 So we'll start now with the presentation of what we're going to be doing today, Symposium. Well basically, this is a presentation of a project that is about to be finished, and I will just go through the road that we have followed throughout these three years, three and a half years, and more or less what we have achieved, what we have accomplished, what we have done, and also we'll discuss as well or we'll present as well those things that are still to be accomplished and that we hope to do as well in the near future. So as I said before, this started over three years ago, well actually it's even a lot more than that because we tried more than once to get funding for this project, but yes it started three and a half years ago. And originally what we wanted to do is this, so we wanted to explore the phenomenon of mobile dating or the phenomenon of dating apps and originally it was as well the impact that mobile dating has had on individuals but also on society, but that was the original purpose. What we have done is slightly different from that, but that was the original purpose as well, the motivations as well, to see how all this has affected the way people relate to each other or start relationships and stuff like that. So that was the original purpose, but as I said before now we will see as well how things have evolved in a different way from the original purpose. The specific goals of the project can be summarized as these, again the users, practices, motivations of mobile dating users, how people self-present as well in those dating apps, particularly in their photos, videos, bios and also in their personal descriptions. And we wanted as well to explore how the design of the apps affects as well what people or shapes what people do or don't do when they use these apps. And finally one important aspect as well is to see how people interact in the charts that these applications have, that was as well something that we wanted to do and I think that we have done quite a lot and actually we are going to be presenting later on some bits as well of that. Once you have a set of goals about what you want to do then you need to think about how you will do it and that involves of course thinking about methods. So we go back to the previous slide, we have here like a set of goals but then how do we do that? How do we go about doing that? And we thought about several different strategies, several different methods that we could employ as well to accomplish all that. So the first one of those goals was to explore the users' practices and motivations and we thought that the best way to find out about that would be to do like a series of interviews to of course dating up users. To explore the issue of self-presentation we thought that probably the best method would be some kind of content analysis and we thought as well eventually of using ethnographic research which we did but at the same time we thought that it would be good as well to ask people what is it that they do when they self-present themselves online and in these dating apps. So we thought that we could use as well interviews to find out about that. The design, it's a very important thing as well of course the design and the affordances of dating apps because that shapes very much what people do or don't do in those applications. So we thought the best way to explore all that would be to use some kind of content analysis and eventually as well some ethnographic research. And finally to see how people interact in those chats we thought that the best possible methods and tools would be conversation analysis which is an area of research in which some of us specialize. Let's start with the interviews then. So we thought okay we're going to be interviewing people. We need to think who these people are going to be. And we also had to think about who we are as researchers and what kinds of interests do we have as well as researchers. So what we decided is that each one of us of the team, each member of this research team would eventually think about possible topics that they would like to explore when asking questions to these users, to these interviewees. So we came up with a series of topics that we thought that would be interesting to find about and ask questions to the users about. And we came up with this sample which was a diverse sample. Some of us had an interest to see what was going on with more heterosexual users. And some of us thought that they were much more interested for example in a gay population. So we had finally this big sample, quite big sample for interviews. And yes, we had a heterosexual sample with 40 users that were interviewed by gender, 20 male, 20 female users and the Hs as you can see from 80 into 31 year old, 20 users, 41 to 62 year old, 20 users. So as you can see there's like a big gap regarding age. And we thought that that was very important to see what younger users would do as opposed to older users because we know and we knew before that we are quite different when we use those apps depending on age. So we thought that there should be like a big gap there in those age ranges. And in the gay sample we used the same logic. We had like a smaller sample and in this case by gender they were all male and the age gap was quite similar to the previous one. So 20 to 31, 10 users and 40 to 60, 10 users. So as I said before, we thought about topics, things that we could be interested in. And the result of that is a series of topics that you will get to see now and which have materialized as well in several different publications or papers that are still in the process of being done and others that I have now under review, for example, in several journals, but you will get to see the kinds of things that we were interested. So this is the one that I led myself. I was interested in particular in the differences between the genders as well, age differences regarding the motivations, perceptions and experiences on Tinder. So hopefully this paper that is going to be published soon. But that's what I was exploring, that is what the kind of thing that I was interested when I did that. It's a very long, well that is the abstract, you know it's quite long there, but you know to summarize it is basically age and gender differences in the practices and users of mobile dating on Tinder in particular by 40 users. And this is another paper that is going to be presented later on here. And some of us were interested as well in seeing what happens when you get rejected on Tinder. So this is actually a paper that has been published already in a very good journal. And yeah, that's the kind of thing that we were exploring here. So basically analyzing these rejection experiences. And again we asked that sample of 40 users what kinds of experiences they had when they were being rejected or when they rejected other users. And this is another paper that is very much in progress and basically explores the practices of sexting on dating apps. And as I said before this is very much in progress still to be finished the paper, but I think it's going to be very interesting. So we should keep in mind as well that this project was going on during the pandemic and during the pandemic there was a lot of sexting for obvious reasons. So it's very interesting as well those kinds of practices as they happen as well at that time. This is another paper still in progress. That was a topic that one of us chose as relevant. So what is it? How do gay people, gay men in particular handle the use of these apps while being in open relationships? And again this is very much work in progress. This paper that I remember well is almost finished now. And again it's about masculinity and in particular how self-presentation in dating apps leads to this objectification of the body. And in particular that was done with gay users of dating apps. And this paper as well is very much still in progress. We also interviewed people to find out about their self-presentation and how they would do impression management on Tinder very much in line with Goffman's work which is quite well known as well. The other method that I mentioned before is counter-analysis and ethnography and now I'm going to be well just very briefly showing some of the work that we have been doing as well in that line of research. This article well it's going to be an article as well when it gets published of course. And here one of us was, some of us were exploring the differences in self-presentation of gay users of dating apps in particular comparing like mainstream apps as opposed to bare platforms. In this one in particular it's a comparison between heterosexual and gay users in their self-presentation strategies. And this one it's about well this is under review. Now this article under review and it's about the underlying ideology of interface design and you know how that shapes as well self-presentation, concealment as well and it's as well about the promotional discourse or branding, self-branding discourse that is very typical of Tinder and you will get like a brief presentation of this paper in particular later on in the afternoon. Then in conversation analysis we have done as well quite a few things we will show you just some of these and you will get the presentation as well later on about some of them. This is the one that I was leading and it's about how relationships are formed in on Tinder. At the end of the day you know many people seek to have like something like a relationship. So what kinds of things do people do to start a relationship, what does it mean to get to know each other, how do people get acquainted and eventually that leads to a relationship. So I will be presenting some bits of that as well later on in my presentation. And well since this is a paper that I know quite well because I was writing it myself with some colleagues as well. Relationships have to be understood basically as routine accomplishments or relationship is not something like a reality lying behind actions but you know the actions actually will constitute relationships. This is a paper that is going to be presented by Elisabeth later on. It's about how invitations are generated in on Tinder, interactionally and the data for this paper come from Danish interactions on Tinder. So I'm not going to say much more about it because she's going to be presenting later on and I think it's very interesting. And will my colleague will also present how emojis are used on Tinder. I think it's quite you know it's very interesting and it's well actually it's fascinating, it's the word and so I think you will enjoy this very much because that's the kind of thing that we never pay attention to but they have like a very important function, very important function as we shall see later on. And Christian is going to be presenting this social differentiation in the chat conversation so does do interactions differ depending on kind of social class or you know depending on education and you know the kind of social background that you have? Well Christian will show us that yes that happens very much you know the people interact very differently the topics they talk about you know differ quite significantly depending on you know the kind of background that you have educational background in particular. And this is just well some of the things we have been doing so far in this project still some of the work is still in progress even though the project is now has now come to an end officially you know there's still a few things that will come up later on. Now just a few words about the participants and of course our keynote speaker is Juan Ramón Barrada from the University of Zaragoza and you know he's a professor in that university an expert in evolutionary psychology and education and yes he's been involved as well in some dating up investigations as well that you know he's been he's going to be talking about later on okay so that will be our keynote speaker for today's symposium. Lisabeth is there later on and he's going to be presenting the paper I mentioned before she's a bachelor of arts in linguistics she holds a master's in psychology of language and she currently works in Odense University and she got a master's as well and PhD in Denmark the University of Copenhagen. Bitor who is online so as you can see I'm presenting everybody strictly in alphabetical order and Bitor who is online and is going to be presenting as well a very interesting paper he's a bachelor of arts in audio-visual communication from Universidad Complutense de Madrid a master's in media power and difference and now he's a pre-doctoral fellow at UPF. Gibson, Will Gibson and professor he is a professor from very recent times of interaction of sociology and qualitative research methodology and yes he has a bachelor's of science in sociology from the University of Manchester a master's in social research from the University of Manchester as well and a PhD from that university so you know we obviously got to know each other there because I was there at that time so we know each other for a long time. Julio Jardison Guimara who is here with us as well he's a bachelor of arts in philology a master's in literary theory and PhD in cultural studies from the University of Barcelona and he teaches design and publication of multimedia products and he's going to be presenting as well later on a paper. Olaz is back there in journalism bachelor of arts in journalism from Navarro University and he got a master's degree and PhD in social communication from this very university Christian Ligop, his CV is too long but anyway he works at telecom Paris Tech and he's a professor of sociology in that department and well he's done quite a few things but always having to do at least the ones that I know having to do with technology and how people interact with technologies and you know he's an expert in that field as well in design and yeah very much an expert in all these fields. Pilar as well here with us he graduated in psychology, he has a master's in clinical psychology as well from the University of Barcelona and she's as well lecturer in our department of communication and she specializes as well in psychosociology and communication agenda is our very specialist in that particular area. This is myself, I'm not going to be saying much about myself so you know I work here in this department as well, I have a bachelor of arts in psychology, a master's in economic and social studies as well from the University of Manchester and a PhD from the University as well and I work in this department and I focus very much my research on interpersonal communication and mobile communication as of lately. Miquel Rodigo cannot be with us today but also he's a professor of communication theory and in this very department and he also got his degree in communication but also in law from University in Barcelona and he specializes in communication theory and intercultural communication as well. Arnau Roig he will join us later on, he has a degree in audiovisual communication and then he has an MA in English studies and gender studies and finally a PhD in media and communications from the University of Illinois and he teaches in several departments, one of them is UPF and he specializes in LGBTI plus teenagers and his research interests also include cultural studies, representation of minorities and diversity, Rafael Ventura I think he's as well somewhere there, a BA in advertising and public relations and he has as well a master's degree in social communication and a PhD in communication and he also his research interests are in the LGBTIQA plus queer media studies, audience reception and media representation and that's all. So this will be the speakers and I hope you enjoy the symposium, I think there's quite a few very interesting things that you will get to hear as well hopefully and it's time as well now for our keynote speaker so if you have your presentation ready. This is a pretty anticlimax moment, I'm sorry. Hello everyone, first of all thank you very much for inviting me to this symposium, it's for me a very nice opportunity to learn from all the specialists, I'm a psychologist so we belong to different research traditions so I'm for sure going to gain a lot from your methods and what you have discovered. I'm Juan Ramon Barravenkin from the University of Zaragoza and my talk is going to be about the little differences that we have found between dating up users and non-users. Imagine a woman and a man having sex, there is a full constant situation, it's completely healthy condition and everything is under control, nothing strange, so everything is alright as could be expected in a safe conditions and both people decide to have a sexual intercourse. What would be your moral evaluation of that? Probably in these conditions that would be basically neutral, there are two other people that decide to have sex, we don't have anything to say, probably that would be our opinion but imagine that both of them are a brother and a sister. Has your moral opinion changed with these new conditions? If the answer is yes, why? What I'm trying to show with this is that sex and relationships are directly related with some moral ideas that arrive to us almost directly and consciously and without having to think a lot and this relationship that we have as individuals and society with sex and relationships is also present in the new ways how we communicate and how we start to date with other people like now with dating apps or Tinder or similar. Now, we are living in a courier situation where we have to balance between two traditions or two cultural approaches to this phenomenon of sexuality and dating. We have from one side Queen Victoria and the Victorian morality that although he died more than a century ago, we have somehow still a continuation because she represents a kind of morality that has been always present and in the other side we have the hippies and good stuff and those kinds of traditions that we can relate with more freedom or more unrestricted sexuality. One would say that now we are living more in a society like that one and we have basically left the Victorian morality but it's not so sure for me. I will translate this for those that, oh, the idea is this is a Twitter, this is a person that has seven million followers and he asked to his followers, are you going to do the NOFAP September? NOFAP September is basically oriented to men to abstain from masturbating for a full month. Supposedly this is related to I don't know how many benefits for not doing so. So, sometime ago we would say that nobody could be asking people to abstain from masturbation but this is the point where we are living now. Society is split between two or at least two or probably many more approaches to sexuality that there is a more traditional and more non-traditional or more freedom or more restricted or not restricted. Thank you. And this approach about how we see sexuality is also present not only in society but also in how we conduct research. For instance, we can see that some recent papers, someone is about the declining sexual activity in recent years in United States samples and also the new trends and the new technologies enable us to perform new approaches to sexuality and this implies new problems to be researched. For instance, dick pics. That 10 years ago, 20 years ago it was basically a no problem situation. And in this condition of a changing environment we can see Tinder and somehow the social approach to Tinder has been a place of predatory men cheating, a nasty place, something to be avoided and somehow a place where people with some kind of psychological problem, loneliness, inability to access partners that kind of things are present and we can see that from a social discourse. This is from Amazon Prime. There are another series from Netflix that describes problems that we can find on Tinder. Those are books that describe how to attract, date and hook up with the hottest girls using Tinder and Tinder as a source of misogyny. So this is the combined discourse of what we can expect to find on dating apps on Tinder and this discourse is also exacerbated from we as scientists. Mass of the research about dating apps has been about sexual violence, victimization, cheating, problematic use, addiction. So probably it's not just the social discourse but also the scientific discourse that is saying that there is a problem of people using Tinder and even the same application. What is the goal of this talk? My idea is to present results of several studies where we, my colleagues and myself have shown the new or very little relationship between dating apps usage and different psychological variables. This is a basic research in the sense that it's not the budget to promote health promotion or those kind of things. For doing so, I'll probably try to contextualize this in some of our previous research. Is there any way to gain the upper part of the slide? If not, it's not so problematic. I'm going to check but you will have to continue. I think this research is about the cyber sex and pornography. The usage of pornography and cyber sex is a common activity because it's relatively easy to access to porn. There are some conflicting research about the psychological effects and psychological conditions of people that use porn and part of the problem is metric because we are not sure how to measure porn consumption and there are some strong opinions of most people about porn and cyber sex. I will relate these two data. So among those conditions, for some people there is now the discourse that there is something that we can call porn addiction. Not the reason but for some people the social measure is porn is going to destroy our young generations. We have been destroying young generations for millennials but now we have another opportunity via porn. So what we did? First, we tried to differentiate what is cyber sex online sexual activities pornography consumption in its different dimensions. We have done that with a sample over a thousand university students. Why a sample of university students? Two main reasons. First, because we had access to that kind of sample. And the second one is because we wanted to be clear about our population, to which population we can generalize our results. If we do an indiscriminate sampling for us it would be much more difficult to say about who we are talking about. So if we sample university students we know that our population is limited but we have a good access to that kind of population. And we administer a survey. Usually we use a legal scales. And what are our results? Our results is that when we talk about online sexual activities we have to differentiate between isolated use, compulsive usage and social use. I have masturbated while on the internet corresponds to isolated. I believe I'm an internet sex addict is what people consider about themselves about a compulsive usage. And I like to use WhatsApp or other civil applications for sexual purposes. This is sexting and this is a deatic relationship. This is social use. And what are the main results? The main results are that isolated porn consumption is unrelated to sexual behavior apart from masturbation. Those that have more sexual usage alone basically pornography and masturbation do not have more sexual relationships, do not have a sooner sexual debut is basically unrelated to any behavior. This is telling us that porn consumption is not used to compensate or any other things because otherwise there would be some kind of relationship between porn consumption and sexual life and behavior. And also it's unrelated to psychological well-being. So those that masturbate with higher frequency are not more or less psychologically do not have a higher lower psychological well-being. Social that is I have somehow with who I can share sexual peaks, I can have sexting. Those people have a greater sexual life, sexual activity as could be expected. And compulsive is unrelated to behavior and is related to lower well-being. So what we are trying to show here is that something that can be seen as homogeneous use of pornography is not so much that it is important to differentiate between different aspects of the same phenomenon. When talking about pornography online sexual activities is important to don't consider everything as the same. The problem is not using porn. The problem is not cyber sex. The problem is feeling that our consumption is against our own values. For instance, if I consider that porn or online sexual activities is against my own moral values and I masturbate seeing porn I will have a problem. So and this can happen if I do aunts per month or if I do every day. So the problem is not what you do. See not the price what you do and how is that in correspondence with your values and your understanding of what you need and what you should be doing. These results are not indicative about other relevant aspects legally, morally about porn. So should be more porn be banned or not. This we cannot answer with this kind of research. And also when we do research about pornography what we see is that there are several problems for doing that kind of research. One of them is that it's very difficult to know how much porn is people using because when I tell you are you using porn do you consider that you are using a lot? Your answer is not only related to what are you doing but also is related to how do you feel about what are you doing? This can be also said about for instance consumption of dating apps. We as people are very bad tracking how much we use things. So connecting intensity of usage with any other aspects if it's based on self reports is going to be of limited information. And as I said part of the pornography problems are due to moral incongruence. Again it's not what you do, it's the relation between what you do and what you consider that you should be doing. The next line of research is about motives to have sex. What is the key point is not what we do. If the key point is why and what for we are behaving. This is a classic result in the area of psychology. Something that is somehow funny in psychology is that every time that we are interested in doing research about a new social aspect, online dating, porn, interesting healthy eating, everything is first we do that research. And the next point is okay, it's not what you do. Let's see what are the motivations of what you are doing because our behavior and how we feel is mainly connected with how do we evaluate our own needs and behaviors. Imagine yourself with your partner, real or desired in two different scenarios. Estimate the probability of a sexual intercourse after you ask this. Case A, honey, let's have sex. So mentally evaluate probability of sexual intercourse. Case B, honey, let's have sex and I'll give you five euros. You have included an economic incentive. So according some very basic economic approaches, what should happen with the probability? In your mind, that's probably has increased or decreased. Probably you think that the probability has decreased because the central part is the stories that we tell ourselves about why we behave. And why am I doing this? Okay? For instance, I have come here, delighted to give this talk. If you have offered me a euro for giving this talk, it would have been worse. Okay? So in terms of sexual motives, this is, okay, there are motives related with other people related with myself. I want to avoid things, I want to get things. For instance, pressure because other will kill if you don't have sex. This is others and I want to avoid people making fun of myself. To feel emotionally close to your partner. This is social and I want to get things, to get connected. Approval, your partner won't love you if you don't have sex with him or her. This is social, I want to avoid that negative feeling. So what we have done with this, again with some university students that have already had any kind of sexual penetrative intercourse because we decided to define what is having sex. To consider to have sex with penetrative activity is problematic, but at least we wanted to make sure that there was a definition that could be shared. Doubtful perhaps, but at least shared. And the results are available online and the data. And what do we see? I'm going to simplify this correlation matrix and just I will drive your attention to probably this line. Disatisfaction with sexual life. Being dissatisfied is mainly related with pressure motives. I have sex because other people consider that I should be having sex. Or dissatisfaction is related with approval motives. I have sex because I want my partner to still love me. Self-esteem, a sexual partner. Having sex for pressure or for searching for the problem of your partner is negatively related with self-esteem. And what all the things can we see is that other motives are unrelated or basically unrelated to self-esteem or with well-being in different dimensions of sexuality. What I'm trying to show here is that, again, it's not only having or not having sex, but also why are you doing what are you doing? Finally, I have arrived to our area of research about dating apps. Those apps are growing in popularity. They are changing how we meet people and relate with potential partners. This is a social recent and there are still some gaps in the literature. As probably most of us here are researchers, it's interesting how Tinder can appear now and probably the first papers about Tinder will appear in three, five years, something like that. So although there are millions of users, the quality and the novelty is still ongoing. So at least I really hope that we will arrive with our research before dating apps are closed. No, probably they are not going to be closed. And there are some stereotypes about users, use and relationship with well-being. In how I met your mother, it is all enough for not being the option that I met your mother via Tinder or via any dating app. Now, the proportion of people that could answer how I met your mother, than that could be via a dating app is growing and growing. Why? Because dating is hard and people are going to use any single opportunity that they have to achieve their personal goals and needs. So why did people previously met people in the church in other places? Because there were the possibilities. Why people went to bars, discotheques? Because those were the resources available several years ago. So now there is another instrument that people are going to use because it can help them to satisfy their needs. In one of the first surveys that we did about what dating apps are you using, we asked, have you ever used dating apps? And they said yes, no. And when they said yes, we asked, okay, which one? Tinder, Grindr, Badu, whatever. And the funny part was that some people were saying Moodle. Moodle is the platform that is used in many universities among them, my own that is for educational purposes. But if you want, if you are horny, every single application can be used. So under these conditions, there is an app that has been specially designed so you can find people why not using it. And again, as I said, some of the approach has been focused on the problematic aspects of this technology. Sometimes I feel that we as researchers, I mean, in the introduction, imagine a national project, a European project, Tinder is an application that people are using. We just want to know how and why, okay, no funding. Tinder is going to kill all of us. What is the probability of getting funding? What is the probability of getting a publication? So sometimes we need to live in a constant research drama that I fully understand. Imagine this research. I mean, I'm going to criticize some research in the same way that I perfectly know that my own research can be criticized. Okay, so it's not, oh, this is the worst, no. Every single research is limited. So online dating applications, victimization. And they are trying to see if the relationship between the online dating application usage and victimization is mediated by risky online activities. Okay, is just victimization a problem? For sure. Do we need to understand the connection between those two points? For sure. And they say, okay, perhaps people that are victimized is because they take more risks. For me, the problem now is how they define risky activities. For instance, in this line of research, a risky activity is looked for near friends on the Internet. I can fully understand that my grandmother considers that trying to know people through Internet is a problem and a risk. But pretend to be a different kind of person on the Internet from what they really are. Is this risky or is this funny? Send personal information to someone they have never met face-to-face. Thanks to having sent personal information to somehow that I had never met face-to-face, now I have a partner and two daughters. It was risky. Yes, coming here was also, because I could have fallen to the underground. Okay, so we have a framing of some activities that is of the reason, the negative aspects. There it said cheating and dating apps. A common comment about dating apps is that it's a place for having, for about cheating, infidelity and those kind of things. And there is a nice problem with that result that is how it has been obtained. Imagine that I ask you, do you have now a partner? Yes, I have a partner. Have you ever used a dating app in all your life? The timeframe has been completely changed. So we can say a high percentage of those people that have ever used a dating app, they have a partner at the moment of answering the survey. This is not informative at all because the key point could be to ask, did you have a partner at the moment that you had, that you have been using dating apps? And also we need to consider that about 5% of people in romantic relationships, they have in a consensual non-monogamous relationship. So we need to keep on taking care about how we do research and not assuming for instance that using Tinder when being in a relationship is a problem because it's not always a problem. Sometimes the partners have negotiated those conditions and also we need to carefully read the papers and to check what they have done and this has not been always carefully done at least from our point of view. There have been some sampling problems in the research about Tinder users. If you actively look for users, users will be over sampled. So even the percentage of people that are using Tinder is not pretty clear. Why? Imagine that you are trying to get people to participate on your survey and your way of connecting is, would you like to participate on a survey about dating apps? Under those conditions, probably those that use dating apps will be over sampled. Also even the definition of what is a user has not been clear and consistent all through the different research papers. What is a user? A current user? A lifelong user? A current user? What does it mean? I'm a user if I have been using Tinder today the last week, the last three months. So even those basic definitions have not been shared all through the research and those changes how we can interpret the results. And also it is difficult to know how are the users if we only sample users because we need to find some differences between users and non-users. For instance, people on Tinder tend to lie and they use techniques of positive self-presentation. If you have ever gone to a bar and you have had a shower and you have carefully chosen what you would dress you have also used self-presentation techniques. So how can we know if we try to connect online and offline activities? I'm not saying that the research that is not only among users is not informative but it is difficult to know what the difference is dating apps or digital life from offline life if we only look at what is done online. So under those conditions we decide to go simple. Clearly define sample university students as I said that is problematic because we cannot describe how is the life of people of 50 years old something like that with little expected bias by how the survey is presented. We just sent an email to almost all the university students of our university asking them would you like to participate in a survey? Obviously not of them wanted to participate but as the survey was framed we expect no specific bias or minor in comparison with other ways of gaining information. We published a systematic review and I will focus more not to the review but to the empirical results. In the first of the study we tried to provide dating app users for doing so we had that sample size. Usually our samples were over sampling women and we decided to limit age always with the same limits for two reasons. First because we consider that the prototyping university students can be understood between those edges and second because we wanted to minimize the risk of capitalization of chance of what is sometimes called degrees of freedom from the researcher that is to say okay I'm going to work with the full sample no I'm going to limit to 30 years no to 28 no let's see and we can get results results results and look which one of them look nicer so for avoiding this we always work with the same age limits and what we found is 70% were non-users a 16% were previous users and a 13% were current users how did we define current users current users are those that have used dating apps in the last three months so the questions were have you ever used have you used in the last three months so by doing so we had a very specific time frame and why three months somehow for instance we had to take decisions and because if I ask did you use a dating app today it depends on the hour it depends perhaps you are an active user but specifically today not so we decided to get a more longer time for defining current users in terms of sociodemographic information who are the ones that have a higher probability of using dating apps men those that are not in a relationship older people older between these ages and members of sexual minorities by the way why sexual minorities in some of our studies given our sample sizes we categorized people in heterosexual, non-heterosexual and some reviewers consider that the description as non-heterosexual was negative in the sense that we were taking heterosexual as the normative and the way of defining all the people so we chose sexual minorities some of the nice points about this is that given social trends it can be expected that in several years sexual minorities perhaps are not the minority so this is also a doubtful way of describing but again men those not in a relationship older and non-heterosexual or sexual minorities have a higher probability of being current users those were the higher associations in terms of sociodemographics we also use some commonly measures of personality the big five and also dark personality psychopathy, narcissistic tendencies and those with higher openness to experience had a slightly higher probability of being dating up users but essentially it was unrelated to personality so this also can be connected with the idea of how is the people that are using dating apps we can imagine that for instance you can imagine that those people are more extroverted because that's why they are wanting to connect with people and you can say that no they can be more introverted because they need a technology mediated way of connecting with people so when there are reasons to expect both things at the same time usually the conclusion is that there is no relationship so in terms of personality there is not a profile about how is going to be the people that is being using dating apps so how is the people that is using dating apps people in terms of sociodemographics yes but in terms of psychological profile no specific conditions those are multinomial relations previous users and current users those are the measures of personality and basically what we can see is that those are unrelated to being previous or current users with the minor exception of openness with being current and what this ball is what this is statistically significant age being a man being a member of a sexual minority those are related with being users and also what is interesting is that being single is highly related with being current user but being single is not related with being previous user okay so the idea that dating apps are populated but married people with a partner trying to find additional relationships is not so clear at least in this sample okay this is a profile of Tinder I installed Tinder it was really funny to have that experience it was really funny until I met one of my students on Tinder then I uninstalled the app as soon I mean I burned my mobile and those kind of things and what that person says there is I'm looking for a partner of my way relationships so our next line of research is about the idea of dating apps as a place where it is very difficult to find a stable relationship that dating apps are basically oriented to people that want to hook up with sex, casual sex sex without compromise what did we know previously what it has been consistently found is that people that are on dating apps have higher what is called social sexuality and restricted orientation what is that higher casual sex behavior higher desire and better attitudes towards casual sex but what is important is that long-term orientation I want to find a stable partner to get all the together something like that is what is called long-term orientation and short-term orientation I want sex tonight so I'm not in I want something without compromise so long-term and short-term those words implicitly imply that the research continuum that you play short-term or you play long-term somehow in the middle but it's not the fact the fact is that you can play both short and long-term I want a stable relationship but before I find that relationship I just want sex tonight for instance or I want a stable relationship and I want to sex with as much people as possible I don't want a relationship so it's not playing short or long that has been a common misunderstanding in the area of mating orientations but not as for sure yes several decades ago people said take care is not the same or it's not the opposite short and long so in dating apps we knew for sure that there was a higher score in short-term orientations so people that are on dating apps do they decide to a higher degree sex without compromise yes do they have a higher sexual experience or number of partners yes do they have better attitudes about casual sex yes in general but are people that are using dating apps less oriented to a long-term relationship we don't know what this we didn't know but the temptation is there if those people have higher scores in unrestricted social sexuality in short-term that would imply that they are not long-term oriented no they are not extremes in psychology we are very good in choosing words that may imply misunderstandings for instance intrinsic and extrinsic motivation it may seem that if you have intrinsic motivation you don't have extrinsic and if you have extrinsic no you can have both of them they are not a continuum I do my work and I really love to be paid to be paid for my work to be paid is extrinsic that I enjoy my work is intrinsic they are not opposites in the same way long-term and short-term are not opposites so what we found this is these three ones are behavior attitudes and desire orientation and the key variable here is using dating apps so those that use dating apps this can be how interpreted as coins differences in standard deviations so those using dating apps they have had a higher score on behavior they have a larger number of partners they have had a better attitudes they have had a better desire the main difference is in terms of behavior but there is no difference no statistically significant difference and if we consider the confidence interval all the confidence interval is located in the low in the small differences so now there is no basis to say that there are differences in long-term orientation so imagine that you are a person that you are looking for love you want a stable relationship and I introduce you a person and I say he, she is using Tinder for you there is no reason to run away because using Tinder says nothing about the possible connection between that person and your goals of a long-term relationship you want short-term relationship you want casual sex that person is on Tinder this is informative but if you want a long-term relationship being on Tinder is not informative so no reason if you want a long-term relationship to approach or to avoid those kind of people if you have any active users there are many profiles that specifically say I am not looking for casual sex there are many, many profiles of those kind and another line of research another research that we conducted was about Tinder motives and will be 14% of the people that we surveyed had ever used Tinder ourself we have been learning in fact this is not the first this is the first survey that we conducted that we focused on Tinder not dating apps in general and also we used the question of have you ever used after that we gained the insight that okay it's not just using but also when to a better profile and for a better definition about users what are the main motives also to connect about how do we expect people to be that use Tinder so as I said one of the main points is not what you do but what are you doing what you are doing so what are the main reasons in fact people in general they state that they use Tinder not for finding love or a long-term relationship not for having sex not for using Tinder is basically curiosity having fun pastime those kind of things this is an additional motive that is to find people of my same sexual orientation but the main reasons for using Tinder is because it's there and let's see what happens let's see who is there and let's have some fun and I just want to know what is going there and basically there were no differences between casual sex motive and long-term relationship motives this table that is crowded there is too much information so I just want to focus on the means curiosity has the higher mean those are ordered by mean curiosity pastime and gaining sexual experience and finding a relationship basically had the same mean so why people are using Tinder for having fun for using for knowing what is there and also for having sex also for finding love those later motives basically to the same point one of the problems is also I have talked about problems in the sampling also this has some problems that if we ask have you used a dating app in the last three months perhaps you have been using every single day and you have installed the same day but both of you are being categorized as dating app users so at least for other problems can be found so in the users show higher social services higher okay sorry this is I have changed the order and those ones are non-users and these ones are users and that information is here just trust me and those are measures of sexual life dissatisfaction with sexual life preoccupation I think about sex sex sex what can we see that users show not a very high difference in terms of being more dissatisfied among other reasons because people that don't have a partner tend to be more dissatisfied they have had higher casual sex a better attitude a higher desire and they are more open to consensual non monogamy so the differences are somehow restricted to what corresponds to sexual life because if we look at it there will be measures like negative affect depression anxiety those are the core elements of negative affect basically no differences positive affect being energetic basically no differences this is body satisfaction basically no differences self esteem as sexual partner basically no differences between users and not users so what was the goal here is the idea that people that are using Tinder less happy do they present a profile more problematic in terms of negative affect neuroticies those kind of things do they have a lower self esteem because we can consider repeatedly rejected can be a traumatizing experience so that will lead to a lower body satisfaction or perhaps the opposite and what is the conclusion at least for us no there are not relevant differences between groups the only differences are related to aspects about their sexual life they are more dissatisfied they present a high dissatisfaction with their sexual life they present a high preoccupation dating apps are not the place of predatory men lonely woman and those stereotypes somehow shared young people consider them just another instrument for social connection is there you can use it if you want you use it if you don't want you don't use it if you don't want to sometimes be a nasty experience to a large degree as any mating experience mainly for women sexual minority people this can be related to victimization to aggression all those kind of things but again is not clear if those relationships if those problematic uses of dating apps are on dating apps problematic for women for sexual minorities and those kind of things there are some theories that say no relevant differences and some theories that say digitalize have some points that allow and increase the probability of those problems but from our point is that if we have to describe these people yes probably men probably single there are some sociodemographic aspects but instead of psychology they are not less happy more happy they are not with higher self esteem lower self esteem they are more oriented to having sex it's working not my in fact I was where is yours this one no this one please and I was doing loyal ok but the bar I wanted to move the bar but no we have lowered ok and now what I have done is lost control completely of the command this is for the and now yes thank you it's going well yes so from our point of view part of the previous research has been based on untested assumptions and flower methods and also we need to recognize that our research is also limited as I'm pretty near the end of my time I really hope that you enjoy this slide because and I was saying and just to close this is a review about a B D S M sadomasochistic practices and the connection between BDASM do not show high rates of mental health of relationship problems why because people that decide to use those practices is because they to a large degree they know that they fit their own needs so in general people try to look what they satisfy themselves people that are using dating apps is to a large degree because they are trying to get what they want people that are doing that is to a large degree because they know so we have some social constructions about how should be the psychological life of people but some sexual practices what in fact the connection is essentially existing because we in general choose or try to get what is better for us how safe is BDASM again basically it's safe the problem is having BDASM or whatever practice with a person in the house of a person that you have met just two minutes ago and nobody knows that you have gone that and also if you are getting out of the stop Hayaking I think this can also happen with many different practices so also for dating apps and it's not what you do are done but why and what for is not what you do are done but how it matches your personal values and needs in general people tend to have accordance with their goals or try to sometimes in research we need to slow down and go back to revised methods and previous results and the general conclusions that was the title of my talk dating app users and not users are to a very large degree psychologically indistinguishable except for some specific parts of their sexual life a high desire for casual sex but not high depression and that was all thank you very much it really caught my attention that you decided not to include gay women in the research and I wanted to ask why like you said gay men and not gay women and I just wanted to know why yes as I said before we decided to sample based on our research interest and there was nobody that had like a particular interest in exploring what happens with gay women it wasn't because you asked no it wasn't because nobody had a particular interest in exploring that thank you thank you for your question the reason for that is that in our research group there are a couple of researchers with me and another colleague we are our focus of a study our main research lines focus on the gay male gay participants that's why we were part of this research project and we were simply implementing our research lines but of course there are it's interesting to explore how lesbians are also using dating apps of course they are using dating apps and there are specific dating apps for lesbians people thank you so much Juan for your presentation I I assume that you want to we have in mind a clear map about the sexual behavior of Tharagosa university students a specific sample and also your presentation about the real difficulties to construct a questioner to assess behavior and the significance and the importance to take into account that to construct a question about behavior is not so easy so when you want to assess modulations is more difficult also and thank you so much to remind us these key points about method and methodologies I have one question if you can put your last slide taking into account you are talking about the necessity to be very specific in the methods this is okay no it was a previous story when you no here dating apps are not a place of predatory men lonely woman I assume that you want to say that in my sample there is no cases about predatory men and lonely woman in your sample but we have to assume that dating apps could be a place of predatory men lonely woman because I assume the sentence is not based in a meta-analysis is a conclusion you have relating with your specific empirical sample I don't know because in other researchers I have read is not a strong possibility of course but it could be it's not a strong possibility but for example it could be a place of predatory men lonely woman why not it could be for example with the first research you have presented the first one about porno one question have you established a statistical differences between the over-represented of woman in your sample is different the resource from the sample of men in your sample I have understand that I don't know if you have not found any statistical differences between men and women in your sample or I don't know if I suppose you have explored aha okay thank you so much first when we say that dating apps are not a place of predatory men lonely woman is to the same degree that we can say that this is not the place of predatory men and lonely woman I cannot discover that I am a predatory man and that person is a lonely woman but when I say that is we are talking about arreaches and obviously the meaning of the distribution is not equivalent to say that there is no dispersion I know I know I assume that this resource coming from your university sample you have not found irrelevant at this this behavior and it's it's good okay but ask the question about the general stability of the resource I find a reason to expect that people from the university of Tarahota different from all the university students of business Spain I find not theoretical reasons it could be but this also talks about other ages other conventions other level of studies and I recognize that our sample is limited but as I said we prefer to make a research with a clearly defined population because some of the research is you know please ask so you don't know the connection between that sample to which population you have today and with respect to sex that was not the focus of the talk with respect to both there are clearly differences between men and women there are differences in terms of usage not in terms of links between usage and a psychosexual what are we very interesting and do you consider the possibility to imply your research line the qualitative methods for us qualitative methods has been very useful to understand motivations and so on the specific goals and so on I don't is just a personal question in your all of us are some of the doctors of our traditions I come from qualitative quantitative research from psychology something new for us as researchers being researchers is not having time to run is that so it would be useful for sure but we try to focus on what we are somehow better and suddenly we only have time to read all the lines of research thank you so much but we will be open to any possibility yes okay thank you some other time for a coffee break yeah we have open hours how we go on with the presentations now so now we'll have the first panel with the title of team the presentations in which presentations team the interactions sorry and here I'm going to be presenting first a study entitled communication management much in the chat conversations after that Lisa will be presenting so fast on the keys when do you have time to meet four ways invitation interaction in the chat by Lisa before and after that we'll have a presentation with the title team the and choosing the six stages of made this card in a patriarchal technology and finally we'll have a presentation by Will Gibson with a title emoji in team the chat analyzing cultural practices within sequential actions okay so start with the presentation now which has the title that you can see there okay communication management in most much team the chat conversation so it's obviously about communication in those chats the kinds of things that they say to each other how they get acquainted because of course we're talking about people that don't know each other but what happens there is getting acquainted but with a very particular purpose it's not just to get to know each other it's get to know each other with the purpose of exploring the possibility of meeting having a face-to-face meeting or even developing some kind of a relationship whether that's or perhaps as well romantic okay so how is that communication managed by users so this is what I'm going to be talking about in this presentation that's the purpose of what I'm going to be presenting communication management by users and the data and the method that I employed is a combination of two methods so on the one hand as I said before I interviewed we interviewed some participants in total those were 37 19 female 18 male intersexual interviews with those ages these are dangerous and then for the actual purpose of exploring what people say to each other in situ naturally use conversation analysis which is for those of you who are not familiar with it these course analysis okay so it's quite clear that after a match has occurred the users in those chats have to manage sometimes a considerable amount of communication a volume of communication which is quite significant that can be very short for example like very commuters the last like to be like change like who are you hello whether you live or not and then very often they just switch to another occasion which can be Instagram very often or sometimes what's up the younger users they prefer to move as soon as possible to Instagram okay why because they can see who they are they can see all their hobbies they can see who they are friends with the kind of people that they like and eventually chat that they have on Instagram to talk to each other okay so again very young users they move very quickly to all the platforms typically in Instagram these are little happens in in Spain in the they are from Spain then there's like different stages in that communication okay is what we found as well consecutive stages it's very important it is in mind so you cannot go to stage 3 without before having gone through stage 1 and stage 2 so these three stages are these initial so basically when they change like hello so you know what do you do and predate is everything that goes on between that initial communication and the date that initially happens so that's like a second phase which I call predate and that happens via in the chat Instagram or an instant messaging service like WhatsApp okay and then finally the date if that happens that is the last stage in this communication and that happens of course by a face-to-face communication can you do it sorry and now from the interviews it became clear yes from from the interviews it became quite clear that there is like a gradual transition of passage to intimacy okay so those users that we interview they basically said that you know getting acquainted goes from you know knowing each other at all to getting to know each other so there's something like a gradual transition of incremental transition to intimacy okay so each time that they move to another medium for example when they switch to Instagram or WhatsApp that represents in a performative fashion an increase in the maturity grade of intimacy okay and this is very well put by this participant Lucas who was 21-year-old user this is very well there okay so when I let you switch to another medium it's like I'll let you a little bit more be a part of my life I'm letting you more into my life okay so what we have here again is like a gradual transition to intimacy okay so that takes as well like those consecutive stages that we saw before so you cannot go to stage three without first having gone to stage one from stage two something else there is a normative orientation to the consecutiveness of communication as I said before you cannot go to stage three directly okay because you're going to be penalized somehow and it is something that this participant age 21 expresses very well okay if you want to skip phase one and phase two I'm going to that I'm going to terminate communication with you okay so those ones that for example just say okay let's just meet up right at the beginning okay those ones are going to be penalized at least is what she does okay you have to go to stage one stage two you cannot go just directly to stage three okay let's meet up because that's the last thing that we have to do okay so in this particular study then we focus on the communication that takes or the interaction that takes place through the Tinder chat we are not exploring what happens on Instagram we are not exploring what happens on WhatsApp just what they said to each other on Tinder so this is the first communication by two Tinder participants to Tinder users okay and this is the code that I use so M stands for male F stands for female research participants in other words those that we take to be a part of our research we use a P for that Interlocutor is the other person to which they are talking and finally age so we use a number so number one those are messages the numbers I use to express messages number one is a male participant who is age 19 and this is the conversation he had with a female Interlocutor who was also 19 okay and this is the initial interaction that they had on that chat okay so hello how are you doing great work what did you study the thing the first thing when you encounter something like this is is that here a pattern okay because of the other thing we try to find patterns is there a pattern which we found we can see that they ask each other questions or they reply eventually they say okay this is nice this is cool is there a pattern can you see a pattern there or patterns yes there is patterns yeah now we will see them so what we found here is that there is a sequence that we use to get acquainted it is very much mirrors of people in our everyday lives when we meet another person probably with a romantic purpose so this is what we do okay we ask questions to at least in the disclosure so let me just go a step back there is some theories in social psychology that say that relationships evolve on the basis of how much you disclose each other okay there's plenty of theories not only in social psychology but also in interpersonal communication yeah so basically what this theory suggests is the more you disclose the closer you get to the other person the more intimate you get okay and this is exactly what happens there okay they are disclosing things they are asking things and they are disclosing things to each other and this is a sequence that participants use that we use as well in our everyday lives because this is a part as well of our everyday life to get to know each other okay so number one in this sequence one party elicitor asks a question to elicit a disclosure from recipients so for example there what do you study okay number two recipient produces a disclosure as you can see there political science this is what they study number three recipient reciprocates a similar question as you can see there you okay number four elicitor reciprocates similar personal information music and finance and number five select the disclosures are positively assessed by either interlocking the display application so for example wow that's amazing this is very important to build affiliation in the process of getting acquainted and building a relationship affiliation so you produce those assessments basically to express how great wow how much I like affiliation is very important okay very very important so this is a sequence that here in this in the beginning of these exchanges we find twice okay and what we have here as well is very young users 19 so the topics they talk about as you can see there it's basically what they study usually it's about their hobbies for example and at the beginning the kind of information they talk about they disclose the topics is what I call first in other words not intimate yet so it's things like what do you study what kinds of things do you like what kinds of things do you do for a hobby for example so at the beginning you know things go slow still very slow and what they disclose is just very basic personal information and the things that they inquire about are very basic here we have all the users and they use exactly the same sequence okay exactly the same sequence the only difference is that the topics they talk about are slightly different so for them it's like very important where they live for example the jobs understandable because young people who are studying have jobs at the age of 19 so they talk about things but they use exactly the same sequence exactly the same sequence okay so number one again you're asking a question to produce so that the recipient produces disclosure the recipient discloses something in that case for example where they live which was omitted so that to protect the anonymity then reciprocates a similar question and you similar personal information me too okay so the sequence is you know endlessly produced so that they reveal things to each other that they ask things to each other and this you know a simple relationship builds at least at the beginning okay the only difference with later stages in managing that communication is that at some point the questions become more intimate by intimate I don't mean it's just you know for example things about the relationship status whether they have children whether they will have children you know but of course you don't have those things right at the beginning those things go later on which could be days sometimes we could be months in some cases as well and sometimes it could be as well like after half an hour of exchanging talk so again we have the same sequence here which is being used okay but when you ask for intimate information usually so that comes in number three message number three so they have been talking already for quite some time this is not at the beginning of an interaction this is like they have been talking here probably after a few days okay and at some point he who is 57 asked do you have children Anna okay but that question which is demanding an intimate disclosure is accompanied by this if it's not in this grid okay and it's very interesting because linguists usually would say that this if it's not in this grid this grid it's like a conditional used to manage but it does more than that okay so if it's not in this grid it's used here to appeal as well to high quality high quality okay it's used as well for that it's used as well when you say if it's not in this grid actually when you say something like that what you are announcing is that the question you're going to be asking is actually in this grid so when you say something like if it's not in this grid this is now that what is coming now or what was coming before in that particular case it's in this grid okay and it's used as well if it's not in this grid to hedge to basically as well in case that the other person finds your question too in this grid or in this grid it's used as well to hedge or withdraw eventually okay so what we can see is that that sequence that we saw before is also used here to occasion talk about intimate matters about the intimate information is also used here but with always is always accompanied that sequence by things like this by conditions for example so that they don't appear to in any situation of the grant okay so so far what we can see is that the process of getting to know someone is an orderly phenomenon okay there is patterns there to be found this is something that happens orderly you know there is like rules that people follow first you need to ask about personal information maybe later about intimate information so there is certain order to be found in what happens there it's not something random okay and people stick to those rules eventually those rules are abandoned okay so there are some violations to that order so what is it that happens then here we have an example okay and this is the entire conversation okay it's a very short conversation what happened there there were certain violations to the rules that we saw before okay so that is the entire conversation after nine there was no more communication and what happened here is a phenomenon that Christian was describing once in his papers that we know was ghosting that somebody so what is it that happened there what violations happened there something like that so quickly what other things do you think that happened there it's problematic because it says share it with us so maybe probably probably as well but several things happen there jumping stages hitting stages there so usually here in message number five so making a range of a date this is the last thing you do or something that you do when it's from the beginning because you need to talk okay this is something that Christian as well highlighted in one of his his papers that there should be like a proper volume of communication and just okay let's meet people have to talk have to get to know each other okay you cannot jump to like the last stage to play that I think that it's a very in a very important situation I have weekdays weekdays whatever you want when you want on suddenly we have sitements on women's day I don't know what would you do I have all the responsibilities I'm just being that you are so free it's it sounds yeah there's several other things as well there's big gaps of time so that happened at five zero two that happened at two hours later two hours later you know it's like you don't care about what the other person is saying or maybe you have something has to do there's quite a few things there's also something very important here you produce like three questions in a row okay we know when we do conversation you should you should wait for your questions to be answered you don't produce like three questions in a row okay so it's not only the kinds of things that you say it's also how you say them okay so there's like several violations here of the rules if you want the rules not only of tinda rules of coaching there's several violations and of course that was the entire conversation because that was it okay so I'm using this as well again to show that things should be done in particular ways okay things should be done according to some rules okay courting and for others there as well which is courting should be done in particular ways okay yeah like face-to-face it's exactly the same the thing is that in face-to-face communication you cannot go you cannot just ghost but sometimes it would be interesting as well it would be nice to do that but you know there's other rules as well to apply to face-to-face communication that don't apply here you cannot ghost in because you cannot vanish okay you cannot vanish in face-to-face communication some little conclusions as well about what we have seen there first of all personal information is disclosed at the early stages of tinda charts and that sequence that we described before which I call the elicited self-disclosure sequence that is that preferred vehicle to talk about personal matters and why is that sequence particularly suited for that purpose because of these things okay suited for the purpose of initiating relationships because users might exhibit other attentiveness they pay attention to the other person they are good as well to elicite talk about personal matters and especially as well to build affiliation relationships are built on affiliation very important affiliation so those little things like oh that's cool oh that's great oh I like it this is very important if that doesn't happen relationships will not go in for a doctor the occasional talk about intimate information then that happens in the later stages in tinda interactions still we use the elicited self-disclosure sequence it's also like very good but typically here the questions are accompanied by markers that single signal that singularity or delicateness of the questions and they talk they tend to elicit okay let if you remember before if it's not in this screen this is what I'm talking about here and the managing of violations as I said before you know violations happen and you know users have a whole variety of resources to bring again the conversational interaction to the right track they have like plenty of resources however when there is too many violations then the conversation will just break up as we saw in that question before and at the end of the day how they manage these violations is basically to show as well that again Tinder interactions are an orderly phenomenon with certain rules users need to abide to those rules which are very similar to those of face-to-face interactions in the in the sense that courting is quite similar on Tinder and in you know face-to-face life it's very they are very similar but of course Tinder has as well it's all little rules okay which make it as well an interesting phenomenon okay and that's my presentation thank you very much so if you if you don't mind we can have like after all the presentation there's going to be four presentations now including mine after that we'll have like a round of questions and you know we should have like a debate as well or dialogue as well based on all these presentations if you don't mind I think it's you huh I think I did something really stupid now hold on close to I did something stupid Priscilla can you see me? I don't know what I did we have to enter over here I don't know what's happening who was I was connected but I don't know what I did okay because nothing happened how did you do it from here? you went through here? here you went through here, right? yes so you entered again through these conferences? yes so it's just it's meetings it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a y aquí necesitaríamos este de aquí, este le copiaríamos para copiar limitación, si para Vitor. Vale, entonces vamos a ir directamente acá, correo electrónico, y se lo mandamos. Vale. No pasa nada. Vitor. Ahora le escribo para confirmar que ya he recibido todo y nos quedamos directamente aquí. Vamos a presentarla. Barcelona Presentation. This is you. Just one guy. Okay, he's there. Yeah, he's there. He's now there. Okay, does this work? Yes. I think I can start now. So my presentation might modify what has now been said about the Spanish Tendent Shads because the Danish data that I have seems to suggest that inviting someone in the very first post is quite usual. But today I'm going to talk about interactionally generated invitations. My data consists of almost 200 Danish Tendent Shads. Nine people volunteered to send screenshots of their chats with their matches, which resulted in 194 friends. And I went through them in order to see how people get to inviting each other on a date. In the previous paper, I focused on the very first chat thread. And in one out of five cases, they actually referred to a meeting in the very first post. But in this paper, I'm going to look at the 19 cases in which they have been interacting for a while or a little while, but they never get to bring up the prospect of going on a date and provide an invitation. So I have 19 cases in total, and you can see that it happens in almost all of the user's material, but in one out of ten of the cases that I have. So in many cases, they never get to inviting. They just ghost or end the conversation in other ways. So I'm interested in invitations as a social action. I think I skipped this slide, so just to present my methodology. I'm inspired by conversation analysis, a methodology originally developed for talk. How talk is sequentially organized. And some of these results and ways of investigating interaction, I will try to apply on these threads that are constructed using written actions. So instead of talking about terms of talk, I'll be interested in how they format what they do as social actions and how they sequentially organize and negotiate and display understandings of previous terms. So invitations as a social action is interesting because when you invite someone, you display an interest in spending time with the other party, and equally when you respond to an invitation, you indicate whether you're interested in spending time with the other person or not. So it's socially delicate. There are social implications involved in invitation sequences. And conversation analytic research and research within pragmatics and politeness, the theory has shown that people tend to do these invitations using indirect strategies, politeness strategies and also something called pre-sequences which I will get into details with. And this research on invitations distinguishes between invitations that are pre-planned and those that are locally occasioned. So the pre-planned or announced invitations would be invitations such as the reason why I'm calling is to invite you out or something. So it's presented as the reason for approaching the other party and designed as pre-planned. On the other hand, we have invitations that are interactionally generated, so designed as being occasioned by something that has just occurred in the interaction. And it's the second type of invitations that I'm interested in today. So as I mentioned, I previously looked at the first post in my dataset and found that in one out of five cases, they refer to possible future meeting in the very first post. So that might suggest that things have different norms than Spanish people since they bring this prospect of meeting up in one out of five cases. And I found that they may either frame it as a serious request or a serious action or do it more humoristically. So the way that invitations or the prospect of meeting is introduced may also be indicative of the person's intention. Is it a serious intention behind the invitation or is it more playful and thereby the relationship is also to be understood as not serious? Looking at the 19 cases I have, I found that there are four ways that invitations are interactionally generated. The first type is a type where the participant makes implications on the response type, the response time of the previous participant. So if you respond very fast, it can be interpreted as you being very interested in the other person, as in this case. So PE writes so fast on the keys, when do you have time to meet? So it's assumed that because the co-participant responded fast without delay in the previous interaction, PE can assume that she's interested. So he doesn't ask if she's interested in meeting but asks her to indicate when she can meet. The other type I've called inviting an invitation, here we have PI and NA and the blue actions are written by men and the black ones are written by women. And here you can see that NA, the woman is pursuing getting an answer out of PI. He's kind of hedging and then in 37, she suggests that he can tell her about it when they meet. So here she invites him to pursue establishing when to meet, even though it hasn't been a topic previously. And then there are two types where they make use of so-called pre-sequences. That's what I will focus on for the rest of the talk. So it's well known that pre-sequences or pre-invitations typically occur before you provide an invitation. So in order to reduce the risk of a projection, before you produce the invitation, you can ask about the availability of the co-participants. For example, are you doing anything on Saturday? No, my schedule is all free. Okay, we want to go to the cinema. So pre-sequences work to manage these risks involved in producing invitations. Responses to these pre-invitations provide valuable information for the person who is pursuing getting to an invitation. So we can either have a go ahead. My schedule is free or a hedging response. I'm not sure what's in my calendar. Let me check or a blocking response. I'm very busy this weekend. So the response to the pre-invitation is very important for how the sequence progresses. I've suggested that in my data there are two types of pre-sequences that may come before these interactionally generated invitations. This one involves talking about the here and now. In this case, it's about the weather. So PO initiates the threat by saying something about the weather. And EM responds to this, yeah, humoristically. And then you can see how PO Formance designs his response as being interactionally generated based on what EM has said. And then he starts his turn with it then showing that the whole design. Very quick. We are not showing the presentation here. Which is your presentation, exactly? I'm going to show the screen. I'm going to show the screen. This one, right? All right. Thank you so much. This is designed as interactionally generated with this then. And you can also see that he, in several ways, builds on this here and now by only making a suggestion about buying her a drink on a particular day. So rejection is not that serious in this case. And then the final type, which you have on your sheet as well. It's a very long example. And this type involves the topic being either leisure activities being raised or preferences in terms of dating settings in general. So people may raise these topics in the project of getting to inviting someone. So these topics lend themselves or frequently come before invitations. In this case, you can see L.U., the man who's pursuing and posing the questions. In this case, after four posts, in the fifth post, he asks, what do you do for fun? So he raises a new topic and he requests K.A. to contribute with information about her dispositions and what she usually does for fun. And you can see that she kind of hedges and postpones giving specific responses he pursues. And as Carlos also showed, positive evaluation, affiliation third turns are very common and also in this case and L.U. uses a strategy several times where he, in this third turn, where he evaluates her response, both evaluates it positively so he praises her and he also relates it to himself. So even though she didn't ask him about his likings, he supplies information about how he relates to the topics she has raised. So that accomplishes to establish some kind of similarity between the parties. So in this case, one of the items she has mentioned that she likes is chess. He picks that up and asks her, do you want to play sometime? And then for the second time, K.A. kind of hedges and even declines with an explanation for why she's not going to participate in playing chess with L.U. And you can see that they have a long negotiation about this. At the same time, they kind of maybe become more intimate or acquainted with each other in this process. And then you can see kind of a third attempt. L.U. changes topics again, asks her about how tall she is. She responds to this and this is again turned into an opportunity for suggesting ways they can spend time together. So because they're both tall, it's a possibility that they play basket together. And this time she seems to accept and they move on to playfully introduce a scenario where they play with her professional brother. He's a professional basketball player. But it's only used as a kind of humoristic play. It's not treated as an actual attempt to establish things to do together. Finally, in 23B, L.U. makes, I guess it's the third attempt at inviting K.A. And he uses this if-then construction, as we also saw an example of in Carlos' data. So he suggests that they could go and have coffee in the park. And this if-then construction implicates or displays that he is insecure about whether she would agree with this suggestion. But she accepts and they finally move on to establishing the time and place for this meeting. So these four ways that indications is generated interactionally in my 19 cases show that they in different ways achieve to implicate the match in the project of pursuing a meeting. And they also indicate different types of commitments and ways of being invested and different purposes with moving on to an invitation. And some things to discuss. It wasn't specifically a focus point, but in most cases it's the man who pursues. It's the man who poses questions. It's the man who invites. And the woman who does the responding action. So to me it seems very gender stereotypical. And I'm wondering if it's just as gendered in other types of settings. It's also clear that the prospect of going on a date seems to be omnipresent. For example, in the cases I didn't show you today, when raising the possibility of meeting in the very first post it suggests that something has been going on prior to this. They've already matched and shown an interest in each other. And this data, for example, the way KA responds, I don't remember the line. But she also clearly shows that she recognizes what LU is doing as getting to setting a date. It's also interesting as you focused on to investigate when is it in the organization of these chats that invitations may be raised in the Danish-centered chats. They may be produced in the very first post and they may be interactionally generated quite early on later and more skillfully as we saw in the last example. So there are quite a big variation in how these invitations are produced and when they are produced. And it seems that some topics are raised as part of a project of getting to inviting someone. And in my cases it was specifically topics related to the here and now and topics about leisure activities and preferences in dating settings. It's also interesting to speculate or investigate which of these strategies might be more successful if the success is to get on dates. But it's not very clear if one strategy works better than the other. I would say that the different strategies of inviting someone is more indicative of people's motivations. They are looking for a casual, quick type of relationship then the invitation might mirror that. And on the other hand if you're looking for a longer relationship, the invitation may be more skillfully done and later in the organization of the chat. That's my thing. Presentation and that will be presentation by Victor who is online. Yes, can you hear me? Okay, so I cannot see you. I was able to see you before during the first presentation but right now I cannot see you if you want I can go ahead. Because there was a camera on the whole, oh that's it. Thanks. Hi, hi, hi. Hello everyone. Okay, let me share my screen. Can you see it? And if I do this? Yes? Okay, perfect. So hello everyone. My name is Victor Blanco. I would love to be there today with all of you close in the project but I was not able to go to Barcelona. And I'm going to present this work, this research that we did together. Pilar Medina Bravo, Ola Tzlarrea, Miquel Rodrigo and I, which is entitled Tinder and Choosing, the Sixth Stages of Made Discarding in a Patriarchal Technology. And after a long road we got to publish it on feminist media studies that we are so proud about it. So yeah, so when designing and conducting this paper we work with this research question in mind. What are the gender and age differences in rejection experiences on Tinder? To answer it and always in a constant dialogue with the results and the findings we got, we built a literature review around three main issues from our research which were gender, age and rejection. And as we think that there is going to be a lot of common literature review today, we will only focus on that specific things to our research that we think may be different from the other papers that are going to be presented today. So the first theory that we came across is the Swipe Logic Theory, which describes how Tinder's interface reduces interconnection to an accelerated yes or no binary that additionally is framed as an spontaneous gamified experience, something entertaining. Then we also came across with this rejection mindset theory, which describes how Tinder and other MPA mobile dating applications are rejection encouraging technologies. And they explain this psychologically because the multiplication of potential partners of people that you can get to know provokes at the same time dissatisfaction and pessimism about finding a mate. So they are, they pass you to reject. And their experiment also found that this experience, this paradigm is also gender and women were more likely to experience such pessimism and thus they are more prone to reject as well. Thinking about rejection from a gender perspective also left us to this study of the gender rejection in MBA, which concluded that both men and women experienced social escalation when they are rejected, but only men convert that feeling into hostility. And which is quite particularly connected to studies on the vitality campaign, which was an online feminist action to which, an online feminist action which, and I quote, calls out dudes who turn a style when rejected or ignored on Tinder. From an age perspective we found that there is a lack of studies from this age perspective. This is that there are not any or like there are not many studies researching on rejection, Tinder and age at the same time. We conducted in-depth semi-structure interviews with four heterosexuals as Carlos was explaining it earlier, but we will now go deeper in methodology results in this presentation because Carlos already told about that. But in any case, if you have doubt about it, we can answer them in the question round. So based on the previous research, we expected histories of explicit misogyny and ageism when researching about rejection on Tinder. And nevertheless, our findings suggest that we should make a different approach. Rather than explicit hostile experiences of misogynist and ageist rejection, the users that we interviewed reported encountering a gamified soft rejection technology where being non-selected or discard or not selecting on discussing others emerges as an apparently harmless element of the dating experience. To explain this and especially to approach it from a feminist and anti-ageist perspective, let us start by showing the complete results. The interviewed users view Tinder in general as an experience that entices the possibility of rejection. They explain this rejection trope because of the interface and the gamified usability of the app easily swifting left to discard uninteresting users. Indeed, the first rejection experience that interviewed users notice is how it is to reject others. And after initially security, when the interviewed users come to understand the mechanism, they tend to accept rejection better and relativize it as a tech mediated discard. So we organize our results as a schema of different stages in which rejection might potentially emerge. Like through Tinder experience, we encounter these possible rejection experiences in these six stages. So in the first stage, which is the self-classification stage, we encounter self-rejection. This is rejecting oneself. Women interviewees consider attempts to match out of their league profiles as a waste of time and consequently they self-reject themselves. Within our sample, self-rejection also has an age, with older women being more prone to self-reject themselves when coming across an out-of-the-league profile, which is especially when that profile is younger. Curiously, among some of the main interviewees, we encountered a suspicion tendency, which is a change from the out-of-the-league self-rejection to where arguments justify and failures to match out-of-the-league women profiles that put the guilt in that woman. So rather than experience low self-esteem or self-rejection, some of the men that we interviewed tend to suspect that these out-of-the-league profiles were fake or they were just seeking for economic benefits. In the second stage, which is the selection of possible partners, regardless of gender and age, interviewed users reported an almost non-existing impact when rejecting others. And also as Tinder does not show who rejected you, we cannot explore the impact of being rejected at this stage. Our example concites, regardless gender and age, on focusing on physical attractiveness first and further information later. However, as you can see here in the second quote, we encounter other ways of violent inequalities, especially in the form of racism. Also, interviewed users justified this rejection as an individual preference, and two racist activists have shown us that below this individual decision lies exclusionary xenophobia. And we came across not only one, but a lot of quotes like this. The third stage is the match, the matching stage. And here interviewed users navigate rejection experiences when assessing the number of matches they have received. If users think they have received a low number of matches, they can come across feelings of disappointment or frustration. In any case, we could not find a set number of matches that allow users to consider appropriate satisfaction and frustration are negotiated individually. However, some of the older interviewed women disclose feeling surprised about the high number of matches they received, not understanding why their profile calits for so much attention and attributing it to the Tinder usability and modern hookup culture. The fourth stage is the first conversation, so when the conversation starts. And coinciding with previous literature and also the presentation that we saw today, in our sample is men who usually start the conversation. The curious thing is that we encounter several, like, several not, but some changes of the script, of this script, among young and older women who do not write until receiving the first message, so they start the conversation themselves, and also a young man that you can see there who adds a jug right first if you want to in his profile, the script. So we found some ongoing changes in this trend of men starting the conversation. The fifth stage is the progress of the conversation. So this is when we find that there is a greater expectation of commitment among both genders and age groups, and this rejection may provoke a greater emotional impact. From here on, rejections are supposed to be justified. In addition, remarkable differences emerge regarding gender and age. All the interviewed women develop a higher level of commitment as the conversation progresses in time and intensity. Younger women users, however, report finding it easier to relativise rejection at this stage by contextualising the relationship in the MBA experience, in the mobile dating application experience, and suggesting ghosting as the best tool to reject in this stage. In this regard, the men that we interviewed, regardless of age, adopt the same attitude as younger women users. This is framing rejection as the normal outcome of the gamified experience of Tinder. In some cases, however, men reportedly respond to rejection by refusing to take no for an answer, as you can see in the last quote. The last stage is the face-to-face meeting, and here interviewees describe that there is a closer bond between the two people involved and does a greater emotional responsibility may imply. This tends to lead to better and kinder communication when rejecting, and consequently higher rates of frustration and anger when this communication fails. We came across an important difference here between women, while younger ones are up to end a relationship easily, talking with the man until the interest slowly vanishes away, older women expect clearer instants with silence and breakups affecting them emotionally harder. And finally, we did encounter one experience of extreme misogynist aggression on a Tinder date, and here you can find it in full. So what we encountered with these results and how they changed our frame of the rejection experience on Tinder was together with FIU's theory of the negative choice. In this theory, the IJU's theory of the negative choice defines an ongoing dynamic, especially reinforced by dating up school tour in which, and I quote her, rejection, avoidance, or withdrawal from commitments and arguments and relationships are commonly justified in the name of freedom and self-realization, end of the quote. This is the right to un-choose or to opt out of relationships at any stage, including the six stages that we have defined here. So in terms of rejection, we found that early contractors of an emotional implication no longer work for the interviewed users. However, in terms of un-choosing, we explicitly found the discarding dynamics beneath the gamified experience they reported, as well as the lack of emotional responsibility when abandoning a relationship at any time, and the user's naturalization of the way the application works. Consequently, in our sample, we did not find rejection, we found a gamified un-choosing. This gamified un-choosing responds to a new economy of interpersonal ties, and I quote the IJU's again, that seems to be a structure like a market that is a set of abandoned possibilities which the subject must seize and choose in order to satisfy and maximize his or her well-being, pleasure, or profit, end of the quote. The individual choice to un-choose, as we found in Tinder rejection logic, hides traditionally the dynamics of men's de-responsabilization and women's emotional responsibility. It particularly affects older women, as we see, especially those educated in the earlier heterosexual hardship model, and it avoid criticism because it is apparently the result of an individual choice rather than a systematic and unequal extractor, as we see with racism in the second stage. So that's all, thank you so much, and looking forward to answer all your questions in the question round. It's your turn now. Hopefully we'll have, after this last presentation, we'll have some, we have the chance as well to have a bit of debate as well or dialogue, and yours should be emoji presentation, there we go. What happens to this? The pointer only appears below? It's a bit here, isn't it? Is this the presentation? No, it's emoji. Emoji, okay. Share, let's go here. Victor, can you confirm if you can see the presentation, please? Yes, I'm seeing it, thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Well, that's it. Thank you for sharing. I don't remember how it was made for high names, high video panels. Thank you. Hi. Wow, it was loud. Okay, emoji. So this kind of comes from the same project I'm drawing on data today, particularly from Denmark and Spain, I think. Okay. So emoji, great, they're really interesting. It's quite a fancy title, but all it really means is thinking about the kind of communicative work that emoji do in the context of Tinder, and the example I'm going to use is talking about flirting, because it's kind of interesting, but also because it's quite a concrete and in some cases, there are always a very recognisable phenomena. In spite of that, this issue of ambiguity is really interesting to me, but the way that emoji are very ambiguous or are... Doesn't look like it. It is? Yeah? No, it's better. How loud do you want it, though? Maybe not that loud, maybe like that. Okay. How do I move? How do I move the thing? I don't know. Okay, is this the word? No. Okay. I guess now it's better. Can you try to change it, please? No. No? No? No? No. Well, this is strange, right? I'm going to show it like this. Is this one here, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. If I do this, then it runs. Yeah. But we need to share the screen, yeah. Let's try it again. No? No. All right. Now it is. Okay. Yeah. Okay. No? Yeah, no. I don't understand what's going on. All right. I'm just going to do this again. I'm going to leave the top because apparently there's something going to do with it. Here, maybe. Okay. Maybe. All right. Thank you. Yeah. I don't think we need to talk about that. So the coming from kind of conversation analytic perspective, so broadly discourse analysis, if you like. Oh, yeah, that happens when it, so it's going to come up strangely because it was done on a Mac and when it's shown on a PC, some of the graphics look different. So this looks a bit weird. Anyway. So conversation analysis and other kind of discourse methods have started to look at emoji in interesting ways. So there's things that you will recognize as regular emoji users that have been described like, for example, the way that emoji are used to create alignment between turns. So, you know, someone says something, the next turn is like a thumbs up or an angry face to display some kind of alignment to the text that was produced. That different emoji can be used for that and they're interchangeable. So an angry face or a thumbs down might mean exactly the same thing might mean no. We know that they are used to produce something to display something like a stance in relation to talk. So you can use an emoji to show that you're being ironic or something's a joke. So they have a function in a similar way to gestures in co-presence communication to display something of the illicitonary force or stance of an action. In more conversation analytic work, there's an interest in sequence placement. So where emojis fall and how they're used in sequences of communication. And so it's commonly found that they're used, again, as we all know, that there'll be an emoji at the end of a turn, so text, text, text, emoji. The emoji speaks to the text that came before it, right? So we'll see an example in a second. Whereas when it becomes the beginning of the turn, it usually refers to the turn that came before it. It doesn't refer to the text that follows it. Usually, you know, the generalities. So for example, yeah, you can just see it. So here's a little example, which comes from Koenig's work, where Bayer says, I dreamt about Phil, and that's like a, it doesn't come up very well, but it's like a laughing while crying emoji, you know. So I dreamt about Phil laughing when crying, and the response is, ha, ha, ha, the same emoji. I dreamt about Marcus with a different emoji. So these two, you can read as doing something like showing that I dreamt about Phil is, I don't know, how you want to read that. It could be, that's a funny thing, that's a joke. In Koenig's work as a sort of conversation analyst, she describes it in terms of projecting this as something you're going to treat as laughable. In other words, projecting it the next term will treat it as a joke, if that makes sense, which happens. So Tina then says, ha, ha, ha, treating this as a joke. And interestingly, a thing again, that you'll all recognise, that the emoji is used and kind of replicates the text. So the text is ha, ha, ha, and the emoji is doing the same kind of interactional work, which is a common thing with emoji. And then says, I dreamt about Marcus with another emoji, which you can't, you know, it doesn't come up here. So that's a kind of weird emoji. It's like this, you know, the sort of blushing face from with the rosy cheeks, like that one. And so the kind of question is, what is that particular emoji doing? Is that one? It's not any other. It's not a generic smiley face. It's that kind of thing. So the question is, what was it doing? What does the user want this to project or do? And my answer is, well, you could have many, many answers to that question. It depends what you want to see the emoji as meaning. It could mean something like embarrassment. It could mean what? It could mean all kinds of things. And we could go around and get lots of meanings. And we don't really know the answer in terms of this person, which is part of the ambiguity of emojis. OK. Just quickly on this, it's so annoying that it strips out the emojis when it becomes, when it moves from platform. Anyway, particularly when you're talking about visual materials, and you need the visual material to talk about it. So they often, emoji are used to repeat text. So the example here with avocado and toast for breakfast, and then avocado, emoji, and toast. That they can be repeated to amplify. So more than one angry emoji is very angry. They can be used in long chains. So they can be chained, first of all. So I love pizza. I love pizza emoji. And completely replaced text. And used in quite long chains. And all of those things can be used to do quite complicated kind of interactional work, like changing from one topic to another to show that this topic has ended. Like a thumbs up to show, right, agreement is reached, and then move on to something else. Or to do greetings, openings, closings, to repair text, or draw retention to trouble in text. So the kind of work they do is significant and very similar to the way that ordinary text works or talk works. My interest, and actually all of our interests in anyone who uses emoji is what does a given emoji mean? What, you know, kind of Harvey Sachs, who's a very important person in conversation analysis, he has this question, why that now? Why that particular bit of talk now? What's that doing? That's always our question when we encounter an emoji, when we encounter anything. So I want to look at that question a little bit in relation to some data. Okay, so this, the squares, what they should be is the winking emoji. The winking emoji is a really important one. So C1 says, this is from a Danish example, C1 says, I understand, this is a little way through a conversation, I understand, sun shines my emoji. I enjoy my holiday, what are you doing? Wink, wink, right? So, oh, I know it's not, I'm wrong, it's not a wink one. This is the party emoji. You know the party emoji, the one with the thing with the hat, that one. That's really, really important, is the party emoji. So it says, I understand, smiley sun, I enjoy my holiday, what are you doing? Party emoji, party emoji, right? So there's a slight strangeness in that particular emoji at that moment. It's like, okay, what, if you read it as meaning something like fun or cool, then you can get a reading of like, it sort of chimes with holiday and that's fun, or does it turn the question into something like, are you doing something cool? Do you see a sort of thematic relation between it as party and the question? The answer doesn't attend to that at all. The response rather says, nice, I also just got vacation from work. Are you just a walk past the other bus? Is that how you say that? Which is a place, right? It's a place. Okay, okay, okay. Okay, you just walk past or what? So it doesn't attend at all to what the party emoji is doing, but does attend to the location issue, vacation issue. The next thing is, well, how wonderful sunshine emoji, and yes, it is party emoji, party emoji, you live here. So the first thing is that they repeat exactly the way they've used emoji in the previous term. So it's sunshine party emoji, and same here, sunshine party emoji. Well, how wonderful, and yes, so the problem is what's the party emoji doing here? It is party emoji, party emoji, you live here. What's that doing? And to find out the answer, it looks like it's replacing a text, it's replacing a word, so you need to figure out what word it's replacing. And we could do that between us. I could ask, and you could come up with suggestions, and it might be something like cool, or it's fun, or something like that. But we don't know. The answer, the response rather, is this. Well, are you a party? Have you lived here since 2016? This is the only example I've found where an emoji kind of becomes accountable, or its use becomes a problem where they're trying to kind of fix it. So they're basically saying, I don't really know why you're using that emoji, that's a bit strange. It's notable that they have this smiley emoticon afterwards, which is a very common thing we know from conversation analysis, and again from everyday life, that where someone is making a complaint or something observable that is problematic, they often follow it with a stance marker that indicates that that is sort of downgrading it. So it's like a smile or a gesture, and that's exactly what that's doing there. Okay. So one way I think is interesting to make sense of how emoji are working is in terms of the context that they're in. And in Tinder, one of those things, one of the kind of, Elizabeth used the word early, one of the omnirelevant practices of Tinder is flirting. One of the things that is particularly relevant and germane to the activity is flirtation. So it's interesting to look at examples where that's happening. Okay. So I look at one example. This is from Spanish, it's in English now. So first turn, opening turn in a conversation between two people in a chat is, I love surfing, right? Importantly, this is not just a declaration of I love surfing because this person they're talking to has on their profile a picture of them surfing or something like that. So surfing is already made kind of visible and accountable through the person's profile. So they're not just saying I love surfing, they're also doing a kind of noticing of you like surfing, or let's talk about surfing, right? So it's not just a declaration. The next turn is ha ha ha, that makes two of us. So the ha ha ha is important because it's showing that they recognize that it's not just a noticing, it's a noticing on their profile because otherwise why would you say ha ha ha? That makes two of us. The next turn, giving it away, the next turn is ha ha ha, and what else do you do? So this ha ha ha shows that they recognize that I recognizes that it's not a noticing and that I is doing a joke otherwise why would you say that makes two of us because I already know that because I noticed it on your profile. We're only three turns in. Then I says wink. So that wink obviously refers to and what else do you like? Wink, right? Now that's pretty obviously readable as a sort of flirtatious action given what we know about winking as a practice. We know that it is about kind of making some implication of intimacy is about exerting some sort of interactional right to do that to make a claim to some intimate moment or something that is somehow illicit or something which is exactly what this is doing. What else do you like? I'm good at this. And then you get three laugh emojis in the next turn from the same person and then eating and a lot. So they do this wink then they do the laughing thing and the laughing that we know about flirting is that after a flirtation commonly there's some kind of action to show there was a flirtation and it wasn't serious like laughing or some kind of gesture so these play exactly that same role of conversational move to make something very normalised. Oh I like eating but it does this normalisation work. So in this case the emoji is extremely clear I think in what it's doing you may disagree we can talk about that but I think in both of these cases it's very clear what they're doing and partly that's because of the context because we know that that kind of flirtation happens we know that that is partly what Tinder is for for the sake of time I'm going to for the sake of time we're just going to skip to one more example but it's not by any means always a case that this emoji just because it's a wink emoji is clear there's many cases where it's really unclear what it's doing and its ambiguity is a thing to kind of try and deal with oh no I don't want this one I want this one okay so this is they've been two people have been talking for a while there's been a long gap and they're coming back to talking and so Jay has his opening kind of start the conversation again ha ha ha ha ha ha it's been a while how are things the next term how are the exams wink emoji I thought we would meet wink emoji if you like I can make space for you next week so here the emojis are much less clear in terms of what they're doing so if you think how are the exams wink emoji it is possible to construct a rationale why that might be flirtatious we can invent one if we look back at the text which we do have it's not clear that there's anything that happened in the talk that would make that particularly relevant so it's a bit unclear why a wink if it's doing that kind of flirtatious work or just something else maybe it's just like a stand in for a smile I thought we would meet next I thought we would meet wink emoji now here it's I think there's two ways to read this one is it's a complaint I thought we would meet we didn't and if you were to read it like that it could be a wink emoji or more as a kind of stance mark or a family joking and more like a sort of generic smile however it could also be I thought we would meet but also that could be a flirtation it's quite a flirtatious thing in which case a wink becomes relevant so and there are probably other kinds of readings you can make too they're just two kind of obvious ones to me if you like I can make space for you next week my reply is that sounds good but if you are so busy not clear at all to me what kind of reading they are seeing or is not clear in their answer how they are treating those emoji or what they are treating that as doing their laughter token at the start I mean the most mundane way to say that is they treat the previous turn as requiring a laughter token so they treat something in it as laughable what that is is it because they are responding to a possible complaint and that often is responded to with a laugh or something else, we don't know but the emojis themselves remain this kind of ambiguous thing that are part of the text and the communication and I'll bring it to a close we can talk okay I think I'll just basically stop but I suppose the things that are interesting me this is very much work in progress as you can see what's interesting to me is not trying to solve the meaning of what emoji are that's not possible it's to think about the very fact that they are ambiguous communicative devices because they are what kind of resources do people draw on to produce them as meaningful resources and what can we do as conversation analysts in our case to talk about and describe that kind of work i.e. the sort of methods if you like that are used to produce meaning through emoji I'll stop there for example I don't know if you can say that and people are more flirtatious than native people or actually you can't say that if you took into consideration if they were Spanish people or Spain or Latin America that can change I think that that can give you different conclusions okay yeah of course of course how that works culturally is an important question then the question would be how do you go about researching that what kind of resource, how would you do that and there's lots of ways in CAI I suppose it would involve having a good enough body of examples that you could systematically explore it which we don't have I mean there are things just from an earlier paper and an earlier bit of work I did there are things, so for example it was in Chinese so in Chinese we know that the cover how to enact the emoji to cover your mouth that one I don't know if there's people from China here that it seems it has quite a different meaning on occasions which can be something like a sort of particularly when used by women speaking from a culture I don't know so if I'm wrong this is the result of research not me it reflects something like a sort of demure attitude yeah I don't really know how to say that something like being demure in conversation yeah exactly exactly yeah yeah yeah yeah which is just to say yes you're right, the meanings are really different I think my question is actually related to the previous one so I was wondering what you were presenting especially when you were showing the expressions of love you know like ha ha ha or ha ha ha ha ha ha has different connotations so I was wondering how about emojis to try to measure intensity of emotions especially some emojis that are more concerned to sex or you know to flirting let's say because it's not the same to send one peach signal for instance for each emoji than a thousand of them I was wondering if you are considering this in your research an important thing I mean only in the same way as you said really that they do the multiplicity of emoji means something like amplification it's like very very peach or whatever but like there's a question like what does three peaches mean as against one or 20 as against three I mean not numerically but what is the significance that they're trying to produce through that and yeah I don't have the answer it's a it's something to do with amplification and it's a good question it'd be interesting to see I mean that's the thing just to say again through conversation analysis the way I would approach that is to look at lots of examples and see how they're dealt with actually obviously you can ask people to questions or anything I would like to ask about your presentation and the idea of one norm because my data suggests that there may be varieties and you talked about violations that people might stop interaction if they perceive a prior turn as a violation of the norm but could another suggestion be that they just recognize that there are differences in motivations being explicated or made clear through their actions so it's not a matter of a violation of a norm it's more like having established that this type of relationship does not make sense to one of the participants so it's not necessarily a violation of a social norm it's more like having recognized that this does not make sense to me I'm just interested in when people stop interacting can we say that that necessarily means that that should be understood as them seeing the previous turn as a violation of a norm or something else because they don't display it they just stop interacting interpretation but in that particular case I think there were like a set of violations there were like quite a few for example you don't formulate like so many questions one after another or for example you don't offer the possibility of meeting right at the beginning you know yes of course yes maybe in Denmark it's different from here and also here some people want to be like original and they offer right from the beginning but that has to be interpreted like properly and here we have like older adults who tend to stick more to certain rules of course they try to be original because otherwise you don't catch the attention of the other so the example I was showing will as well before instead of saying hello at the beginning of an exchange one of them said oh you like surfing instead of saying hello it's very important because it's like a very competitive market to say something original about the attention of the other person that's all that's the kind of thing that there's not like a rule but you know it appears that you know several rules for my age of course it's very open to interpretation as well yeah okay thank you very much and I wonder if there is some difference like the person with some purpose specific like I want to develop a long-term relationship so I am the one that always launch questions that I am on the position most positive yeah between like I just have casual sex yeah the words they say and the message they send has some differences like if I want a long-term relationship I would like to know this person so I will launch more questions to get to know more about you so I wonder yeah yeah yeah so of course people now launch a long-term relationship they speak to the faces and they show questions and they will be aware of themselves because that will keep the interactions going and eventually that will lead to a relationship between things for those people they tend to speak more of the faces of the different faces yeah and there also is a difference between men and women in this okay thank you two questions actually one for you Carl it's a question for all of us but in a sense you call for it with your example of the three questions three successive questions when you argued that in ordinary conversation we don't usually probably troublesome to do three questions one after the other but that raises a problem if this is the case that means tinder interactions are not conversations so how far can we use CA and how far to what extent can we consider that the features of conversations are relevant to tinder interaction and others are not and I think it's really a generic question for the kind of things we do and how we use CA for instance so maybe I will have your take on this and the second question was for Elizabeth I was trying to give a very long example when you gave us in the transcript and I wonder couldn't we consider this discussion of what is a tinder date some kind of a pre-sequence somehow so isn't there a possible blurring between your categories somehow regarding the question you asked me tinder interactions are conversations as well yes and conversation analysis I think is well suited for those conversations because what we are analyzing is like real interaction as they happen naturally the thing is that this digitally mediated communication and it has its own rules and we need to adjust to those rules and to make the best use possible of conversation analysis to understand that that is not like a face-to-face interaction but it's like digitally mediated interaction and we need to adjust to those rules and to do a particular setting and make the best of it but I think we can really analyze those interactions as real interactions as well even though they are mediated somehow I think we can use conversation analysis because these are real interactions as well first I comment about the three questions I do that so I violate a lot of norms when I'm chatting with people so I think we need to be careful about assuming that the same norms that we have in talk are the norms in chat and in terms of the example I think there is a tendency with the pre-sequences with the topics that they choose that they lend themselves very well to being in a way just innocent questions but still relevant for the next step talking about going out on a date so talking about the here and now makes relevant to establish if we can in the immediate future meet each other, if we're close to each other the weather is nice it's rarely the occasion in Denmark and then the topic of the leisure activities and dating settings, preferences in terms of that that can be introduced as just a topic but depending on how the answer is produced it can be worked into this invitation project so it's very it's a very it's almost it's almost known by the co-petisive and probably that it's a pre-sequence that it's going to be used as a topic to go into actually talking about us meeting that we can start talking about dating in general and and it's less dangerous and less it's not indicating a willingness to meet you but it's exchanging preferences in terms of an event that we might negotiate in the next step thank you I have a question about emojis I was wondering if there has also been any kind of analysis about the short descriptions of people because the way they present themselves an emoji is not just an emoji such as showing certain sports to not writing it but just putting the emoji but it gets the information about political ideologies, intentions and even roles that one is supposed to assume when interacting with other parts not just like the conversation but this preceding face of how one presents themselves it gives a lot of information when discarding from the very beginning what you expect and what you show the world so this part of emojis in descriptions I was wondering if it has been part of the research or is expected to be analyzed as well it's really important and someone should do it see yeah it's also regarding emojis I never thought about emoji studies or something like that and I'm quite curious and a lot of questions and I was thinking if you if you consider age when studying emojis because I think it changes a lot also the meanings of correcting emojis if you are depending on your age and I'm thinking for example like I know what you can see is using the school the skeleton emoji to designate something that is super hilarious so that changes a lot like the graphical thing of the emoji like the connection between the graphics and the significance and also I was thinking about how also emojis are graphically different in between different software systems so that also it's quite interesting to analyze emojis so we are using Android ones or iOS ones so that's also I think economic oriented or class oriented for analysis and also because they they change the emojis when they upgrade the software so if you don't have the mobile phone able to be upgraded you are not you don't have all the emojis available so you cannot communicate perhaps with people that are sending you that emojis so it's also class oriented or socioeconomic oriented to add to the analysis and I think that's quite interesting I was thinking if you are applying that or if you know something or how to approach it In the interest of lunch I would probably say I agree entirely you framed that as all of those things are interesting and important and it describes to me what that describes is our quotidian experiences with emoji the experience we have in the fact that they are changing, the fact that they are not received by the same people in the same way the fact that people use them in different ways that they have different cultural connotations that is the nature of using emojis and all of that is a space where research should happen the research from C.A. is really just emerging and so all of the things that you are all talking about I think are really really important topics to think about so yeah many of you start approaching them Thanks Hello everyone thank you for coming today to our table which has been designed to be actually a dialogue so you are all invited to participate and answer some of the topics that we are going to bring today for discussion so we would like to start with a question which is discussion so we would like to structure this table by starting with our objective our goals of research we are going to describe a little bit the methodologies we have chosen during this research and then we are going to bring up two concepts to discussion one is network masculinities and the other one is how does network masculinity the way we have understood it through our research interact with gender body image and race and age exactly thank you you can start the view when we envisioned this round table we thought that we didn't want to do the presentation of each of the papers individually so we are going to showcase what things we have in common what other things we have in concert that are different and also maybe interpolate people in the audience because we have seen or they have seen your presentation so we think that there are links in common the round table started with gender and sexuality and this is part of this project that we have been a part of and I'm going to start with my piece of research but it's not mine we have been working until very late yesterday night we have a deadline today and they have helped me so I cannot claim the paper to be only mine and this is actually one of the fun parts of this round table because we have been working together and we have seen that some of the difficulties or the goals were the same and others were different so my part of the project was to take from this pool of qualitative interviews that we have done all together and focus on the construction of the body on dating apps and also the effects that these might have on the body image of the users when I arrived to the project I came in a bit later I asked to have gay men also in the sample so we could compare not only the presentation of men and women but also within men that we could compare gay men and heterosexual men why? Because research in body image shows that gay men have much lower body image than straight men and the levels of gay men the levels of dissatisfaction the levels of preoccupation and worries about their body were closely to the level were close to the levels of women which traditionally in body image research in the 90s for example research was focused on women because of their particularities because the beauty cannons of our society because all of the pressures that those beauty cannons have put on women they had always lower satisfaction and lower body image when I found through reading articles that gay men were similar in levels of body image to women and not to straight men then I thought that this was going to be my research that I wanted to dig more into that so I wanted to see how male users constructed and self presented their image on dating apps but also how the images on dating apps were having an effect on their body image so we asked all 40 men both straight and gay women in body in case you don't know in body image the areas of concern in our body for men and women are different the three big areas that we have seen in research for men are muscularity and then height and then weight so we asked directly about those three to all the men but also we asked about the pictures of men and women and also about the process of choosing their own pictures for their profile if they were hiding any parts of the body if they were showing off other parts of the body etc so this is more or less my objectives or my goals and we can discuss a bit of the results later but I'm going to let them speak too so in the same line I didn't use the pool of interviews I went to the content analysis of the profile pictures of 200 profiles we selected 100 profiles of straight men on Tinder and another 100 profiles of gay men on Tinder so we created two fake profiles one of a woman looking for men and another one of men looking for other men we explore exactly very similar to Arnau's study but in this case it was more a quantitative study rather than a qualitative study we were trying to explore which were the strategies of self presentation of these men of the straight ones and the gay ones in their profile apps and we were also trying to compare both strategies we were rather looking for body image concerns in this case detected in the literature that the three main concerns on men in our case were very different but were varying from straight men to gay men straight men are more worried about height they really are concerned about being higher or taller than women and women are also looking for men who are taller than themselves and the height was something that we were clearly looking as a defined factor on their profiles weight could be another one also on muscularity we could find it out on the visual images that we were analyzing in the gay profiles again these three but we were wondering which kind of masculinity we were gonna find when we were looking for or analyzing those profiles in this case we were also paying attention close attention to the actions that they were developing during those profile pictures because we thought that maybe there were some cultural factors that were defining these both sexualities and these two ways of self presentation as a strategy to meet their desire one for example one of our hypothesis where was that straight men were gonna include some kind of pictures doing sports but not any sports some sports for example related to climb to the mountain to risk sports things like that outdoor sports mainly yeah on the other side we thought that maybe our hypothesis was that more gym close sports pictures could appear in the gay profiles we also were comparing how do they portray muscularity that was something that we were really wondering because as far as we know and in the literature as far as we have read the portrayal of hegemonic masculinity is very connected very close connected to muscularity showing off muscular so that was also one of our most important variables what else do I want to tell you well findings maybe we we come back later not to compare a little bit what we found no and if it's in line with each other I actually wanted to jump in on something that you said because the most validated scale for body image in men includes those three things muscularity, height and weight seems to be a bit heterocentric after doing our research because for example height it's not something that worries gay men a lot they don't have to be taller or lower than their partner in a gay relationship there's always going to be one that is tall and one that is shorter doesn't have to go in a certain way or else it doesn't work so very short users express concern like I wish I was higher but it was not a requirement whereas straight users are very concerned this is something that they put on their profile this is something that they take into account when taking a picture and they say that women filter the profiles that they see through age and height so if you are not a certain height you won't even appear to women that are as tall as you for example which to me shows that those quantitative scales in body image are very much for the mainstream public but maybe sometimes obscure or forget the particularities of minority men on the other side the last variable sorry before you summarize your research Rafa thank you was class or economic status economic status appear to be a very important variable on the pictures and the analysis of the profiles we saw it wasn't only a variable that appear distinguishing one profile or another but rather I think it became a factor to choose partners so we really think we discuss in between us how to codify the pictures the profile pictures and for example something very obvious for us where Luxury cars boats automobiles many many of the transportations were showing like for example driving their own boats driving Ferraris or really expensive cars maybe those cars weren't them but we also codify the type of dress they were wearing if they were showing brands brands like really that we know no brands we were trying to find a sign that they were showing of a status to the image the status so that was one of the variables we really pay attention to because well in the conclusion then we will discuss that for us Tinder is how did we define it like social social net that takes into account that too much people actually it's something that is a network that doesn't that match us throughout our status like it helps it's based the algorithm somehow to match that variable so it's not just random and I want to keep the conversation going because no no no but it's perfect and if anyone has a question like we we actually wanted to make you come closer and kind of more like hippie style why don't you let me introduce my I would have the three researchers and then we can open this absolutely sorry I didn't express myself properly I wanted to say that the theory of the social schemas that exactly explains this phenomenon because it defines these platforms like socio-economical divide and it proves this hypothesis let me just introduce the third research the third research is slightly different from the two previous ones because it focuses on one specific user's profile which has to do with the kind of relationships that they have in this case we have focus on open relationships so our main purpose of the study was to explore a little bit or understand this connection between the use of the dating apps and how they manage their open relationships with questions like how they use the apps how they manage their visibility or how they present themselves in the apps how they express the use of these apps with their partners with their main partners or to other people outside of the couple and also how they make it visible that they have a partner when they are having a conversation with a third person we have also explored the age variable comparing younger users with older users to see if there were differences between those two groups of users and it has been based on the interviews as well it's a qualitative research and I think that's enough for the moment and then we will start to explore different variables and different topics sorry I didn't mention we focus on gay couples exclusively our participants were male adults younger and older adults homosexual gay people and with the requisite that we will be currently in an open relationship users of the dating apps it actually would have been I think when we were talking about the sample it would have been much more difficult to find so many open non monogamous relationships among heterosexual users which is not such a common thing plus one of the things that I found in the interviews is how important the affordances of the apps were which I knew but maybe I didn't realize how much that was going to impact the different ways of using the apps so for example on gay apps you have the option of establishing open relationship and in some of them to differentiate between open relationship and polyamorous relationship it's gotten very sophisticated and it's included in the options that you can show on the app whereas I doubt that the heterosexual dating apps or the dating apps that the heterosexual publics use have those incorporated already in the app you can for sure write it on your text but it's not like the app already knows that that's going to happen I wanted to go to Pila's question how do you find the markers of class in the profile and I think what's curious in this table or listening to what Olaz was saying is the wonders of mix methods right she's looking for markers of social status on the profiles whereas I never asked about social status or class and it appears constantly and repeatedly on the interviews so one of the things that we find in the body image study is that older heterosexual men feel more comfortable with their body because on dating apps because they don't use their body to find partners and they explained oh no I don't show I don't take my shirt off I show my car I show my trip to Bahamas I have never far away island that it's easily recognizable as an exotic place to go or I talk in my description about my job if they have if they are doctors or they are entrepreneurs for example so without asking about that and asking about their body they explained to you that I'm not really concerned about the body because I use these other things in my profile to attract possible partners and they all tell us that they do that because women don't like men who show off their body so much they see men showing their muscularity and shirtless men as whether young that's what young users do or as people that are trying to match with a certain type of women that also is very fit and has a very canonical body and they see them like as a separate pool of possible matches like I would never match with one of those people and they are looking for each other right so in my status what I show is my car markers of class let me connect it to the because it's interesting because in your case the goal of the connection is to find a long-term relationship where in my research which is focused on the open relationships the final goal is to have a sexual encounter so this idea is totally different because the exposure of the body is very relevant in this case because the final goal is to have sex so they don't care about the tree, they don't care about the status they don't care about the body which is very interesting and it allows us to compare in terms of where is your final goal to have a long-term relationship a short one night stand and this is having an effect on the way they present themselves in the dating apps in our case was exactly the same as you we saw and connecting with the idea that Carlos explained before the more aspects you disclose about yourself in a profile the closer you get into a relationship it's like you are opening a part of your life the more you describe your profile the more you disclose about yourself the more you share your life the more you are looking for a long-term relationship in terms of establishing a long-term contact with someone we found that the greatest number of our profiles were very detailed described they had one word like I love Shushi or things like that okay they didn't go into detail at all but they rather took the time to put at least 3-4-5 pictures in which they could describe their body what they like to do in terms of sports but branding their body more than branding their lives so in this case we also agree with Rafa's study more than with our nausea strategy or what he found in body image but it's true that there is not a variable that came out here that is young and old people I have to say that I was talking about heterosexual users when I go to gay users nudity, objectification showing the body it becomes a completely different game not only because the app allows you to share nudes and sexy pictures unlike Tinder where they have to go to WhatsApp or Instagram to do the sexting part it is already in the app but the users report that it's not only in the app that it's part of this gay culture there's a lot of mention to the gay culture and the gay world and how much pressure on the body of the users and on sexualizing yourself those spaces and communities have there is also something interesting in what you say which is the different use of the apps because according to these results they were expressing how they were using Tinder at the beginning when they were trying to find their main couple long term relationship and they were using it in a different way and then when they already have a couple to open the relationship to have other sexual partners they were closing the Tinder app because that was for the long term relationships and then they were moving to Grindr to find sexual encounters so it's more sexual explicit it's more practices of the sexting in fact this idea of the sexting is very interesting as well in this recess because they were including this sexting thing the the routines that they have to to what to say as a step before meeting the person I mean sexting as a part of I don't remember if it was you Carlos that you were explaining the steps in the conversation so they jump directly to the last part of the they avoid all the steps because the final goal is to find I mean they have very clear in their minds what is their goal and sex so they jump all the steps to the it's not only that they jump they feel pressured to get there in order to get the date a lot of them comment on I have to send my naked picture if I want to get the date so it's kind of a felt like a requirement on their body mm-hmm and of course the relationship do you see much resistance to that in people who talk about the beauty of the apps trying to break the claim so they find you have to do something you don't there's a lot of research and I'm sure people like to learn from them is this that I am I was wondering if you have any questions about sexual behavior? There was one issue that we had in mind, this binary... Were you my reviewer? The article that we sent, it actually got rejected, and one of the comments was that the sexuality was very binary. No, no, but it's a huge question. For us, it was a matter of sampling. When we were deciding the sample, one of the things that we decided is that they needed to identify as heterosexual or gay. So we did not give them the chance to be somewhere in between. People that were bisexual, for example, were not interviewed. So we haven't seen those nuances because we didn't let them in. It was a matter of being practical with our sample and being able to use the same sample for different projects and extracting different things from the interview. So we were very strategic. But it's true that probably if we let people define themselves, all these terms become a lot more blurry. For example, in body image research, we see more and more these men having sex with men, for example, which is a much better indicator to identify than gay because it opens up the door to people who don't identify as gay, but they use grinder, which is what we're looking for, right? This is a term, men who have sex with men, is a term that has been widely used in health, for example, because they realized that when they asked, if they were doing HIV studies, when they asked for gay men, a lot of sex workers don't identify as gay. That's their job, but they don't identify. So they didn't reach that particular audience and, of course, for HIV projects, they wanted to reach the ones that actually were having more contact and more dangerous sex, for example. So they had to change the terminology to men who have sex with men. So we could have gone in that direction, but it's a matter of sampling. So if we further the research, I would certainly like to see how, for example, non-binary people or bisexual men feel, and if this compares to gay men or not in the apps, because we coexist. Clearly, clearly. Especially when we are doing a research on masculinities. I mean, that is the key concept. And when we go to literature and we review the literature, there is no single article that doesn't have other non-binary identities into account when describing masculinity, because the nuances of the masculinity definition are there. Just to finish one question. You are talking about the use we did about this binary system. It was because a strategy to do the sampling, but it's also part of the dating apps. I mean, the dating apps also define the profiles according to this binary system. So we were also using... Ah, you have said, okay, sorry. The way you are allowed to... Tinder is more strict on this. I guess some gay apps are less strict on this. You had a question, Pile? I'm not in a position. It has a privilege, not to use the word as such, but as if they have economic capital, they have cultural capital, but they don't need... Nobody. To use. To establish a relationship with a woman. In this case, I want to focus on masculinity. I should get in touch, but I should come back because masculinity is shown in the case of homosexuality or in a sexuality position. And instead, it's last week, I have no time to read, but I know that you have to publish a book that is useful to you, link order and social policies that have published many of my and must go in this and the neoliberal project, which is central in this. Now, this is a new trend between Barbara, Elon Musk, and this is a new trend that I have to appeal in the social media with a strong muscularity. Not sexual muscularity, but a strong muscularity to a goal in the image that men were soft and not interested in their bodies. So I think it's probably interesting to compare that now they have capital, cultural capital, and strong models of their bodies and it could be different from young, heterosexual, gay presentations. I'm not sure... You already found it. We can see José María Adnar, for example, here in Spain, José María Adnar, he got ripped, the ex-president of Spain. He got ripped and he started to appear in magazines with six-pack and... Yeah, and he was tiny, skinny, old, ugly, you know? Yeah, he was always kind of hot. Totally. It has to do with the demonic muscularity, of course. Which connects with another variable that we need to discuss, that is power relationships. And the call for papers for tonight, midnight, youth dating apps and power relationships. And that's here where it connects with the call for papers. Yeah, and probably the best finding or the finding that we like the most about the body image research in Pilar. So you were talking about muscularity and absolutely muscularity is something much more present in the gay sector, in our gay users. And we found the term homo-masculinity. Talking about these performative in-the-body masculinity that gay men have to do in order to belong to hegemonic masculinity because for being gay men, they have been traditionally excluded from this hegemonic masculinity. So in the research in mobile dating apps, they're saying that it's kind of a compensation for masking. They call the process of masking, of presenting as very masculine and demanding of their partners to be more masculine. And there's this issue of demand. What we found, and I'm getting to the great finding, I think, is that while gay men feel this absolute pressure to conform to certain ideal of body, they also feel great pressure to not become old because youth is a variable that crosses here. So we see that young gay users, despite all the pressure, they report feeling much better with their bodies and having many more options whereas the older users, gay users, are very depressed with their bodies. They are feeling super bad. The levels of satisfaction with their body that they report are awful. They say that young users ask them for money, but not on the app, like during the date. So in a sneaky way, they get stolen. They get stolen. They get discarded for their age. So this sexual capital in the gay population, it goes down. When we look at the straight or the heterosexual group, the opposite happens. Young users talk about their body and are concerned about their body and hide parts of their body in their profiles and they tell you, I don't like this. I don't like that. I don't like my height. I don't like my muscularity. Oh, I will never post a picture of myself without the t-shirt. They also minimize the importance of those pictures and we have read that it's a way of avoiding failure in other research because they say, oh, yeah, pictures. Oh, I don't know. I chose some from Instagram. So they play it very casual and when you get to the older heterosexual men, they are very fine with their body because they have that status, which I think it links with the privilege to, but it's very interesting to see how they go the opposite way, right? The older you get, the more confident or the less confident, depending on your sexuality. Could be. It's not your terminology that you have, at the end, the only thing you have is your body to invest, you have to invest in your body. And if you are not only if you are a woman or a young woman, then you realize that at the end, your only character is your, not sexual character, your body. Yeah, that's for sure. They call it to the back. I agree, but I agree partially, Pilar, because I think one of the central points in this process of power and the gaze is not only what's valuable to me is who is looking at me. And women don't sexualize heterosexual men in the same way that gay men sexualize each other. So the fact that some feel better with their body it's also because they don't compare with each other and they don't feel the male gaze. Heterosexual men, they tell you, oh no, women don't want me sexualized. Women don't want me to show off this or that. It gives you capital, but maybe on those apps, the gaze of women or the way heterosexual women look at men is kinder with their bodies unless demanding or aggressive, objectifying, sexualizing, that the way gay men look at other gay men. Yeah, totally. But it's heterosexual. It's on a straight man. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I agree. In the straight, in the straight, straight masculine, it is the future. I agree. I think first of all, I wanted to say something. I think first of all, I wanted to say something. It is about it. It is about it. It's a performance about the stereotypes with gay people and it talks about secure masculinity, which is very, like, a lot with what you're doing, saying, you're used to Rubik's. So you want to share with the character. Yes, please. In the end, apparently for me, when it comes to dimension, at least, there's always this aware of what it means to be masculine, even though you're not masculine at all. Maybe there is this well-known gay artist that does not allow himself to portray it in a sexual way with a gay partner, wouldn't say. So if it helps to you, I can share with you. I mean, it's not going to make it to the article that we have to turn today, but for real. But it's interesting. But it's true that we were discussing about security, no? Yeah. Either older users are more secure proof or show more security on the profiles than younger users. But then also, when you think about the meaning, I understand it, it's not just that you are saying this, you're also at the same time sustaining this performance with this character. Sure. It's a double meaning. Mm-hmm. That's why we talk about performing masculine anything, no? That is a good interaction. Dialogue. Yeah. I actually wanted to know, because I haven't been there for Dr. Bararra's presentation, but since it came up, the thing about, in the interviews, it comes up a lot that the way how you present in the dating app is signaling other people the type of encounter you want to have. If you're looking for long-term relationship or if you're just looking for a sexual encounter. And I know that your research touches very much on that. So I don't know if what we were talking about resonated with because I have missed your presentations and the idea of asking the alpias. Okay. So the point of in that study of what it would be for is it is possible to find long-term relationship in apps like in the city of Rostavito. Rostavito. It's also with the idea that the social image of those apps is that they are only produced in natural sex. Okay. So the good form is that people that are used to dating apps are equally open to long-term relationships. And as an expert would you say that if you look at the way that people present on their profiles maybe we can see like more investment into long-term relationship. Like for example the text they use or the pictures they use could that signal different Everything is important. Yeah. On dating apps they even doesn't include a single photo a single pic about themselves. You can and the problem you could do in that kind of things is conditional probably on your sexual orientation and also conditional on your final goals. If you are specific of going or aspiring to a long-term relationship a problem this kind of photos or those kind of profiles would be better received in a heterosexual or in a heterosexual name in comparison with a heterosexual name. As you have said this kind of you are the expert on that in this apps everything is informative sometimes I don't in a book even the lack between what you write the other or the other person responds everything is important silence absolutely absolutely In relation with the idea of muscularity one of the states that was most used in the era of internalization of the standards of belief expectations is a lack of interest around versions and in the third version the authors decided to use a dimension about muscularity because they saw that there was a growing trend about muscularity because before that the idea of internalization of the standards was made as you said for views for woman ideas ago we are trying to forget the name and the trend of men's muscularity and we saw that research not only on dating apps but on all media and it looks horrible for gay men because all the media directed to gay men have impossible canonical bodies that add pressure and we read that but then when you read the interviews without asking about that it also comes up very often right when you go to a circuit party and you see who is in the poster or who is in the flyer that they give you so it's in the app they are in a grid of users so this was another of the differences that we saw heterosexual men on Tinder they say do you want to see other men and they're like nope only women so they only see women and swipe left swipe right they don't have to confront their body and compare it with another man's body gay dating apps have a grid of bodies of little squares you see all of them some of them include you as the first one on the grid because you are the one that is closest to yourself in that moment so you can even see yourself as part of the grid and check your own profile so the way that the app is constructed is already comparing men with other men and they were saying in the apps I see all those spectacular bodies because those who have the investment on their bodies they're going to show their body on the app because that's their sexual capital and then I go to the street and I go to a party and I see those bodies on the posters and I open a gay magazine and I see those bodies and I watch the new Netflix whatever and I see those bodies so it looks like the only way of existing as a gay person is accommodating to those very muscular bodies according to our interviews they feel sometimes surrounded by the future and now this has to do with the concept what was the concept homo-masculinity homo-masculinity has to do with this idea of how the gay culture or gay users have adopted the traditional and hegemonic masculinities into the way they present themselves so even if they are gay people and they are looking for gay people they have adopted those traditional stereotypes and roles within their community and also into their desire and the way they present themselves to attract partners the the gay yes the male gay absolutely there's one article called the gay male gays that we read for the article that it's really which proves that there is a mirror to explore the difference between the gay culture present in this topic that is less gay yeah totally absolutely research it was once I don't know I went that women expect from themselves the slimmer body have higher pressure about the body that should be the day to get in comparison with what men prefer mm-hmm mm-hmm but expect mm-hmm so for me the question is in the age of gay men you have asked how you feel about your body yes what is impact people really expecting to find environment you really want to be such a bushular person what is the that that's a very interesting question and we we ask them about other users and how they what they seek in other users and how those other users make them feel mm-hmm one of the things that came up which is kind of funny but not funny at all mm-hmm I think it's very good for future research is mm-hmm those users say okay yeah those bodies are great right so in the interviews you can see how they protect themselves when they start talking about because they are desirable and they admit yeah I love muscular bodies but and then this bot leads to different comments one they are like a cult they spend so many hours in the gym they don't have a life I would not want to invest that many hours so protection so yeah they claim to be healthy but they are taking drugs steroids they're they're getting injections they're getting protein they're so they're modifying their body with maybe not so healthy products so these healthy and healthy I think it's a very good future research third they say they are superficial they are dumb this is what appears also in straight men they tell us it's something but we have seen it in gay men so when we ask okay so do you like muscular guys they say yes but it's very often hedged with a bot let me put some distance here I think my hypothesis when I read that is they know that it's very superficial to just like somebody because of their body but at the same time there's this tension of I feel attracted to the thing that counts but it kind of is so they try to protect themselves and distance themselves from that thinking it's a hate law reaction and now it's interesting because you were explaining this idea of the superficiality as a negative element but in the case of my research they were using it as a positive issue as a positive thing in the terms that they are eliminating from this fleeting process all the all the steps all the elements that are superfluous are not are irrelevant to their final goal or the final aim which is sexual intercourse sexual intercourse so they were finding this superficiality as a as a as a positive element in this sense which is interesting as well understand sexuality not desire what do you think about that about what desire to just to satisfy my own yeah very much totally totally I'm a consumer consumerist I don't want to invest in this the thing I don't want to invest in time exactly but you know why because in this case within this particular profile of users which is gay male users having an open relationship of course they have necessities in the sense of sentimental necessities or what to say emotional emotional necessities but they are covered by the main couple so they are this part is already covered so they use the other necessities I mean they use the apps to cover the other necessities which is just sexual necessity so this is something that they also mentioned how we don't need to flirt we don't need to establish a small talk a small talk or a social relation with the other one because I don't need that I already have that with my main partner yeah but I understand what Pilar is saying but I think there is a common playground that is the market dating apps are created as exactly the things where people go to consume you are consuming the other people but the other person is also consuming you so this is it's a consumer logic and this is something that both parts agree within this agreement or relationship that they are having so it's kind of mutual and it links with what Vitor was explaining from your article the way that these men by un-choosing instead of rejecting they are saying oh it's my choice right it's something that I do it's nothing against you so I don't have responsibility towards your feelings or your emotions and I feel it's a cup out in this case too no I have my emotional needs covered so I'm being very honest I'm not here for the emotional part I just want sex so if you have emotions that's your thing because I already told you that I only want sex did we have a hand? yes no no come on just thinking about the second phase you did say we were talking about research and we focused on the exchange of pictures because as a woman I have made no research just my own research with friends and it's like do you as girls do you ask for pictures you never ask for a picture of that you mean a sexual picture or sexual pictures or a part of the ones in the profile again when we go upon the conversation it's something that you have touched on I myself make that association because that's the reason why I just so I was wondering if you have touched on what happened to you actually we haven't elaborate on this topic but in the first results of the part of the interviews that we're researching mainly on sexting on the ads we saw this phenomenon phenomenon called sex spreading which is exactly this not the fear of people exchanging pictures and then those pictures being spread away of that arrangement in between two people so that was a risk of doing sexting and obviously a preoccupation like a worry for people who used to take playing to these practices whether if you ask whether it is extended or normal to ask for more pictures I don't know in the gay world in the results of body image we didn't consider we have those questions in the interview and there's a sexting article coming up also and they talk specifically about that I've been really immersed in the interviews and I can I remember the interviews where they talk about again affordances like for example WhatsApp Snapchat Instagram allow you to send a picture that disappears so a lot of those users were saying I go to those other networks because I can share pictures but also because it's a safe way of sharing them so it's kind of like finding ways of coping with that mechanism but we were not bringing it together with body image issues which now that you mention it sounds very interesting super interesting no because she's just putting on the table one of the biggest fears especially on women because all these not on gay men all this idea of of of sexualization of of of of of sexualization of of sexualization of in gay men and straight men I haven't really read the interviews that we have with women because my project was focused on masculinity so I'm not very familiar with the data but comparison between straight men and gay men straight men still fear the pictures gay men are like I have pictures but I also have an album and like the second version of the album and I can open it to other users and they can see all the pictures at once but that's directly linked also to the app. Grinder lets you compose your album, you can open it and one day you can say close it to everyone and it closes back. Scruff which is another very popular app for gay men doesn't allow anyone to take captures of your picture it's it's locked you can't do it with your phone the only way is taking another phone and taking a picture of the phone but which could work yes it loses quality and also you have to really want to capture that picture and also you have five seconds right so quick so the gay apps I think are in the know that a lot of sexy pictures are going on they have a lot of moderation of pictures but they also offer possibilities for being safer in sharing those pictures that concept of being so extended yeah make it less desired to be censored no and self-censored I don't know which is the key concept here but I think it's so extended that sex spreading is not a problem for they also develop ways of protecting those even even if the apps have created the those affordances to protect the users but I'm sure they also exactly they also create their own ways of protecting the sex taking pictures only of body parts which are not identifiable you could not identify the person yes maybe I don't know that the one they say is no face no I have pictures of my face so these are ways exactly they are never the same picture so I can send one they are separated so you are creating ways to protect your identity when you want to do 16 or what is the word could be nice intersection to attention to in straight users the thing is that men don't show fear because they are not asked for this type of pictures and we need to think that men straight men on apps have a power privilege I mean they are on I thought about how to protect exactly they don't let you know let you share if you want to share pictures you need to go to an opera you don't even have the affordance no you start the content and then you move to a different they force you they force you yeah I agree it's not a very good way of protecting people neither I agree that is not the best more efficient way of protecting pictures yeah but I I kind of understand that we were looking for that patriarchal technology no theory that is true but they also I ask myself why a straight apps or a terrible apps haven't in my opinion developed so many mechanisms to protect identity as the ones you are describing yeah but I think that's a measure of harassment against harassment it's not a measure against sex spreading spreading pictures you know here we are talking about image capture yeah sorry one Ramon maybe yeah it's a good hypothesis yeah makes sense that it has to do with age because it's younger users the ones that say oh I go to what's up to send pictures or I go to Instagram in covid there is another element that we're not taking into account I was in Morocco recently there all the profiles there were without a picture and they were using this afford us that sending this picture which is just five seconds to show their identity this is a way to protect themselves because of gender because of the country is illegal to be so this is also a way to protect a minority which is us exactly super interesting this at the same time you start seeing in some profiles people that say no disappearing pictures yeah if you don't have a picture and you send me a disappearing picture I don't trust you there's something wrong with you because I want you to be out and I want you to show your face and I want to remember who you are among my conversations so that could be also a new trend to look at well I think we need to start closing the table yeah it's I was gonna say it's almost four so if we want to have a break Carlos what do you think the schedule said until four and a break from four to four fifteen thank you so much for collaborating in our discussions this is better than we had in my good afternoon so my talk will deal with social differentiation the use in the management of Tinder chat conversations so so it will go back maybe to some of the earlier talks and interaction so so I've got to focus as Carlos and Elizabeth and and and will about this chat conversations in the use of Tinder which I think have been less studied than profile design and selection somehow and the particular problem I want I want to look at is something which I think has been understudied which is the fact that in most studies people were studying users with a high cultural capital because I think the reason for that is very difficult to study users with lower education and lower cultural capital because they don't like to be recruited for studies they difficult to get them to talk so so so it's quite difficult but that's what that's the question I want to address because I think that in most studies which study users with high higher education capital such as students younger than professional etc etc then you miss the fact that maybe significant differences in the way these people manage manage Tinder conversation and you tend to think to get together to get the wrong thought that Tinder use is quite homogeneous somehow across social stratification and I try to show it's not the case so what we did was to recruit a sample of 20 Tinder users in Paris balancing men and women by a snowball method that's the first sample we recruited and we realized that because of a snowball methods we get mostly young urban professionals living in Paris and so to try to counterbalance that particular bias in our sample we deliberately recruited 20 non affluent less educated Tinder users outside of Paris Center so I've been the suburbs of the province and the criteria we use if we didn't want anybody with more than two years after college somehow in terms of the data collection we use a mixed method approach interviews screen captures no curves as chat conversations for people who would agree to give us conversations and we've been doing some kind of microanalysis of online discourse and a bit of conversation analysis because as you'll see I think you can't really do conversation analysis that kind of thing because these things are not really conversations or in a very limited sense actually so I think so to get a general general feel about these these conversations and picking back on earlier talks the strange things about assuming these are conversations these would be personal conversations between strangers which is a very particular thing because because strangers don't have personal conversations so so there can difficulty there which reflect on one of the two threats in tender conversation the first threat is not being able to find conversation topics because if you deal with strangers well you don't have many ideas about topics for conversations but since you want to have a personal interaction you need topics and also topics that you have to find that particular that you cannot get too personal that you've got to be personal enough for something to build so there's a kind of tension the kind of topic to topic you can find and the second threat in tender conversation been mentioned before thing by Carlos in particular is ghosting of course this possibility that of exit brutal exit in conversation should always hanging the background of the experience of these users so these are the two things that that users have to manage in tender conversation and they're finding ways to manage that and one of the way ways that they're trying to manage that is a particular organization in which messages or successive messages are made of responses to previous messages but also new questions projecting answers so in many cases you don't get you've got a single single message single contribution so these are not turns in the sense of conversations analysis I think these are we should call that contributions which are made of several interactional moves answers new questions and something else and and these contribution they can be made in a single extended message or in several shorter messages but both formats are used and these contributions there are almost always made of an answer to previous contribution and a new question that projects another contribution and so for users I think that they're trying to harness the power of what conversation is goes adjacent pay organization by both being responsive to all your contributions but also by asking you question strongly projecting an answer in a sense trying to to mattress the conversation against the risk of ghosting somehow and this organization is really something that we find in all our samples both a higher educated and the lower educated so it's really something which is very central and I think it's one of the way users are managing this threat of ghosting somehow and and this is the main way in which I think this conversation but I mean conditionally this is relevant to the study of these things it's because of this adjacent pay organization for the rest I don't think it's really conversation in the sequential sense of conversation analysis okay so first I look at the higher education sample to try to give you a sense of how they work that so it's mostly young than professional Parisian Bobo's in a French French colloquial talk and how they use written literacy in that chat conversations so here you've got a typical one so let's start at the third message did you take a lot of work this time I think she that's me I mean I'm is a woman so she finished your contribution but did you take a lot of work this time and you get better answer on the next day me not yes and no I do not have a fit job so I do a bit what I want I've gone to X and in burgundy tuition I've been going for ages what are you doing in Paris so you get first you get that sense of answering the previous contribution and asking a new question and you get that all for example the second point I'd like to make is that did you work a lot this summer this is a single yes and no question I could very well answer yes to that yes I was already some but this is not what it does it does provide what we could consider a very elaborate answer to that simple questions he say much more than yes I work a lot this summer he says that I didn't fix jobs a little bit of what I want I've gone to X in burgundy tuition I've been going for ages and so on so this is not what cars are supposed to say exclusion which was not really required by the sequential organization of these messages but it also provides an opportunity for the woman to pick on that to ask a new question and so how much the answer she's exactly picked on the X in burgundy it's an excellent or examples you have some you some family around there so you see she picks on that self-disclosure to introduce a new line of questioning and a new topic so you get a kind of collaboration in providing elaborate answers but this closes some aspects required and offering opportunities to the recipient to pick on that to introduce a new line of questions and keep a conversation going and this is very record and so after she answers what are you doing in Paris and project manager in my home design sector put black and red different colors here to mark different lines of questions different topics you see that moving that organization is not only that you have question answers answer and questions but it's also multi-topical because of this elaborate answers this new light of questions many of the contribution are not only made of answer questions but answer and question will pick up different topic so it's multi-topical as well and this goes on and goes on so it's the rich in terms of conversation and I would like to argue that this way of doing things which I could provide all this sample of Persian users what we're basically the same way would argue this that the need for elaborate answers is something which is not which is encoded in written literacy you get multiple closers prepositions and if that you get elaboration of all involved some some personal information in narrative form you provide affordances for further talk and so this is something which character of written literacy and responses that are just to the point are noticeable a little example here so someone which the woman Pauline she said what are you doing now and John the guy say I'm working in communication I don't this as a master pro and she said that again she clearly expects more a response just to the point I'm working in communications not enough so there's really really a normative orientation to our provision of elaborate answers really one of these rules that Carlos spoke about an expectation that answers should be elaborate because if you provide a bright answer you display that you're playing the game of self-disclosure opportunity for further talk and keeping the conversation going somehow so it's a kind of involvement display in keeping that kind of tinder chat conversation going and multi-topicality is also characteristic of that and with the peculiarity I think this is something which related to to to to literature written literacy and I've tried to use Gris's maxims for describing the norms of our conversation and if we take this as a kind of template for what is what is a world conversation about then this chat conversation they violates Gris's maximum of economy let's say that responses should be to the point this is not the case here responses are deliberately elaborate and the expected of elaborate so it's clearly a move away from morality in that sense and the format in which this is done is imbued written literacy and written skills you get deconstructed the contextualized description and narratives with minimal use of the ethics you get multiple clauses and propositions in the contributions you get multi-topicality of contributions which is a feature of written letters not ordinary conversation you're not supposed to address three or four topics in a ton of talk usually because this violates another Gris's maximum Gris's maximum relevance so all these practices are re-embedded into written literacy and it's also related to the way these users are using chat conversations they're using this chat conversation even if they're very short some of them are very short before you get the uninvitation to meet but they use this conversation as an enemy itself as where something happens where people display their skill in managing these communicative registers the effort to provide self-disclosure through topic elaboration and the orientation to constructing common ground so that by doing this I think participants display that all these all this kind of involvement and the engagement into keeping the conversation the chat conversation rolling and so for users when it manage such written skills for written flirting and share such an orientation the success of such conversations appears a prerequisite for subsequent encounter when you look now at what uses the lower cultural capital do well it's very different and from the way I've been shaping my argument you can you can expect that because I insisted on written literacy and of course written literacy is something associated to education and of course people with lower cultural capital won this play the same kind of written skills that give their conversation a very different flavor but there are some similarity as well this is a typical conversation from these users again I could have several examples of that throughout my sample. So I think K is the guy, C is the woman. So it's up, hi, hi, how do you find new? You live around the world? Yes, I'm fine, thank you. Paris 13th. Okay, you live alone? Yes, we were kept in the house and you? Me alone. Okay, you didn't live for how many days? Okay, he, yes, all July, new. No, don't live this year. Okay, what do you do for a living? Say it's new. It feels different. Obviously it feels different. It's very short messages, very short contributions, very much, very much to the point, questions and answers are short and to the point mostly single clauses, no narratives, no propositions, elaborations are rare and minimal. I think the only real elaboration here is when she says she's going to cut in the house. So you still have, however, you still have the answer question format, though at some point it breaks that in most of the case you still have contributions that may have an answer and a new question. But because this contribution are short into a point, the way it appears, it's mostly reciprocal questions and you, I'm living there and you, I'm working in that domain and you, so it's kind of a bare burden or get, for good, I say she needs some sequences with reciprocal questions. Because of that, contributions are very much monotopical. There's not much room to develop multiple topics because they're very to the elaboration to introduce new lines of questions. And it gives a kind of formulaic, predictable character to be seen in the chat beginning, to give this structure where you get a lot of reciprocal questions, high, high, where do you live, here, and you, what do you do, I do that, and you, and so on and so forth. So extremely different in terms of the kind of feel this conversation provide with respect to be, to be, to be, to be, to be higher education. And I would argue that these conversations are much more oriented toward orality, actually, because they fit Grice's maximum economy. You get a strong orientation toward geological orality, toward the minimization of all these devices, which are associated to written literacy, but also prevent, somehow, the possibility of gradual self-disclosure and common ground building for kind of written flirting that we saw with the higher education sample. And I think we have to understand that for these people, the team that chat conversation plays a very different role. It's not a place for self-disclosure and building common ground for written flirting. It's a place to start to exchange information, and if it fits, to move away from the Tinder chat as soon as possible. So I think it was mentioned before that you cannot exchange images in Tinder. So very fast, we want to exchange images and they propose to move to other platforms, Snapchat, Snapchat in particular, or to exchange mobile phone to get out of Tinder, because we are not using these chat conversations to, for the kind of written flirting leading to an encounter that we saw, for example, in Elisabeth's data. It's not the way they use it. So in that sense, you see that it's very different the way these people are using Tinder. There's no reason to think that dating is, for this application, mobile dating application, is homogenous across social structure. So to summarize, I've showed you very different types of Tinder conversations, and I'm hesitant to call them conversations. We have different legacy registers, aspects and role, and we've chosen to be very sensitive to social stratification, and in particular cultural capital. And I think that this may be a contribution to our understanding of how this dating application can contribute or reinforce the homophily of dating, because, of course, if you have a different register for interaction and conversation, then it will tend to favor the matching of people with similar written skills, and therefore with similar cultural capital, and in that way can reinforce homophily in online romantic encounters, because they're very, I don't have a clear example of that, because I don't have, but you can imagine that a higher education woman would be reluctant to engage into the kind of conversation that I showed with a higher, lower educated male, which interacts in this way, because he doesn't play the same game on Tinder as she is. Thank you. So, you mentioned these faster than usual other apps to make a more natural speech of those users with lower cultural capital, and you said also that people tend to prefer other people with a similar cultural capital. They are attracted to other people, and I was thinking, how much of that pairing is also done by the algorithm on Tinder, which I would have if we know that it also depends on how many matches you get, any type of matches you get, it also gets shown a certain type of people over the other. So, how much is that the user's feeling of, I don't know, of versatility with the way the other person speaks? How much is that the other woman knows you about some pairs you have now? I think you're right. It's an interesting question. I can't answer two. If I can understand some kind of your point, and you're right, there might be something of a sort already going on in the way the algorithm is doing the pairings, but that I don't see. So, this is probably part of the story, and I don't have access to that. What I've been trying to show is once you get the match, then you get all of these phenomena related to written skills which may reinforce a movie that you write to point that this may start before. And if I may allow, that brings me to a question I wanted to ask you, organic interface design, which is, I tend to enlarge the notion of interface to the algorithm itself, because somehow users, they realize it's not an algorithm. They don't know how it works. It's very vague, but it's part of the experience and it's part of the design. So, I was wondering how far you would like to extend the notion of interface to issues such as the algorithm or the way the application uses locations. So, this is a bit vague for users, but they have a sense of that. Everyone of us knows, we thought it's plain that the algorithm is a working background. It's something not rational, but we are like dancing with the algorithm every time we, it's part of the, not positive, but something ludical to go there. How many likes did I get? And if I give him or her a like in Facebook, there will be more visibility of these people to me. And always you are marketing, it's like exchange, symbolic, not capital. But in Jindar, it's very opaque, rather opaque how it works. Like I said. I think users still feel. You can always feel the algorithm because it is driving everything there. In Jindar, as far as I know, for women, in the case of heterosexual, for women, it's always free. They have an open visibility. But if you are a man, more than 40 years, it tends not to show in your image to the women, and you have to pay. This is because gold and platinum, but in principle, you have the impression when you in Jindar that it's a mix of people there, that the algorithm is not very new. We can see young people, old people from different social backgrounds. I'm not so sure of the algorithm first. Well, I now want to know what it is that is scientific. So I was asking if you have read the Jindar article, but then you said that users that get a lot of matches, for example, the attention we show on the work. And users that get a lot of matches with a particular segment of the population are shown more to that level. In my personal experience, I have never used Jindar, but on Jindar and Scrub, I know that there's very different algorithms working. So for example, the algorithm on Scrub, I think, is very, very good, because on the first phase, they show you users from all around the world, and they are perfect to my taste, most of the time, by the type of guy that I would look at, maybe from the thumbnail. Or maybe this one person, two years ago, said, move to you on the app, so it re-emerges again. And then I know that I'm being shown to them in very particular moments, because when I put down the phone, so after navigating on the app for a while, you put down the phone, and I'll say, you get a notification because it's something across the world, to which your probably your time has seen you and has said, moved to you. So I was waiting for you to not leave the phone and continue your browsing. So I know that on the regular, I think this happened so much, but on Scrub, I know that the algorithm works very well with certain people, because of them, about this, because of the use that I have throughout the phone and so on. So I know that it's something in the shadows and probably very difficult to theorize about, because we don't have access to it, but I was wondering what they were causing that, because it's something that really haunts me. It goes beyond that, you know, how long it was at. Yeah, I only look at that from the user's perspective, but I think it's a lot of, there's a lot of opacity, of course, users don't know, but many users in interviews, they had a feeling that something was working behind the scenes of the algorithms, because, as you said, because they were not shown to some persons or shown others, and I think something that seemed to dig into more, that kind of vague experience they have of being confronted to algorithm choices or affordances somehow, because it's both opaque, but they feel it, somehow it's not completely opaque. I think it's difficult, but I think it's something we should do more. It shows up in our interview still. They express, especially on a straight user, they express, I've seen the different iterations of the sentence that says, well, yeah, at the beginning I got a lot more matches, but then it goes down, because yeah, doesn't show you, so they are aware of their presence and that yeah, this means something to the users. Yeah. I have a question on the interface, as you mentioned about the response, but you can actually, super sorry for some of the things that you consider to have. Yeah. Because if you vote, I'm not going to say it like this, but you can reject an act, and you can also super like something. Oh, yeah, super. The super likes. Yeah. Sometimes when you are browsing, no, this is a super like, no? It's a super like, so it's like after an hour or so. You should pay. What? You should pay. I'm the way and I used to be. Then? What? I didn't. I can tell you I didn't use it. The super like. But you received it. Yeah, this is a super like or something like that. I see. It's a super like. But it's not the kind to start with the general usage. Yeah. Yeah. So men have to pay. I'm kind of super like. And there is a little bit of, there is a little bit of like, so what do you write and what do you make of it? And during the day or the summer, during the period of time, you cannot like more than a swipe right. This is something that we got in the interviews as well. Yeah. You can mention that. Men have to pay. Women have to pay. For super like. For super like. And then, women can like swipe right as many men as they like. Yes. But men are living in the mountains. Yeah. But like or swiping right is easier. Does anyone know very much? There are more men living in the mountains. It's not a strategy. But I have two or three women. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. All the same logic as you know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Yeah yeah. Um, a woman who'll be the lighting bem s It's very interesting to think about that in a sense of someone, I can't remember the name, is talking about a more shown-out capitalism, in which mind the capitalism has the power to construct a new relationship, a very useful relationship, based on, it's just funny. I know, and the use of this positive psychology to, at the end, to use the old as something to my own pleasure, to my own desire, through this positive environment, and the use of emotions, just to say, and humor. For me, it's not very funny, because it's a kind of modification, like a kind of marketing strategy, to go to every day, to the platform, to get notifications, and it's a mix between a game and a survey. Survey, where you are thinking about the possibilities, the matches, calculating if you can win or not win, betting for some, and it gets you occupied. I think with all the research that older women were afraid about, if they thought, why do you do that? I'm not very sure, but young women are more prone to... Yes, it's different, age is very important here, like everyone is saying, young people is like a game, for older people, it's a funny game. When I asked, they are to show me, anyone in as much as had a bias, while in my offline life, betting for the people that I can win, happy it is. But it's easier to find someone that has no dependency in university, in comparison, normally when we are talking, all those elements that you have said will emerge. But at least, perhaps, we will react on that. Why, otherwise, there is basically no way, no wrap in our lives. I think homophily is a classical sociological problem, so homophily in romantic relationship construction, way before applications, how you meet people, as you say, in real life, in those contexts, and how that may reproduce in some way social certification. So it's a very old social problem. I think with dating app, it provides a new ground for asking these questions. So, do this dating app reinforce or minimize homophily? There's been a discourse, and I think that goes a bit around what you're saying, that because the application gives access to a lot of profiles, they might provide more opportunities for people to meet other people outside their usual social sphere or usual social relationships. I don't know if it's true, but my point is that you have two different things in Tinder. You have profile selection and matching, which is one thing, and I can't answer that question because I didn't study profile matching. What I'm saying is whatever happens in profile matching, after profile matching, you get into these conversations, and then when you get into this conversation, you have a strong linguistic phenomenon that forces homophily, but that's what I'm saying. So I cannot say how it works globally. I'm just saying that when you get to profile matching, whether it's reinforced or minimized homophily, then you get into these written literacy skills that I've been described, which discriminate strongly between people with higher education and lower education. But just what I'm saying, I can't say more, actually. So just to be precise. Just one of the things that we have to talk about for ceiling, she was from a sleep-grown woman that was looking backwards, so the message was, you don't see my face, but I'm grown, and you would see a half of the progress of her body. So do you think that that is consuming? Yes, it's consuming because you don't speak a bit but she's promoting her body. It's not a contradiction, it's that you can't be ostentious. And at the same time, conceal, hide your face. Sometimes you hide, sometimes you find in the, when you look for women, a black image, but you can read a university book for our own, and this is an attribute. It's something, someone who has educated at the university, is a cultural attribute. But concealment is not, I don't, in this research, I cannot say the motivation, why concealment happens. But for me, when I was doing this study, I traveled to Canary Islands to a smaller town, and this phenomenon was greater. You go to the small towns, concealment, it happens more than in a great city, because there's a pressure. And I suppose I speculate that women are more, feel more this pressure, social pressure, to show their bodies and their face, than men. But this is only speculation. Umbara susulara. Umbara susulara, the tradition of Umbara susulara. Yes. In an interview, and Denmark's saying that they actually made, look at the behavior when we check, and that that goes into the algorithm. Really? So, we check with each other, making part of the algorithm. That's interesting. That was what he said. No, it's very interesting. I couldn't trace everything about what we do. So, we might analyze the conversations as well. So, it's just whether or not, in these types of sequences, typical of specific types of projects, for example, with the suing and in this nation, so that different types of sequences may be typical or more frequent in certain types of sequences. So, that's how certain types of social action. Or, with the rest of the platform, if you're related to what we're talking about, what other things? I'm not sure I'll really respond to your question, but for this reciprocal thing, what was striking to me that you get often in these exchanges between users with low capital against this, I'm doing this and you, which is very basic of the organization. In my data, at least with the higher capital users, you get this and you question that, in a particular, say, question environment, at the beginning, actually. Because at the beginning, it's topical, they don't have much resources for topicality. So, I found this in the other sample, mostly in beginnings, and not afterwards. I don't know if it's corresponding to the kind of experience you have, or that there's something like that. Talk about the actions that may be... Yeah, absolutely. So, yeah, he calls for a final grain description. I would agree here. There's something about, from the fact that they are, the strangers who still wouldn't talk about personal issues, but that doesn't make it impossible to have a conversation because in this, you can go to... When you go to an event, where you're supposed to talk to a potential enemy, that's kind of the same thing, that you talk to strangers and you ask them about children and whatever. So, it's not like it's impossible to have a conversation with strangers. But I think it's more about the timing and the resources used to interact that makes it different. No, I never said it was impossible to have a discussion between strangers, of course. The point is that when you're interacting with strangers, you've got much less resources for topic initiations. And there were studies in conversation analysis that showed that people, strangers were meeting in public places where the initiated conversations was mostly based on the immediate context, which is what they were sharing and where we found resources for conversation, for instance. So, the point is that when you interact with strangers, you have limited resource. And, for example, in the Tinder case, when you post immediately after the match, you have auto-curricular resources. You have a resource of a profile, which are very often used as an initiation conversation. Also, the details of a match, the timing of a match or the way the match was done, so at the beginning, you clearly see that people have limited resources, but as the conversation develops, because of these elaborate answers, they get more and more resources for topic initiation. So, I was not saying that it's impossible between strangers to have more limited resources at the beginning to initiate a conversation and keep our conversation going. So, that was the point. There is plenty of research in relationship that suggests that we look for similar numbers. So, we expect our partners or partners to be to be similar to ourselves, which tells us why they just speak. So, for example, when I look for a partner, I would expect her not to be too religious, for example, because I'm not religious. So, when I look for someone, I expect her to be more or less similar to me, because we share more things, we have perhaps more things to share. So, of course, that's a way as well of projecting ourselves on to others and of course, as well, I would say, this kind of self-defense, because otherwise, they're actually different from others. Maybe we might feel threatened somehow. Going back to your presentation, I hope it was very interesting as well how people from different backgrounds, and especially different levels of education, perhaps, they communicate with each other as well, when they interact with each other. It's very interesting to find each other. And you related that as well to cultural, capital, but the whole surprise that, you know, literacy wasn't a part as well of the hindrance of different levels of literacy. And, you know, maybe you want to communicate with someone which you share a similar vocabulary, similar topics of interest, or that sort of like a procedural world literacy somewhere there. So, I don't know if you could explain why you referred only exclusively to cultural, capital, perhaps, but in particular... Literacy. Why you refer to literacy? Yes. Because what I tried to show is how the kind of written flirting that we observe with a young Parisian professional is very much embedded into written practices and not conversational ones, except for the question and answer format. And so, of course, then it becomes unsurprising, as you said. But once you understand that this kind of written flirting is embedded in written literacy, requires written skills, then it becomes not very surprising that people who don't have that kind of written skills would behave differently. But what I think is just... It's a bit new to me, it was a bit new to me with the low education level. It's not that they don't play that game, but that they really use their conversation in a very different way. It's very important for... they are much more oriented to our reality and it's very important for them to move out of this chat conversation as soon as possible, to be able to exchange images or to be able to talk directly. And so, you get really two very different orientations to a pattern. Of course, all these things are locked together somehow, so you're not surprised about that. But once you understand that literacy is important to see that kind of difference, and maybe I insisted on cultural capital because I think, for example, economic capital would be irrelevant because in our central Parisian urban professional you get people with low economic revenues and people who don't have jobs or intermittent jobs but high cultural capital. So it's really education, I think, because we're dealing with literacy and written literacy, which is important, I think.