







































Communication, Society and Media 
ISSN 2576-5388 (Print) ISSN 2576-5396 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm 

108 
 

Original Paper 

Development and Validation of the Mobile Dating App 

Gratification Scale: Effects of Sought Gratifications on User 

Behavior and Outcomes 

Jessica R. Welch1* & Melanie Morgan1 
1 Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA 
* Jessica R. Welch, Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 

USA 

 

Received: September 5, 2018   Accepted: September 13, 2018   Online Published: September 20, 2018 

doi:10.22158/csm.v1n2p108                     URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/csm.v1n2p108 

 

Abstract 

Mobile dating apps were created to meet the needs of Millennials, who tend to be more interested in 

casual relationships than serious dating. Despite their popularity, research has found that dating apps 

are not being used for their intended purpose. Two studies were conducted to develop and validate a 

scale for mobile dating app gratifications and to determine how individuals’ behavior varies based on 

their sought gratifications. Results indicate that there are four primary mobile dating app gratifications 

(Validation, Entertainment, Relationships, and Hookups) and that they vary between genders. 

Individuals who seek different gratifications also engage in different behaviors while using the app and 

achieve different relational outcomes. The study highlights implications for future research and 

additional use of the Mobile Dating App Gratification Scale.  

Keywords 

uses and gratifications, mobile dating apps, online dating, scale development 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
109 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Study One 

1. Introduction 

Since the creation of the first dating website in 1994, the stigma surrounding online dating has 

decreased drastically (Kauflin, 2011). Now Match.com claims 21,575,000 members and other online 

dating sites have cropped up to follow suit, including OKCupid (which is responsible for 40,000 first 

dates every day) and eHarmony (which is responsible for 600,000 marriages since its creation) 

(Dutcher, 2014; eHarmony.com, 2014; Rudder, 2014). Although online dating is continuing to increase 

in popularity among the older generation, some stigma still exists among emerging adults (age 18-24) 

who are looking for more casual and convenient relationships (Baxter & Cashmore, 2013; Bleyer, 2014; 

Dredge, 2014; Stampler, 2014).  

Proximity-based mobile dating applications were created to satisfy the dating needs of these 

always-on-the-go Millennials. The most popular of these dating apps is “Tinder”, which was created in 

August 2012 by Sean Rad and Justin Mateen (Dredge, 2014). The app features GPS capabilities which 

allow users to “match” with nearby individuals and includes a basic profile of 500 characters and up to 

six pictures (Crook, 2015). Tinder’s interface is modeled after a deck of cards and allows users to 

“swipe” on other individuals’ profiles (Crook, 2015). A “right swipe” indicates interest while a “left 

swipe” indicates disinterest. When two users swipe right on each other they are notified that they have 

a “match” and can message each other on the app. After interacting on the app users may choose to 

move to a different communication medium or even meet face to face.  

There is evidence suggesting that Tinder may serve a variety of uses for adopters (Covarrubias, 2014; 

Dredge, 2014; Finkel, 2015). Tinder’s intended purpose, according to the developers, is to expand 

social networks but many young people claim that is it a “hookup app” that facilitates casual sexual 

encounters (Baxter & Cashmore, 2013; Covarrubias, 2014; Dey, 2015; Dredge, 2014; Finkel, 2015). 

Although those are the two most widely accepted purposes for using the app, very few individuals 

actually use it in those ways (Covarrubias, 2014; Dey, 2015; Dredge, 2014). In fact, although Tinder 

sees 850 million swipes and 15 million matches daily, most of those matches never meet face-to-face 

and, if they do, it is a one-time thing (Lee, 2014; Rea, 2015). Although the 10 million individuals who 

use Tinder daily log in an average of 11 times and spend approximately 1.25 hours on the app, the 

majority do not meet face to face (Lee, 2015; Rea, 2015). In fact, many individuals who originally 

downloaded Tinder for its intended purpose now use it only for entertainment (Rea, 2015). 

Timmermans and De Caluwé’s (2017) study of Tinder use in Belgium found that there are 13 

motivations for using the app, many of which deviate from the uses mentioned by Tinder’s founders. 

Although Timmermans and De Caluwé’s (2017) scale may be helpful for individuals seeking extremely 

nuanced views of Tinder motives, its lack of parsimony may negatively affect its ease of adoption in 

future studies. This study, therefore, aims to develop a scale with a more practical number of items that 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
110 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

measures more fundamental dating application motives.  

Many technologies find unintended purposes that become driving forces for their adoption (Boyd, 2008; 

Tosun, 2012). To better understand media use it is important to know not just how many people are 

using a certain medium, but also how and why they are using it. Therefore, this study examines how 

and why individuals are using mobile dating apps, regardless of their intended purpose.  

1.1 Uses and Gratifications Theory 

One approach for examining why people adopt a communication medium is the Uses and Gratifications 

Theory. This audience-centered approach claims that individuals have inherent needs that are satisfied 

with media and that certain media satisfy specific needs (Miller, 2015; Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 

1974a; Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974b). The Uses and Gratifications Theory aims to identify the 

factors that create needs among individuals and explains how those needs affect individuals’ behavior. 

These behaviors then help to establish expectations about media exposure and engagement, which 

result in satisfaction of the need or, sometimes, other unintended consequences (Haridakis, 2002; Katz 

et al., 1974a; Palmgreen, Wenner, & Rosengren, 1985; Rubin, 2009; Sundar & Limperos, 2013). Based 

on prior literature, this study included two individual difference variables within the Uses and 

Gratifications framework to determine how these factors may impact Tinder users’ uses and 

gratifications. These individual difference variables were gender and self-perceived physical 

attractiveness.  

1.1.1 Gender 

Historically, dating behaviors and norms have differed for males and females (Bailey, 1988; Freitas, 

2013). One of the most significant differences is related to sexual behavior. Previous research suggests 

that a double standard existed—and may still exist—regarding what is considered “acceptable” 

behavior for men and women (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Martin & Hummer, 

1989). Whereas men who engage in many casual sexual encounters are considered “studs”, women 

have been expected to limit their number of partners to avoid earning a bad reputation (Bogle, 2008; 

Harding & Jencks, 2003; Reiss, 1997). Gender differences in behavior on dating websites have also 

been identified. Although women make up the majority of participants on the most popular dating sites 

(68.6% on eHarmony and 55% on Match.com), men make 80% of the initial contacts (Hartman, 2012; 

DatingSiteReviews.com, 2015). Given differences identified in sexual behavior and related to 

behaviors on dating websites, we expect that gender may influence the uses and gratifications sought 

on Tinder.  

1.1.2 Physical Attractiveness 

The second variable thought to impact Tinder uses and gratifications is self-perceived physical 

attractiveness. Past dating behaviors, both on and offline, have varied based on an individual’s physical 

attractiveness (Ahuvia & Adelman, 1992; Jagger, 2001; Toma & Hancock, 2010). Past research 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
111 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

indicates that men place more importance on their partner’s physical attractiveness than do women 

(Langlois et al., 2000). Women are aware of the importance potential suitors place on their 

attractiveness and therefore have learned to draw attention to their physical attributes while searching 

for a mate. For example, more attractive women include more photos in their online dating profiles 

than their less attractive counterparts (Toma & Hancock, 2010). The researchers therefore believe that a 

Tinder user’s perception of their own physical attractiveness will impact their behavior on the app. 

Based on this review, the following research questions were developed to guide our data collection and 

analyses: 

RQ1: What are the underlying gratifications of Tinder use? 

RQ2a: How are these underlying gratifications impacted by gender?  

RQ2b: How are these underlying gratifications impacted by self-perceived physical attractiveness? 

Uses and Gratifications Theory also claims that an individual’s behavior on (uses of) a medium will 

vary based on their sought gratifications (Hampton, Goulet, Marlow, & Rainie, 2012; Tosun, 2012). 

Therefore, this research examines how these variables affect individuals’ behavior on Tinder:  

RQ3: What factors (gender, physical attractiveness, and gratifications) are associated with Tinder 

behaviors?  

While Tinder’s founders claim that the app was designed to broaden users’ social networks and many 

people argue that it is a “hookup app”, it appears that individuals rarely succeed in using it for either 

purpose (Lee, 2014). Therefore, the researchers are interested in what behaviors lead to “success” on 

the app, in the form of face to face meetings and hookups.  

RQ4: What factors, including Tinder behaviors, are associated with relational outcomes (face to face 

meetings and hookups)?  

 

2. Method 

2.1 Participants and Procedures 

The elicitation of key beliefs is an important step in the development of a scale. Therefore, as the initial 

step in this study, three focus groups were conducted to explore individuals’ motivations for using 

Tinder. All questions were open-ended and followed a semi-structured style. Questions focused 

specifically on why participants originally downloaded Tinder and how they currently use it. Each 

focus group was audio recorded and thematically analyzed. The data provided the basis for all uses and 

gratifications-related items in the survey. 

The final survey consisted of 100 items examining individuals’ motivations for downloading and 

utilizing Tinder and questions regarding specific behaviors on the app. After several questions related 

to basic demographic information, uses and gratifications items were included. These items were 

measured using five-point Likert-type scales with strongly disagree and strongly agree as anchors. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
112 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Behavior items included both behaviors that Tinder users engage in on the app itself and behaviors they 

may engage in as a result of the app (see Table 2). The survey concluded with a single-item measure of 

self-perceived physical attractiveness.  

All study participants were recruited via a research participation system that serves a variety of courses 

from many schools across a large Mid-Western public university. To be eligible to participate, 

individuals had to be 18 or older, a college student, and have had a Tinder profile at some point. A total 

of 425 respondents (45.4% male, 54.6% female) completed the survey. Upon completion of the survey, 

participants were awarded course credit.  

2.2 Measures 

The item measuring self-perceived physical attractiveness was adapted from a study examining 

individuals’ evaluations of self and partner physical attractiveness (Swami, Furnham, Georgiades, & 

Pang, 2007). The original survey listed 22 items, including 17 individual body parts and five categories 

of overall attractiveness, which participants assessed on a scale of 55 (very unattractive) to 145 (very 

attractive). Due to the nature of photos generally posted on Tinder profiles, in the present study, the 

researcher chose to include only the item that related to overall physical attractiveness (M=109.2; 

SD=16.34). 

 

3. Result 

3.1 Gratifications 

A principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to investigate underlying 

components to create a set of reliable measures of sub-dimensions related to Tinder gratifications. The 

initial solution included 19 items with eigenvalues greater than one that accounted for 60.42% of 

variance. After removing items with cross-loadings greater than .4 and primary loadings less than .6, a 

four-factor solution was identified that explained 71.6% of variance. Results indicate that there are four 

primary Tinder gratifications: validation, relationships (platonic and romantic), hookups (casual sexual 

encounters), and entertainment (See Table 1). The first three gratifications had acceptable reliability. 

The entertainment loading items fell below normally accepted levels, possibly because that component 

contained only two items, but this variable was retained for subsequent analyses due to the potential 

meaningfulness of the construct and the exploratory nature of the project. 

3.2 Impact of Gender and Attractiveness on Gratifications 

RQ2a and RQ2b asked what effects gender and physical attractiveness have on a Tinder user’s 

motivations for using the app. Hierarchical regressions were conducted for each of the four 

gratifications with gender controlled in block one and self-perceived physical attractiveness controlled 

in block two (See Table 2). Block 1 was significant in all four analyses, indicating that gender has a 

significant impact on individuals’ Tinder gratifications. Specifically, female users tend to use the app 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
113 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

for validation and entertainment purposes while males use Tinder for relationships and hookups. 

Self-perceived physical attractiveness did not have any statistically significant effects, so Block 2 was 

insignificant in all analyses.   

3.3 Impacts on Specific Behaviors 

To answer RQ3, hierarchical regressions were conducted for four on-Tinder behaviors (See Table 2). 

Gender was controlled in Block 1, self-perceived attractiveness was controlled in Block 2, and Block 3 

controlled for the four gratifications (validation, relationships, hookups, entertainment). The behaviors 

that were analyzed were “Frequency of Use” (how often individuals use Tinder), “Messaging Matches 

First” (individuals’ tendency to initiate contact with matches), “Number of Photos” (how many photos 

individuals include in their Tinder profile, and “Biography Inclusion” (whether individuals include a 

biography in their profile). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
114 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Table 1. Gratification Scale Items for Study 1 and 2 

Study    One      Two  

Items Comp. 

1 

Comp. 

2 

Comp. 

3 

Comp. 

4 

M SD Alpha M SD Alpha 

Validation     3.05 .79 .83 2.93 .79 .86 

DA make me 

feel good about 

myself. 

.82       2.94 .98  

DA make me 

feel attractive. 

.82       3.06 .96  

Using DA 

boosts my ego. 

.79       2.97 1.00  

DA make me 

feel validated. 

.75       2.76 .94  

Relationships     2.84 .82 .75 3.03 .85 .76 

DA are a great 

way to meet 

potential 

significant 

others. 

 .83      2.85 1.05  

DA are a great 

way to meet 

new people. 

 .79      3.54 .99  

I would start a 

serious 

relationship with 

someone I met 

on a DA. 

 .75      2.68 1.07  

Hookups     2.42 1.08 .82 2.43 1.06 .90 

I downloaded a 

DA because I 

wanted to find 

casual sexual 

partners. 

  .92     2.30 1.15  

I would have a   .88     2.57 1.28  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
115 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

casual sexual 

relationship with 

someone I met 

on a DA. 

I use DA to look 

for casual sexual 

partners. +  

       2.21 1.17  

DA are a great 

place for me to 

find hookup 

partners. + 

       2.65 1.23  

Entertainment     3.80 .70 .59 3.13 1.02 .89 

I use DA when 

I’m bored. 

   .83    3.40 1.23  

DA are a good 

form of 

entertainment. X 

   .80    X X  

DA keep me 

occupied during 

lulls in 

conversation or 

activity. +  

       2.86 1.11  

I use DA when I 

don’t have 

anything else to 

do. +  

       3.15 1.17  

I use DA when 

there’s nothing 

else going on. + 

       3.09 1.17  

+ represents an item that was added in Study 2 

X represents an item that was removed from the model to improve fit in Study 2 

* DA= dating app; in Study 1, items included “Tinder” rather than “dating app”. 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
116 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Of the four on-Tinder behaviors analyzed, only Frequency of Use had no significant predictors. This 

indicates that men and women, varying in attractiveness, do not differ in how often they use Tinder 

regardless of their motivations for using the app. On the other hand, Blocks 1 and 3 were highly 

significant for Messaging Matches First, indicating that men and individuals seeking relationships and 

hookups are more likely to initiate contact with Tinder matches. Self-perceived physical attractiveness 

was not a significant predictor for messaging matches first. Blocks 2 and 3 were significant for 

Number of Photos, which demonstrates that Tinder users with higher self-perceived physical 

attractiveness and those seeking validation and entertainment tend to include more photos in their 

profile. Finally, only Block 3 had significant effects for Biography Inclusion. Validation and 

entertainment were both significant predictors for this variable, indicating that individuals seeking 

validation and entertainment are more likely to include a biography in their profile. 

3.4 Impacts on Relational Outcomes 

To answer RQ4, hierarchical regressions were conducted for two Tinder-related outcomes (See Table 2). 

Gender was controlled in Block 1, self-perceived physical attractiveness was controlled in Block 2, the 

four gratifications were controlled in Block 3, and the four on-Tinder behaviors were controlled in 

Block 4 (Frequency of Use, Messaging Matches First, Number of Photos, and Biography Inclusion). 

The first Tinder-related outcome examined was participants’ engagement in Face-to-Face Meetings 

with Tinder matches. This dichotomous variable measured whether individuals had met face-to-face 

with users that they matched with on Tinder. Only Block 3 was a significant predictor, indicating that 

individuals using Tinder to find relationships are more likely to engage in face-to-face meetings than 

users seeking other gratifications. The other relational outcome was Hookups, which examined 

whether a Tinder user had had a casual sexual encounter with an individual they met on the app. Again, 

only Block 3 was a significant predictor and indicated that individuals seeking relationships or hookups 

are more likely to hook up with Tinder matches.  

 

4. Discussion 

4.1 Gratification Scale 

A significant contribution of Study One was the development of a preliminary scale for the 

gratifications of Tinder use. Past research (Timmermans & De Caluwé, 2017) resulted in a scale that 

lacked parsimony, but this scale includes only the fundamental Tinder gratifications: Validation, 

Relationships, Hookups, and Entertainment. Additionally, these gratifications help to explain Tinder 

behavior above and beyond explanations based on gender and self-perceived physical attractiveness. 

All gratification factors were significant predictors of at least one Tinder behavior, and they were 

typically the strongest predictors in the full models, although the entertainment factor evidenced low 

internal consistency.   



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
117 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

The only Tinder behavior specifically predicted by gender was the tendency to message matches first, 

indicating that men are typically the pursuers on Tinder. This finding reflects dating trends that began 

back in the early 1920’s with the “Dating Era” where men were expected to initiate romantic 

relationships (Bogle, 2008). The fact that gender was not a significant predictor of the number of 

hookups in which a user has engaged may indicate that women’s engagement in casual sexual 

encounters is becoming less stigmatized. On-Tinder behaviors did not significantly predict any 

relational outcomes, which indicates that individuals’ motivations for using Tinder play a more 

important role than on-app behaviors for achieving relational goals.  

4.2 Study limitations 

One limitation of this study was that the entertainment factor was measured with only two items, 

resulting in low internal consistency. Different or additional items are needed to improve the reliability 

of that factor. This study also examined only the uses and gratifications of one dating app. Additional 

research is needed to validate the gratification scale and determine whether it is generalizable to other 

mobile dating apps. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
118 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Table 2. Hierarchical Regressions for Dating App Gratifications and Behaviors 

 Valid. Relation. Hookups Entertain. Freq. 

of 

Use 

Message 

First 

N. of 

Photos 

Bio. Total 

Meetings 

Total 

Hookups 

Block 1  

(R² Change) 

.03** .02* .28*** .03*** .00 .32*** .01 .00 .00 .00 

Gender .18** -.13* -.52*** .18*** .03 -.57*** .09 -.06 .02 .00 

Block 2  

(R² Change) 

.01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .03** .00 .00 .01 

Phys. Attract. .09 -.06 .02 .03 -.01 -.01 .18** .02 .00 .08 

Block 3  

(R² Change) 

    .01 .07*** .12*** .07*** .10*** .11*** 

Validation     .00 -.03 .20** .18** -.04 -.10 

Relationships     .09 .18*** .10 .00 .27*** .19** 

Hookups     -.05 .18** .08 .03 .13 .29** 

Entertainment     .02 -.02 .15** .13* -.05 .02 

Block 4  

(R² Change) 

        .02 .02 

Frequency of 

Use 

        .09 .10 

Message First         .06 -.02 

Number of 

Photos 

        .10 .10 

Include Bio         .01 .01 

Total Adj. R² .04** .02* .27*** .03*** -.02 .38*** .14*** .05*** .08*** .09 

male=1, female=2; *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
119 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Study Two 

1. Introduction 

A second study was designed to address the limitations from Study One, as well as to strengthen and 

validate the gratification scale and expand it to include all mobile dating applications.  

 

2. Method 

2.1 Measures 

Because one limitation of Study One was the low reliability evidenced by the Entertainment factor, 

additional gratification items were included in Study Two’s survey with the goal of strengthening the 

Mobile Dating App Gratification Scale. These new items were also measured using five-point 

Likert-type scales with strongly disagree and strongly agree as anchors. 

The survey was uploaded to a research participation system serving a variety of courses from many 

schools across a large, public Mid-Western university. To be eligible to participate, individuals had to 

be 18 or older, a college student, and have had a profile on a dating app at some point. Upon 

completion of the survey, participants were awarded course credit. A total of 985 participants, ages 

18-24 (61.3% female) completed the survey.  

 

3. Result 

To validate Study One’s scale, responses from Study Two were randomly divided and an exploratory 

factor analysis was conducted on one half. The EFA resulted in 17 items, divided into the same factors 

found in Study One (Validation, Relationships, Hookups, Entertainment), which explained 71.49% of 

variance. A confirmatory factor analysis was then conducted on the second half of the data to validate 

results. During the CFA two additional gratification items were removed to improve the fit of the model, 

resulting in a 15 item and four-factor solution. Available fit indices demonstrated well to acceptable fit 

(RMSEA 90% Confidence Interval =.06; CFI=.96; TLI=.95; SRMR=.06). See Table 1 for all scale 

items and Figure 1 for CFA results.  

 

4. Discussion 

The inclusion of additional items in Study Two enhanced the Mobile Dating App Gratification Scale 

and improved reliability for the Entertainment factor. Another important contribution is that Study Two 

measured gratifications for all dating apps, allowing results to be generalized to include mobile dating 

apps other than Tinder.  

4.1 Limitations and Future Research 

Like Study One, Study Two included only college students from a large, Mid-Western university. A 

more diverse sample may have different motivations for using mobile dating apps and different on-app 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
120 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

behaviors. Future research should include a more diverse sample to see how results differ. Although 

this study expanded Study One to include all mobile dating apps in addition to Tinder, 

homosexual-specific dating apps were likely underrepresented because 94.3% of respondents identified 

as heterosexual. Future research is required to determine if sought gratifications and on-app behaviors 

differ based on sexual orientation.  

4.2 Final Conclusions 

Despite these limitations, this project revealed important results and conclusions. Most significantly, 

this is the first scale measuring the gratifications of all mobile dating apps. This scale could also be 

used to explore other social networking tools that overlap in functionality or potential purpose. Finally, 

this research determined how sought gratifications affect individuals’ behavior while using mobile 

dating apps and their “success” on the app in the form of relational outcomes.  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
121 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 
Figure 1. Final Model Resulting from the Confirmatory Factor Analysis 

 
 
 
 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
122 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

References 

Ahuvia, A. C., & Adelman, M. B. (1992). Formal intermediaries in the marriage market: A typology 

and review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 452-463. https://doi.org/10.2307/353076 

Bailey, B. L. (1988). From the Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth-Century America. 

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Baxter, H., & Cashmore, P. (2013, November 23). Tinder: The Shallowest Dating App Ever? The 

Guardian. Retrieved from 

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/nov/23/tinder-shallowest-dating-app-ever 

Bleyer, J. (2014, July 1). Dating: Love the One You’re Near. Psychology Today. Retrieved from 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201408/dating-love-the-one-youre-near 

Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus (1). New York City, NY: 

New York University Press. 

Boyd, D. (2008). Taken out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics (dissertation). 

University of California-Berkeley. 

Covarrubias, G. (2014, October 12). Tinder Changes Hookup Culture. The Depaulia. Retrieved from 

http://depauliaonline.com/opinions/2014/10/12/tinder-changes-hookup-culture/ 

Crook, J. (2015, March 12). Hate It or Love It, Tinder’s Right Swipe Limit is Working. 

TechCrunch.com. Retrieved from 

http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/12/hate-it-or-love-it-tinders-right-swipe-limit-is 

working/#.mxw5lv:jC0w 

Dey, I. (2015, June 7). Sean Rad: I just lit the fire that makes for happier marriages. The Sunday Times. 

Retrieved from http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/newsreview/features/article1565092.ece 

Dredge, S. (2014, February 24). Tinder: The “painfully honest” dating app with wider social ambitions. 

The Guardian. Retrieved from 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/24/tinder-dating-app-social-networks 

Dutcher, J. (2014, February 10). Big Data Seeks Online Lover. datascience@Berkley. Retrieved from 

https://datascience.berkeley.edu/online-dating-data/ 

eHarmony.com. (2014). Retrieved September 14, 2015, from 

http://www.eharmony.com/home/ls-direct/ 

Finkel, E. J. (2015, February 6). In Defense of Tinder. The New York Times. Retrieved from 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/opinion/sunday/in-defense-of-tinder.html 

Freitas, D. (2013). The End of Sex: How Hookup Culture is Leaving a Generation Unhappy, Sexually 

Unfulfilled, and Confused About Intimacy (1). New York City, NY: Basic Books. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
123 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L. S., Marlow, C., & Rainie, L. (2012, February 3). Why most Facebook users 

get more than they give: The effects of Facebook “power users” on everybody else. Pew Internet 

and American Life Project. 

Harding, D. J., & Jencks, C. (2003). Changing Attitudes Toward Premarital Sex. Public Opinion 

Quarterly, 67, 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1086/374399 

Haridakis, P. M. (2002). Viewer characteristics, exposure to television violence, and aggression. Media 

Psychology, 4, 235-353. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0404_02 

Hartman, C. (2012). Some Interesting Online Dating Statistics. In C. Hartman (Ed.), Author, Scientist, 

and Dating Expert. Retrieved from 

http://christiehartman.com/some-interesting-statistics-on-online-dating/ 

Jagger, E. (2001). Marketing Molly and Melville: Dating in a postmodern, consumer society. Sociology, 

35, 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038501035001004 

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974a). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion 

Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109 

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974b). Utilization of mass communications by the 

individual. In J. G. Blumler, & E. Katz (Eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications: Current 

Perspectives on Gratifications Research (pp. 19-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Kauflin, J. (2011, December 16). How Match.com’s Founder Created the World’s Biggest Dating 

Website-and Walked Away with Just $50,000. Business Insider. Retrieved from 

http://www.businessinsider.com/match-gary-kremen-2011-12 

Langlois, J. H., Kalakanie, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims 

or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390-423. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390 

Laumann, E., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. A. (1994). The Social Organization of 

Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Lee, A. (2014, February 15). Online dating app Tinder gains popularity among college students. Daily 

Bruin. Retrieved from 

http://dailybruin.com/2014/02/15/online-dating-app-tinder-gains-popularity-among-college-studen

ts-2/ 

Martin, P. Y., & Hummer, R. (1989). Fraternities and Rape on Campus. Gender and Society, 3(4), 

457-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124389003004004 

Miller, B. (2015). “They’re the modern-day gay bar”: Exploring 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 

Palmgreen, P. C., Wenner, L. A., & Rosengren, K. E. (1985). Uses and gratifications research: The past 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018 

 

 
124 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

10 years. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. C. Palmgreen (Eds.), Uses and Gratifications 

Research: Current Perspectives (pp. 11-37). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Rea, B. (2015, May 7). Swiping Right on Tinder but Staying Put. The New York Times. Retrieved from 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/style/modern-love-tinder-swiping-right-but-staying-put.html 

Reiss, I. (1997). Solving America’s Sexual Crises. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. 

Rubin, A. M. (2009). The uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In J. Bryant, & M. B. 

Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 165-184). New York 

City, NY: Routledge. 

Rudder, C. (2009). Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One’s Looking). New York City, NY: 

Crown. 

Stampler, L. (2014, February 6). Inside Tinder: Meet the Guys Who Turned Dating Into an Addiction. 

Time Newsfeed. Retrieved from 

http://time.com/4837/tinder-meet-the-guys-who-turned-dating-into-an-addiction/ 

Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. 

Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 57(4), 395-404. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.845827 

Swami, V., Furnham, A., Georgiades, C., & Pang, L. (2007). Evaluating Self and Partner Physical 

Attractiveness. Body Image, 4, 97-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.10.003 

Timmermans, E., & De Caluwe, E. (2017, May). 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 

Tinder Information, Statistics, Facts, and History. (2015, July 27). DatingSiteReviews.com. Retrieved 

September 10, 2015, from 

http://www.datingsitesreviews.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Tinder-Statistics-Facts-History 

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, 334-351. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209356437 

Tosun, L. P. (2012). Motives for Facebook use and expressing “true self” on the Internet. Computers in 

Human Behavior, 28, 1510-1517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.018 

 

 

 

 

 


