This mixed-methods study explores dating app use within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual (LGBTQIA+) community. LGBTQIA+ dating app users (N = 231) from across the U.S. were surveyed about their relationship initiation experiences. Thematic analysis was used to identify the benefits and challenges participants faced on dating apps and their motives for adopting (or avoiding) dating apps specifically for the LGBTQIA+ community (e.g., Grindr, Her, Butterfly). Participants described benefitting from dating apps, but also confronting significant challenges such as discrimination and the erasure of identity. Just over half (55.0%) of the sample reported using LGBTQIA+ dating apps, which functioned as safe spaces, reduced uncertainty about others’ identities, and were better adapted to community norms. Multiple logistic regression was also used to test predictions regarding user adoption. Findings have implications for understanding how people in historically thin dating markets are using mobile technology to expand their opportunities for relationship initiation.
BergerC. R.CalabreseR. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682958.1975.tb00258.x
4.
BlackwellC.BirnholtzJ.AbbottC. (2015). Seeing and being seen: Co-Situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media & Society, 17(7), 1117–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814521595
5.
BlairK. L.HoskinR. A. (2019). Transgender exclusion from the world of dating: Patterns of acceptance and rejection of hypothetical trans dating partners as a function of sexual and gender identity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(7), 2074–2095. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518779139
BrubakerJ. R.AnannyM.CrawfordK. (2016). Departing glances: A sociotechnical account of ‘leaving’ Grindr. New Media & Society, 18(3), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814542311
8.
ByronP.AlburyK.PymT. (2021). Hooking up with friends: LGBTQ+ young people, dating apps, friendship and safety. Media, Culture & Society, 43(3), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720972312
9.
CarpenterC. J.McEwanB. (2016). The players of micro-dating: Individual and gender differences in goal orientations toward micro-dating apps. First Monday, 21(5). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i5.6187
CorrieroE. F.TongS. T. (2016). Managing uncertainty in mobile dating applications: goals, concerns of use, and information seeking in Grindr. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(1), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157915614872
12.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
FinkelE. J.EastwickP. W.KarneyB. R.ReisH. T.SprecherS. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436522
15.
GrovC.BreslowA. S.NewcombM. E.RosenbergerJ. G.BauermeisterJ. A. (2014). Gay and bisexual men’s use of the Internet: Research from the 1990s through 2013. Annual Review of Sex Research, 51(4), 390–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.871626
16.
GudelunasD. (2012). There’s an app for that: The uses and gratifications of online social networks for gay men. Sexuality & Culture, 16, 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-012-9127-4
17.
HaL.JamesE. L. (1998). Interactivity re-examined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(4), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159809364462
KatzE.BlumlerJ. G.GurevitchM. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109
20.
KellermannK. (1984). The negativity effect and its implications for initial interaction. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390182
21.
KnappM. L. (1978). Social Intercourse: From Greeting to Goodbye. Allyn & Bacon.
22.
MillerB. (2015). They’re the modern-day gay bar”: Exploring the uses and gratifications of social networks for men who have sex with men. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 476–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.023
23.
MohrJ. J.KendraM. S. (2011). Revision and extension of a multidimensional measure of sexual minority identity: The lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022858
24.
PetronioS. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. State University of New.
25.
PondT.FarvidP. (2017). ‘I do like girls, I promise’: Young bisexual women’s experiences of using Tinder, of using Tinder. Psychology of Sexualities Review, 8(2), 6–24.
26.
RosenfeldM. J.ThomasR. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a intermediary, social intermediary. Archives of Suicide Research: Official Journal of the International Academy for Suicide Research, 77(4), 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412448050
SchwartzB. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. HarperCollins.
29.
SharabiL. L.Dykstra-DeVetteT. A. (2019). From first email to first date: Strategies for initiating relationships in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(11-12), 3389–3407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518822780
30.
SteinfeldJ. (2020). Forced out of the closet: As people live out more of their lives online right now, our report highlights how LGBTQ dating apps can put people’s lives at risk. Index on Censorship, 49(2), 101–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306422020935360
SumterS. R.VandenboschL.LigtenbergL. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.009
33.
TimmermansE.De CaluwéE. (2017). Development and validation of the Tinder motives scale (TMS). Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.028
34.
TimmermansE.HermansA. M.OpreeS. J. (2021). Gone with the wind: Exploring mobile daters’ ghosting experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(2), 783–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520970287
TomaC. L.BonusJ. A.Van SwolL. M. (2019). Lying Online: Examining the Production, Detection, and Popular Beliefs Surrounding Interpersonal Deception in Technologically-Mediated Environments. In the Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication. Palgrave Macmillan.
37.
TomaC. L.HancockJ. T. (2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research, 37(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209356437
38.
TomaC. L.HancockJ. T.EllisonN. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318067
39.
Van De WieleC.TongS. T. (2014). Breaking boundaries: The uses and gratifications of Grindr. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. Seattle, WA, USA.
40.
WeinrichJ. D. (1997). Strange bedfellows: Homosexuality, gay liberation and the internet. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/01614576.1997.11074173
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
