A Space of Our Own: Exploring the Relationship Initiation Experiences of Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual,Transgender,Queer,Intersex,and Asexual Dating App Users

Abstract

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.

Keywords

lesbian,gay,bisexual,transgender,queer,intersex,and asexual motives niche dating apps online dating relationship initiation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

(2004). The Long Tail. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2004/10/tail/

Anderson

Vogels

E. A.

Turner

(2020). The Virtues and Downsides of Online Dating. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/06/th

Berger

C. R.

Calabrese

R. 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

Blackwell

Birnholtz

Abbott

(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

Blair

K. L.

Hoskin

R. 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

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brubaker

J. R.

Ananny

Crawford

(2016). Departing glances: A sociotechnical account of ‘leaving’ Grindr. New Media & Society, 18(3), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814542311

Byron

Albury

Pym

(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

Carpenter

C. J.

McEwan

(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

10.

Cheung

(2022). Dating apps are locking out the wrong people. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.https://jezebel.com/dating-apps-tinder-hinge-ban-users-no-explanation-1848438858

11.

Corriero

E. F.

Tong

S. 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.

Crenshaw

(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

13.

Dickinson

(2021). Oregon Man Charged With Using Grindr to Target Gay Man in Alleged, Alleged Hate Crime. Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/grindr-assault-oregon-hate-crime-1259056/

14.

Finkel

E. J.

Eastwick

P. W.

Karney

B. R.

Reis

H. T.

Sprecher

(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.

Grov

Breslow

A. S.

Newcomb

M. E.

Rosenberger

J. G.

Bauermeister

J. 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.

Gudelunas

(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.

James

E. 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

18.

Jones

J. M.

Gallup News (2021). LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6. % in Latest U.S. Estimate, Gallup News. https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx

19.

Katz

Blumler

J. G.

Gurevitch

(1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109

20.

Kellermann

(1984). The negativity effect and its implications for initial interaction. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390182

21.

Knapp

M. L.

(1978). Social Intercourse: From Greeting to Goodbye. Allyn & Bacon.

22.

Miller

(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.

Mohr

J. J.

Kendra

M. 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.

Petronio

(2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. State University of New.

25.

Pond

Farvid

(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.

Rosenfeld

M. J.

Thomas

R. 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

27.

Ruggiero

T. E.

(2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02

28.

Schwartz

(2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. HarperCollins.

29.

Sharabi

L. L.

Dykstra-DeVette

T. 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.

Steinfeld

(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

31.

Suler

(2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295

32.

Sumter

S. R.

Vandenbosch

Ligtenberg

(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.

Timmermans

De Caluwé

(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.

Timmermans

Hermans

A. M.

Opree

S. 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

35.

Tinder . (2022). Dating Safety Tips. https://policies.tinder.com/safety/intl/en

36.

Toma

C. L.

Bonus

J. A.

Van Swol

L. 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.

Toma

C. L.

Hancock

J. 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.

Toma

C. L.

Hancock

J. T.

Ellison

N. 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 Wiele

Tong

S. 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.

Weinrich

J. 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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB