), denotes that he is a member of the category “committed” within the MCD “relationship status”. This leads FP48 to initiate a brief disagreement sequence with “Well it’s all said I’m not looking for this” (message 7), in which “this” indexes the incompatibility of the relational categories “single” and “committed”. The disagreement sequence and the communication are finally ended by FP48 with her “Good luck” (message 8).

Extract (5) reproduces the entire conversation between FP22 and MI23, which proves to be rather unsuccessful. In the process of accomplishing identification, FP22 discovers they are not co-members of a category with which she identifies.

Male (M); Female (F); Research Participant (P); Interlocutor (I); Stated age (number)

1	MI23	Venga va dime de qué clase de aventuras
		Come on tell me what kind of adventures
		[Monday 22:07]
2	FP22	No prefieres descubrirlo?
		Wouldn’t you prefer to find out?
		[Tuesday 0:03]
3	MI23	Hombre está bien poner intriga a las cosas, pero nunca va mal saber por donde van los tiros
		Well, it’s OK to make things intriguing, but it never hurts to know where things are headed
		[Wednesday 22:39]
4	FP22	Jajaja asi que eres de los que necesita tenerlo todo controlado
		Hahaha so you are one of those who need to have everything under control
5	MI23	Por supuesto, de esa manera sabré cómo actuar y que no me pilles de sorpresa
		Of course, that way I will know how to act and you won’t catch me by surprise
6	FP22	Jajaja eso no me gusta mucho…
		Hahaha I don’t like that very much…
7	MI23	Ah no?
		Not really?
8		No te gusta la gente preparada?
		You don’t like prepared people?
9	FP22	Me gusta mas fluir
		I prefer to flow

In FP22’s profile, the “about me” section states, “Looking for adventurous friends”, implying that to be compatible with her, potential matches should be members of a category like “adventurous person”. This is the only self-description found in FP22’s entire profile. MI23, in an unconventional conversation opening, enquires about “what kind of adventures” (message 1) she is looking for. After a few hours, FP22 responds with another question, “Wouldn’t you prefer to find out?” (message 2).

Following another gap of approximately 2 h, MI23’s “well”-prefaced response in message 3 (“Well, it’s OK to make things intriguing, but it never hurts to know where things are headed ”) is disaffiliative with FP22’s prior question and engenders disagreement. Further, his answer makes him appear an incumbent of a category like “controlling person”, which is then formulated in these terms in FP22’s message (after about 22 h) with “Hahaha so you are one of those who need to have everything under control” (message 4).

In message 5 (“Of course, that way I will know how to act and you won’t catch me by surprise ”), MI23 confirms that he is a member of the category “controlling person” and elucidates why: he does not like to be caught by surprise. Membership in this category is disliked by FP22, as we observe in message 6 (“Hahaha I don’t like that very much…”), which is questioned by MI23 in messages 7 (“Not really?”) and 8 (“You don’t like prepared people?”). In the latter message, we may appreciate how MI23 claims incumbency on the category “prepared people”, perhaps more agreeable than the category “controlling person”. However, FP22’s “I prefer to flow” in the ensuing message, which is predicated on the category “adventurous person”, serves to convey her incompatibility with MI23, a member of the category “controlling person”. As a result, their exploration of compatibility, as well as their communication, comes to an end.

In another conversation (extract (6)), also very brief, FP22 discovers she shares membership in the category “adventurous person” with her match.

Male (M); Female (F); Research Participant (P); Interlocutor (I); Stated age (number)

1	MI22
		[Wednesday 17:51]
2	FP22	Un corazon? Tan rapido?
		A heart? So fast?
		[Wednesday 19:43]
3	MI22	Soy un aventurero
		I’m an adventurer
		[Thursday 11:31]
4	FP22	Jajjaj me ha gustado esta
		Hahhah I liked this one
5		Oye tienes insta?
		Hey do you have insta?
		[Thursday 15:11]
6	MI22	Sii
		Yess
7		((Link to Instagram profile))
		[Sunday 14:26]
8	FP22	Perfe hablamos x ahi
		Perfect let’s chat on it

In effect, MI22 invokes FP22’s profile claim (“Looking for adventurous friends”) to formulate his incumbency in the category “adventurous person” with his “I’m an adventurer ” (message 3), projecting co-membership in that category with FP22. In message 4, FP22 confirms their co-membership in the category (“Hahhah I liked this one”). She then suggests continuing the conversation on Instagram to further explore their compatibility. As we have shown in the previous analyses, progress in the conversation – and in this particular case, switching to another medium of communication (see Roca-Cuberes et al. 2023b) – amounts to progress in the exploration of compatibility and the development of relational intimacy.