Abstract
Research on delay discounting and sex suggests that discounting measures correlate to risky sexual behavior. Dating applications are a growing trend in sexual partner seeking and dating culture, but the relationship between dating applications, delay discounting, and risky sexual behavior is relatively unknown. The present study sought to examine the relationship among reported dating application use, delay discounting, and risky sexual behavior. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire that included sexual history and dating-app status, a sexual risk survey, and a delay discounting task involving minutes of hypothetical sexual activity. Sexual discounting was significantly correlated with measures of sexual risk. The strength in correlation was higher for those using dating applications and nonexistent in those not using dating applications. No significant differences existed between dating application users and abstainers for sexual risk or sexual discounting. The implications regarding safe sex practices are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Data Availability
All data and forms have been stored online and in a protected Cloud drive. All data and materials may be made available upon request.
References
Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 84(4), 463–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076860
Alexopoulos, C., Timmermans, E., & McNallie, J. (2020). Swiping more, committing less: Unraveling the links among dating app use, dating app success, and intention to commit infidelity. Computers in Human Behavior, 120(1), 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.009
Anzani, A., Di Sarno, A., & Prunas, A. (2018). Using smartphone apps to find sexual partners: A review of the literature. Sexologies, 27(3), e61–e65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sexol.2018.05.001
Bickel, W. K., Snider, S. E., Quisenberry, A. J., & Stein, J. S. (2017). Reinforcer pathology: The behavioral economics of abuse liability testing. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 101, 185–187.
Blackhart, G. C., Fitzpatrick, J., & Williamson, J. (2014). Dispositional factors predicting use of online dating sites and behaviors related to online dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 33(1), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.022
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. (2020, July 28). Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats18/default.htm
Chan, L. S. (2017). Who uses dating apps? Exploring the relationships among trust, sensation-seeking, smartphone use, and the internet to use dating apps based on the integrative model. Computers in Human Behavior, 72(1), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.053
Collado, A., Johnson, P. S., Loya, J. M., Johnson, M. W., & Yi, R. (2017). Discounting of condom-protected sex as a safe measure of high risk for sexually transmitted infection among college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(7), 2187–2195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0836-x
D’Angelo, J. D., & Toma, C. L. (2017). There are plenty of fish in the sea: The effects of choice overload and reversibility on online daters satisfaction with selected partners. Media Psychology, 20(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1121827
Dariotis, J. K., & Johnson, M. W. (2015). Sexual discounting among high-risk youth ages 18–24: Implications for sexual and substance use risk behavior. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 23(1), 49–58.
Eid, M., Gollwitzer, M., & Schmitt, M. (2011). Statistik und Forschungsmethoden Lehrbuch. Beltz.
Gatter, K., & Hodkinson, K. (2016). On the differences between Tinder™ versus online dating agencies: Questioning a myth. An exploratory study. Cogent Psychology, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1162414
Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2013). How many impulsivities? A discounting perspective. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 99(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.1
Hobbs, M., Owen, S., & Gerber, L. (2017). Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital transformation of intimacy. Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783316662718
Hursh, S. R., Madden, G. J., Spiga, R., DeLeon, I. G., & Francisco, M. T. (2013). The translational utility of behavioral economics: The experimental analysis of consumption and choice. In G. J. Madden, W. V. Dube, T. D. Hackenberg, G. P. Hanley, & K. A. Lattal (Eds.), APA handbook of behavior analysis: Vol. 2. Translating principles into practice (pp. 191–224). American Psychological Association.
Jarmolowicz, D. P., Landes, R. D., Christensen, D. R., Jones, B. A., Jackson, L., Yi, R., & Bickel, W. K. (2014a). Discounting of money and sex: effects of commodity and temporal position in stimulant dependent men and women. Addictive Behaviors, 39, 1652–1657.
Jarmolowicz, D. P., Reed, D. D., & Bickel, W. K. (2014b). Behavioral and neuroeconomic approaches to addiction. In D. N. Allen & S. P. Woods (Eds.), Neuropsychological aspects of substance abuse disorders: Evidence-based perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Jarmolowicz, D. P., Lemley, S. M., Asmussen, L., & Reed, D. D. (2015). Mr. right versus Mr. right now: A discounting-based approach to promiscuity. Behavioral Processes, 115(1), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.03.005
Jarmolowicz, D. P., Reed, D. D., DiGennaro Reed, F. D., & Bickel, W. K. (2016). The behavioral and neuroeconomics of reinforcer pathologies: Implications for managerial and health decision making. Managerial & Decision Economics, 37(4–5), 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2716
Johnson, M. W., & Bruner, N. R. (2013). Test–retest reliability and gender differences in the sexual discounting task among cocaine-dependent individuals. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 21(4), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033071
Kunst, A. (2019, December 20). U.S. online dating site or app usage 2017. Statista. Retrieved February 12, 2020, from https://www.statista.com
Lawyer, S. R., & Schoepflin, F. J. (2013). Predicting domain-specific outcomes using delay and probability discounting for sexual versus monetary outcomes. Behavioral Processes, 96(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2013.03.001
Lawyer, S. R., Williams, S. A., Prihodova, T., Rollins, J. D., & Lester, A. C. (2010). Probability and delay discounting of hypothetical sexual outcomes. Behavioral Processes, 84, 687–692.
Lemley, S. M., Fleming III, W. A., & Jarmolowicz, D. P. (2017). Behavioral economic predictors of alcohol and sexual risk behavior in college drinkers. The Psychological Record, 67(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0239-y
Lenhard, W., & Lenhard, A. (2014). Hypothesis tests for comparing correlations. Psychometrica. Retrieved February 23, 2021, from https://www.psychometrica.de/correlation.html#independent
Myerson, J., Green, L., & Warusawitharana, M. (2001). Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76(2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2001.76-235
Price, M., Higgs, S., Maw, J., & Lee, M. (2016). A dual-process approach to exploring the role of delay discounting in obesity. Physiology & Behavior, 162, 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.02.020
Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., & Cross, D. (1991). Subjective probability and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1991.55-233
Reed, D. D., Kaplan, B. A., & Brewer, A. T. (2012). A tutorial on the use of Excel 2010 and Excel for Mac 2011 for conducting delay-discounting analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(2), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-375
Reynolds, B. (2006). A review of delay-discounting research with humans: Relations to drug use and gambling. Behavioural Pharmacology, 17(8), 651–667. https://doi.org/10.1097/FBP.0b013e3280115f99
Saltsman, T. L., Seery, M. D., Kondrak, C. L., Lamarche, V. M., & Streamer, L. (2019). Too many fish in the sea: A motivational examination of the choice overload experience. Biological Psychology, 145(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.03.010
Sawyer, A. N., Smith, E. R., & Benotsch, E. G. (2018). Dating application use and sexual risk behavior among young adults. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 15(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0297-6
Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. Ecco.
Spar, D. L. (2020). Work, mate, marry, love: How machines shape our human destiny. Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Sweeney, M. M., Berry, M. S., Johnson, P. S., Herrmann, E. S., Meredith, S. E., & Johnson, M. W. (2019). Demographic and sexual risk predictors of delay discounting of condom-protected sex. Psychology & Health, 35(3), 366–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2019.1631306
Tanner, M., & Huggins, M. (2018). Why swipe right? Women’s motivation for using mobile dating applications such as Tinder. Journal of Business Diversity, 18(2), 78–87.
Turchik, J. A., & Garske, J. P. (2009). Measurement of sexual risk taking among college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(6), 936–948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9388-z
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Who visits online dating sites? Exploring some characteristics of online daters. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 10(6), 849–852. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9941
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. (2008). Making choice impairs subsequent self-control: a limited-resource account of decision-making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 94(5), 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.883
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author confirms there is no conflict of interest.
Ethics Approval
The present study was approved by The Chicago School of Professional Psychology’s Internal Review Board in a 3-month review process for expedited approval on October 6, 2019 under the approval identifier IDENTIFIER. All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of The Chicago School of Professional Psychology and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration.
Consent to Participate
The present study involved human participants. Digital written consent forms were required and completed for all participants, and were read and completed as the first step in participation. All consent forms have been stored digitally.
Consent for Publication
Both primary author, Ryan A. Bable, and secondary author, Julie A. Ackerlund Brandt, approve the present study for publication. No individual participant information is to be published.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This research is based on a project completed by the first author, under the supervision of the second author, as a component of the doctoral degree in applied behavior analysis at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bable, R.A., Ackerlund Brandt, J.A. Delay Discounting, Dating Applications, and Risky Sexual Behavior: An Exploratory Study. Psychol Rec 72, 481–486 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00506-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00506-6