Left, right, Black, and White: how White college students talk about their inter- and intra- racial swiping preferences on Tinder

Abstract

Previous studies reveal that Black women are the least likely to be selected or matched on dating/hookup apps, followed closely behind by Black men. Our study seeks to better understand how, when asked to confront their preferences, white heterosexual college-aged students justify their racial tastes on the popular dating app, Tinder. Drawing on data from 137 peer-to-peer interviews with students at two large universities in the southeastern United States, our findings reveal that heterosexual white interviewees justified their reasons for swiping left (i.e. rejecting) on Black potential matches in multiple ways. Where a small handful responded using overtly racist language, the overwhelming majority embedded their responses in colorblind racist rhetoric that drew upon language couched in cultural incompatibility, relied on stereotypes and generalizations that often conflated race with social class, and attributed their racial preferences to family values and regional demographic restrictions. Situating our findings within the “white racial frame” and sociological scholarship on new racism, we argue that white respondents’ evasion of honest racial language in their responses perpetuates ideologies of colorblind racism. Additionally, our findings contribute to how sexual and colorblind racism is reinvented and perpetuated in online spaces through the dissemination of neoliberal discourses around personal preference that both disguise and normalize racism in internet dating. We discuss the implications of our findings for sociological research on race, gender, and intimate marketplaces.

Notes

1 We use the term intimate marketplace purposefully instead of erotic marketplace to capture the fact that our participants used Tinder for both, dating and sexual relations.

2 Unfortunately, because of the peer-to-peer interview method we used, we cannot say for sure if their responses were vague because of their response or because after further probing, they could not provide more of an answer.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alana J. Peck

Alana J. Peck is a graduate student at Louisiana State University. Her research focuses are race, gender, inequality, and relationships. She is currently completing her dissertation on the relationship experiences of Black women.

Dana Berkowitz

Dana Berkowitz, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Women’s and Gender Studies at Louisiana State University. She is the author of Botox Nation: Changing the Face of America (NYU Press) and editor (with Elroi Windsor and Chong-suk Han) of Male Femininities (forthcoming, NYU Press). Her scholarship has also appeared in Journal of Marriage and Family, Qualitative Health Research, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Qualitative Sociology, and Symbolic Interaction.

Justine Tinkler

Justine Tinkler is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Georgia. She conducts research on responses to sexual misconduct policies and gender and racial bias in decision making. Her research is published in journals such as Law & Social Inquiry, Socius, Social Psychology Quarterly, and Social Science Research.