Is "The Tinder Swindler" Entertainment or a Warning? (2024)

Netflix is getting a lot of attention over its documentary, The Tinder Swindler. As Erin Jensen (2022) points out, this serves up a topic sure to attract attention: a "reality" show that combines dating, glamour and riches, cons, broken hearts, and the desire for revenge.

When you describe it like that, it seems hard to resist. But the reality is disappointing, not the show as much as the facts. Despite defrauding a series of women out of an estimated $10 million, the con man, Simon Leviev, was only sentenced to 15 months, was out after five, and is currently back on social media, including Tinder, the same site where these women were duped. Meanwhile, the women brave enough to come forward and tell their story remain in debt, their self-esteem in shambles, and have little to show for the promised revenge. So, why do we watch?

Humans are social animals and are interested in what happens to others. It's part practical, part empathetic. When we see something like the Tinder Swindler con, we instinctively want to know what happened, so we can determine our risk of a similar event and, more importantly, learn how to keep from being conned ourselves. While we recognize that people are vulnerable to the persuasion of others, we all suffer from a self-serving and optimistic bias and assume that we are less susceptible than others. Nevertheless, we watch just to make sure we know the “signs.”

The Psychology of the Con

Psychologists have spent years trying to understand how persuasion and manipulation work. When I saw the Tinder Swindler trailer, it reminded me of Colette Downing's 1981 book, The Cinderella Complex. Her thesis was that women had an unconscious desire to be taken care of by others. The popularity of Hallmark movies with romantic tales about handsome princes swooping in on hardworking, underappreciated single young women suggests that the fundamental appeal of fairy tales remains. And why not?

We would all like an easy and perfect solution to our woes and desires. Hallmark’s romantic holiday movies clearly strike a chord with their formulaic tales about finding happiness and love. As humans, one of our most basic needs is social connection. The desire to feel part of a meaningful relationship, to be included and valued by others, is at the core of most psychological theories on motivation and is key to our psychological and physical well-being.

What does this have to do with the Tinder scam? When we are looking for a personal connection, we are highly sensitive and responsive to the interpersonal signals of a potential match. The desire for a romantic match or windfall gain can dull judgment, making a potential victim more vulnerable to social influence. Social psychologists have documented several principles that increase persuasion, and it's not hard to see how Simon Levier was practically working out of the Robert Cialdini (2001) playbook to win his victims’ trust and target their desires.

Leviev’s Use of Social Influence

Confirmation bias describes our tendency to see things as we want them to be. Con artists like Leviev tell people what they want to hear. He created a persona that would more than satisfy his targets’ desire for romance.

Social proof (or groupthink) is our tendency to be influenced by the actions and social validation of others. Success and wealth are often interpreted as a proxy for social validation and social authority. Leviev used overt displays of wealth to validate his status and desirability.

Similarity is the instinctive reaction that makes us have more trust for someone we perceive is like us, and who shares our values and desires. Leviev’s victims felt a "powerful bond" because he reflected back their goals, desires, and values as his own.

Curiosity is a natural instinct due to a primary evolutionary purpose of understanding our environment to ensure our survival. Curiosity and mystery keep our attention peaked. Leviev played into this tendency when he created his Harlequin romance-worthy persona as heir to a Russian-Israeli diamond mogul.

Reciprocity is a psychological sense of obligation and social norm that makes us much more likely to give when we have already been the recipient of positive action. By showering his targets with lavish gifts, Leviev not only established his credibility but created a situation in which his victims would “owe” him later.

Scarcity is not just an economic problem; it is also a psychological one. As Kahneman and Tversky (1979) showed, people tend to be more motivated by fear of loss than the probability of gain. We innately don't want to lose opportunities or, worse, to be left out. Leviev activated fears of loss and abandonment through a "security crisis" priming his victims for a bit of payoff.

Scams and the Internet

Scams and cons aren't new, but the internet facilitates reach and deception and has unleashed herds of manipulators who prey on everything from the desire for love to making a quick buck. Romance scams rely on the hyperpersonal nature of online relationships that can feel as strong and intimate as physical relationships. Scammers can create presentations of themselves that match their targets' ideals to enhance trust and closeness.

Why Do We Watch?

Like all good reality and true-crime shows, The Tinder Swindler suggests it will be a scintillating combination of romance, desire, betrayal, remorse, revenge, and even a little danger.

While not meant to be educational, research on programming preferences suggests that they are, especially for women. Women may feel more vulnerable to and fearful of becoming a victim of violent crime than men and yet audiences for reality and true crime shows skew heavily female (Kerestly, 2021). These true crime stories can serve several purposes. According to Vicary and Fraley (2010), women were drawn to true crime stories that contained personally salient information; they were seen as "life lessons" or as "training" on how to protect themselves from similar traumatic events. True crime can also decrease existential anxiety over similar threats when viewers see clearly defined heroes and villains, and, as suggested by the just-world bias, the bad guys get their just desserts.

A Not-So-Just World

This is where you may find it demoralizing. Simon Leviev has gotten off very lightly compared to the financial and psychological damage he inflicted. The women in the film are brave to share their vulnerability so publicly, especially with such an unsatisfactory resolution. But the lack of official options may be part of the explanation for their participation.

It can be difficult for authorities to catch scammers. Evidence can be elusive. Official efforts are often hampered by the hesitancy of victims to come forward due to denial, shame, threats from the perpetrator, and fear of ridicule and victim-blaming so prevalent in social media.

While the real-life resolution is unsatisfactory, we can hope that this documentary raises awareness and thwarts other scams. Pop culture often romanticizes con artists, overlooking the devastation they can cause. This is no Robin Hood story. It is a reminder of what we all know but don't seem to learn: things that look too good to be true usually are.

References