The COVID-19 pandemic affected daily life at the most basic level, from workflows to fundamental human functions such as socialisation and companionship. This included how people find romantic partners/relationships. In the past, dating typically occurred in person rather than online; that was the norm for pursuing a romantic relationship. When the pandemic hit, it became harder for people to interact in face-to-face settings due to concerns about viral transmission and health and safety. This study examined college students’ perceptions of dating and dating apps during the pandemic. Based on quantitative and qualitative responses from 268 college students, several themes emerged: searches for intimacy and attention, the influx of people moving towards online dating, reduced pressure to meet in person, and a shift in online dating environments that allows for deeper relationships to form. Preliminary data analysis suggests no difference in love language or racial/ethnic identification, and in subsequent evaluations of online relationship satisfaction and continuation. This indicates that online dating can overcome the physical barrier of distance and still lead to meaningful relationships for users despite differences in preferences for intimacy or racial/ethnic identity. This research highlights that despite uncertain times and circumstances, people can still find ways to connect and have their emotional needs met through emerging technologies and communications strategies.
AsmundsonG. J. G., & TaylorS. (2020). How health anxiety influences responses to viral outbreaks like COVID-19: What all decision-makers, health authorities, and health care professionals need to know. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 71, 102211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102211
2.
BaltaciÖ. (2019). The predictive relationships between the social media addiction and social anxiety, loneliness, and happiness. International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(4), 73–82. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1224299.pdf
3.
BrackettM. A., & MayerJ. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1147–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254596
4.
BradburyT. N., & KarneyB. R. (2014). Understanding and altering the longitudinal course of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(3), 578–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00059.x
5.
CacioppoJ. T., & CacioppoS. (2014). Social relationships and health: The toxic effects of perceived social isolation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(2), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12087
6.
ChisomO. B. (2021). Effects of modern dating applications on healthy offline intimate relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic: A review of the tinder dating application. Advances in Journalism and Communication, 9, 12–38. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajc.2021.91002
7.
ChriscadenK. (2020, October13). Impact of COVID-19 on people’s livelihoods, their health, and our food systems. WHO. https://www.who.int/japan/news/detail-global/13-10-2020-impact-of-covid-19-on-people’slivelihoods-their-health-and-our-food-systems
8.
De La CruzJ. J., Punyanunt-CarterN. M., & WrenchJ. S. (2023). Dating app communication: Personal characteristics, motives and behavioural intent. Media Watch, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/09760911231160240
9.
DibbleJ. L., & DrouinM. (2014). Using modern technology to keep in touch with back burners: An investment model analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.042
10.
DibbleJ. L., DrouinM., AuneK. S., & BollerR. R. (2015). Simmering on the back burner: Communication with and disclosure of relationship alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 63(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1039719
11.
DibbleJ. L., DrouinM. A., & Punyanunt-CarterN. M. (2019). An empirical comparison of back burners, hookups, and friends with benefits relationships in young adults. Communication Research Reports, 36(5), 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2019.1683530
12.
DibbleJ. L., Punyanunt-CarterN. M., & DrouinM. (2018). Maintaining relationship alternatives electronically: Positive relationship maintenance in back burner relationships. Communication Research Reports, 35(3), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1425985
13.
DibbleJ. L., Punyanunt-CarterN. M., & DrouinM. (2023). Communicating with back burners among college students according to relationship status and love styles. Communication Research Reports, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2023.2165487
14.
DuguayS., DietzelC., & MylesD. (2022). The year of the “virtual date”: Reimagining dating app affordances during the COVID-19 pandemic. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-022-00458-x
15.
EchevarriaS. G., PetersonR., & WoernerJ. (2022). College students’ experiences of dating app facilitated sexual violence and associations with mental health symptoms and well-being. The Journal of Sex Research, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2130858
16.
EllisonN. B., TriệuP., SchoenebeckS., BrewerR., & IsraniA. (2020). Why we don’t click: Interrogating the relationship between viewing and clicking in social media contexts by exploring the “Non-Click.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(6), 402–426.
17.
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
18.
Fischer-PreßlerD., SchwemmerC., & FischbachK. (2019). Collective sense-making in times of crisis: Connecting terror management theory with Twitter user reactions to the Berlin terrorist attack. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.012
19.
FitzgeraldD. A., NunnK., & IsaacsD. (2020). Consequences of physical distancing emanating from the COVID-19 pandemic: An Australian perspective. Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, 35, 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prrv.2020.06.005
20.
FletcherG. J., SimpsonJ. A., ThomasG., & GilesL. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.933
21.
GriffinM., CanevelloA., & McAnultyR. D. (2018). Motives and concerns associated with geosocial networking app usage: An exploratory study among heterosexual college students in the United States. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(4), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0309
22.
HarrisonM. G., McAnultyR. D., & CanevelloA. (2022). College students’ motives for in-person meetings with dating application matches. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 25(2), 130–134. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0031
23.
HendrickS. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430
24.
HobbsM., OwenS., & GerberL. (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
25.
KontoangelosK., EconomouM., & PapageorgiouC. (2020). Mental health effects of COVID-19 pandemic: A review of clinical and psychological traits. Psychiatry Investigation, 17(6), 491. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2020.0161
26.
KueckerG., MulliganM., & NadarajahY. (2011). Turning to community in times of crisis: Globally derived insights on local community formation. Community Development Journal, 46(2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsq002
27.
LongE., PattersonS., MaxwellK., BlakeC., PérezR. B., LewisR., McCannM., RiddellJ., SkivingtonK., Wilson-LoweR., & MitchellK. R. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on social relationships and health. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 76(2), 128–132. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2021-216690
28.
McEwanB., FletcherJ., EdenJ., & SumnerE. (2014). Development and validation of a Facebook relational maintenance measure. Communication Methods and Measures, 8(4), 244–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2014.967844
29.
NguyenM. H., GruberJ., FuchsJ., MarlerW., HunsakerA., & HargittaiE. (2020). Changes in digital communication during the COVID-19 global pandemic: Implications for digital inequality and future research. Social Media + Society, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120948255
30.
Parship. (2020). The pandemic has led to a surge in dating app use.
31.
Pew Research Centre. (2016). 5 facts about online dating. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/
32.
PistoleM. C., RobertsA., & ChapmanM. L. (2010). Attachment, relationship maintenance, and stress in long distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(4), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510363427
33.
RusbultC. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4
34.
RusbultC. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101
35.
RusbultC. E., & BuunkB. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/026540759301000202
36.
RusbultC. E., JohnsonD. J., & MorrowG. D. (1986a). Determinants and consequences of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in adult romantic involvements. Human Relations, 39, 45–63. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001872678603900103
37.
RusbultC. E., JohnsonD. J., & MorrowG. D. (1986b). Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult romantic involvements: An assessment of the generalizability of the investment model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 81–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786859
38.
RusbultC. E., & MartzJ. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295216002
39.
RusbultC. E., MartzJ. M., & AgnewC. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x
40.
RusbultC. E., VeretteJ., WhitneyG. A., SlovikL. F., & LipkusI. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53
41.
SharabiL. L., & Dykstra-DeVetteT. A. (2019). From first email to first date: Strategies forinitiating relationships in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(11–12), 3389–3407. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0265407518822780
42.
SumterS. R., VandenboschL., & LigtenbergL. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.009
43.
ThomasM. F., BinderA., & MatthesJ. (2022). Love in the time of corona: Predicting willingness to engage in sexting during the first COVID-19-related lockdown. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(1), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02292-w
44.
TingA. E., & McLachlanC. S. (2022). Intimate relationships during COVID-19 across the genders: An examination of the interactions of digital dating, sexual behavior, and mental health. Social Sciences, 11(7), 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11070297
45.
TomaC. L. (2015). Online dating. The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1–5). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic118
46.
TrnkaS., LongN. J., AikmanP. J., AppletonN. S., DaviesS. G., DeckertA., FehokoE., HolroydE., JivrajN., LawsM., Martin-AnatiasN., RoguskiM., SimpsonN., SterlingR., & Tunufa’iL. (2021). Negotiating risks and responsibilities during lockdown: Ethical reasoning and affective experience in Aotearoa New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 51(Suppl. 1), S55–S74. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2020.1865417
47.
VaughnP., & TurnerC. (2016). Decoding via coding: Analysing qualitative text data through thematic coding and survey methodologies. Journal of Library Administration, 56(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1105035
48.
WilliamsonH. C. (2020). Early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on relationship satisfaction and attributions. Psychological Science, 31(12), 1479–1487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620972688
