Meeting a significant other online has replaced meeting through friends. People trust the new dating technology more and more, and the stigma of.A review of a large number of smartphone-based dating apps found that the majority contained no information about sexual health or sexual.Sex-search and self-esteem enhancement are predictors of problematic use of online dating. Previous research coincides with online dating risks.Any stigma over online dating has slowly evaporated over the years. 15 percent of peer-review process just yet. It can often seem as if the online world.Findings finally suggest that dating apps play an important role in altering couple composition by allowing for more educationally diverse and.(Anderson, Vogels, & Turner, ) found that young women were more likely to report negative experiences with online dating platforms, including harassment and.There's definitely a stigma from dating apps. A lot of surveys and whatnot like to lump all online sources together and people just interpret.Finally, % (n = 40) of the studies included in the systematic review asked about dating apps use, without specifying which one. The results of these studies.
Within the span of almost ten years, phone dating apps have transformed the dating scene by normalizing and, according to some voices, gamifying the digital quest for a partner. Despite amplified discussion on how swipe-based apps damage the fabric of intimate ties, scientific accounts on whether they have led to different relationship patterns are missing. Using survey data from Switzerland, this study provides a rich overview of couples who met through dating apps by addressing three main themes: 1 family formation intentions, 2 relationship satisfaction and individual well-being, and 3 assortative mating. The data indicate that in Switzerland, dating apps have recently taken over as main online dating context. Results further show that couples formed through mobile dating have stronger cohabiting intentions than those formed in non-digital settings. Women who found their partner through a dating app also have stronger fertility desires and intentions than those who found their partner offline. Generally, there are no differences between couples initiated through dating apps and those initiated elsewhere regarding relationship and life satisfaction. Findings finally suggest that dating apps play an important role in altering couple composition by allowing for more educationally diverse and geographically distant couples. Citation: Potarca G The demography of swiping right. An overview of couples who met through dating apps in Switzerland.
https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/359517126_Online_Dating_Experiences_of_LGBTQ_Emerging_Adults_With_Disabilities/links/6321d8c5873eca0c00889a68/largepreview.pngOnline Dating: Popular and Stigma Is Gone, but Don't Pay for It
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability: The first data set, i. The FSO will hand over the anonymized individual data only after signature of a data protection agreement. The data may only be transmitted for the following purposes: statistics, research and planning. Data requests for researchers who meet the criteria for access can be directed to: andrea. The second data set, i. Users must sign a user agreement to get access to the data. Access to the SHP data is only granted for non-commercial purposes. It is strictly forbidden to attempt to identify particular households or individuals and to make parts or all of the data available to a third party. In a research team, all users have to sign the contract individually. Data requests for researchers who meet the criteria for access can be directed to: swisspanel fors. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Swiping right as the act of swiftly expressing preferences is now deeply ingrained in everyday language and cultural practice [ 1 , 2 ]. The concept of swiping originates in the gesture that users of Tinder, Grindr or other phone dating applications based on geolocation matching need to engage in to register their dis like of a potential partner. Two individuals are matched and allowed to initiate communication on the app when they both swipe right on each other. Dating websites or platforms e.
Introduction
They allowed their subscribers, after having filled in lengthy information about themselves and their preferences, to browse and get in contact with prospective mates, based on search criteria and though not always personality matching. Though dating platforms now also provide an app version of their website, swipe-based apps have a distinctive set of features, including lower costs e. By eliminating lengthy questionnaires, self-descriptions, and personality tests that users of dating websites typically need to fill in to create a profile, dating apps are much easier to use [ 4 ]. Increased accessibility likely normalized the act of dating online, and opened up use among new demographic groups, particularly young adults [ 5 , 6 ]. Using an app on a smartphone that is almost permanently active and within reach also led to a significant boost in the proximity and mobility of dating options [ 1 , 7 ]. Since users can easily connect with partners in their immediate area, but also in other spaces as they move around, the tempo of interactions is greatly accelerated and choices considerably increased [ 7 ]. As the practice of using dating apps became progressively widespread, anecdotal knowledge on how they changed courtship and the nature of intimate ties also thrived. Despite amplified media attention, we are yet to have nationally representative evidence on whether relationships initiated on swipe-based apps are different compared to relationships started in other contexts. Till now, surveys that measured where couples met have been scarce, and when such data existed, the sample of couples formed through dating apps was usually small [ 10 ]. Filling in this gap, this study reports findings based on a nationally representative Swiss survey and a sample of 3, respondents who met their partner in the last ten years.
Online Dating and Problematic Use: A Systematic Review
Given the launch of Grindr one of the most emblematic dating apps for sexual minorities in , and of Tinder in , this time frame neatly covers the post-dating app period. The paper centers around three main questions: 1 Are individuals in relationships formed through swipe-based apps less interested in family formation: do they have lower intentions to form long-terms unions e. And finally, 3 are they more exogamous in terms of education, origin e. By addressing several partnership themes e. To understand whether this dating medium brought about greater transformations in the demography of couples than previous digital modes of mate selection [ 10 , 11 ], couples that met via phone apps are compared to those formed offline i. Focusing on Switzerland, with its enduring conservatism in family ideology and the dominance of marriage as family model [ 12 ], has the advantage of making it easier to notice potential deviations in the outlook of partnerships that mobile dating may have encouraged. Recent decades have witnessed increasingly rapid and complex transformations in marriage and family patterns, including a rise in childlessness and non-marital cohabitation [ 13 ]. Family theorists have tried to capture the essence of such changes under broad theoretical constructs. In removing the obstacle of physical distance and allowing individuals to disengage from bonds with astonishing ease and minimal costs, online partner search tools such as dating platforms, are presumably contributing to the increase in fleeting connections devoid of commitment [ 17 ]. Through the many unique advantages that they afford e. First, it is argued that the casual dating mindset promoted on apps encourages a superficial and consumerist approach to finding a match, inciting an objectification of partners and a focus on visual information only [ 2 , 7 ]. Second, the card-game resemblance of the interface and its swipe-based logic create the setup of a game played at high speed, with a constant pursuit of the next best thing [ 2 , 4 ]. Individuals in unions resulting from dating apps would therefore have lower intentions to marry or move in together if in non-residential partnerships , and less plans or desires to have a child ren in the near future compared to those in unions formed offline or in other online meeting places. Less interest in family formation should be particularly visible when comparing dating apps to dating platforms. The latter are typically marketed towards long-term matching; its users state clear family plans and intentions, and often scan the profiles of candidates on fertility intentions.As opposed to dating apps, traditional desktop-based dating platforms are also more restrictive and allow for less spontaneity of use [ 22 ], creating fewer incentives for short-term dating. Confirming the discrepancy between the two modes of digital dating, research looking at the transition from web to mobile dating i. Faced with a multitude of choices, dating app users are not only more likely to reject potential partners [ 24 ], but also less likely to make well-thought out decisions [ 25 ]. Nevertheless, the tendency that users have to frame dating apps as tools geared towards casual rather than serious dating could also be part of a discourse meant to attenuate the lingering stigma of seeking love online [ 2 , 26 ], and may not reflect true partnering intentions. Those in pursuit of long-term engagements, particularly women [ 27 ], might even take advantage of the surplus of alternatives easily available on dating apps see the over-representation of single men using phone apps in S5. In this case, the data might reveal that individuals who met their partner through a dating app have similar or even higher family formation intentions compared to those who met theirs elsewhere. Phone apps not being known as intermediaries for serious dating [ 2 , 26 ], as well as the particularities of their photo-centric interface, might mean that users do not pay a lot of attention to aspects conducive to a good match, such as compatibility in interests, values, or personality [ 28 ]. Aware of the hook-up ethos of dating apps and overwhelmed by the abundance of options, some users have actually expressed reluctance regarding the authenticity and quality of connections established while swiping [ 29 ]. Assuming that visual assessment plays a major role in how app users select their partner, and given that partners objectifying each other usually experience lower relationship satisfaction [ 21 , 30 ], couples initiated on phone dating apps are likely less satisfied with their union than those formed in other settings. In contrast to dating apps, online dating platforms are designed and advertised for the precise purpose of facilitating compatibility-based matches [ 31 ]. The more complex interface of dating websites allow for richly detailed information about prospective mates, as well as options to filter and select candidates along key socio-demographic attributes or preferences [ 32 ].
Queer Men and Smartphone Dating Applications: Navigating Partner Markets and Managing Stigma
Through these unique features, dating websites are likely to assist people in finding more suitable partners than dating apps. Research found that, in the U. One could therefore expect that relationships built through dating apps are associated with lower relationship satisfaction and lower subjective well-being than unions formed in either face-to-face or virtual settings, particularly those formed on dating platforms. Nevertheless, since there is also evidence showing that relationship satisfaction is only marginally connected to how couples met [ 11 ], it could also be expected that dating apps have little effect on partnership quality. The final question is whether dating apps affect the way people sort into partnerships. Does a large and more easily accessible supply of potential partners, as well as an appeal to novel audiences [ 6 ], make dating apps a virtual social space more likely to encourage exogamy? Empirical studies have found that Internet-matched heterosexual unions display less within-couple similarity in terms of education, race or religious background [ 10 , 34 ], especially compared to unions created in typically homogenous settings, such as school, circles of friends, or family [ 35 ]. Most studies, however, were unable to single out the specific effect of dating websites or apps on exogamy, and largely focused on couples formed via the Internet in general [ 34 ], or through dating websites and apps jointly considered [ 10 ]. It could be expected that through more democratized use, dating apps provide exposure to an even greater socio-demographic diversity than dating platforms or other online settings such as social networks. The latter usually accommodate pre-existing social ties and are likely to reproduce a level of segregation and ultimately endogamy similar to offline networks [ 10 ]. Based on the geolocation matching of people in spatial proximity, dating apps may also facilitate contacts between people located in often-segregated spaces ib. Nevertheless, the option of setting the location radius to wider areas, as well as the mobility afforded by smartphones, opens up the possibility of matching with potential candidates embedded in other circles. One direct consequence would be an increase in geographical exogamy. Facilitating encounters between geographically distant partners, dating apps likely produce more long-distance non-residential relationships than other offline and online meeting contexts. A second indirect consequence of enlarging the dating pool could be an increase in socio-demographic exogamy. Access to a wider and more socially diverse partnership market generates more chances for partnering across different groups [ 36 ]. In addition to structural arguments, the use and availability of information on potential partners may also play a role.As already stated, the initiation of contact on dating apps relies more on aspects linked to physical appearance [ 7 ], and less on textual descriptions or information on income, racial background, profession, etc. Even though apps such as Tinder recently changed their interface to allow users to include education and work information on their profiles, it is often optional, and does not change the reliance on pictures as the main criterion informing partner selection [ 7 , 37 ]. The emphasis on visual display likely encourages app users to make decisions based on a more instinctive rather than a thoroughly informed evaluation of candidates [ 2 ]. We should thus observe greater socio-demographic exogamy on aspects such as education, migration background, or age among couples formed through dating apps than among couples formed in other face-to-face or online contexts. Although previous research has shown that partners who met via the Internet through dating websites and apps, combined are closer in age than those who met offline [ 10 ], it can be expected that phone dating apps encourage greater age exogamy than dating websites simply due to a wider age range of users. Phone apps are popular among adults in their 20s as well as those over 30, whereas websites largely attract people over 40, as seen in the sample of partner-seeking singles see S5. A significant age gap between partners however could take the form of either female hypogamy i. Whereas the former could be viewed as disruptive of gendered norms of partnering [ 38 ], the latter is suggestive of social closure and gender inequality [ 39 ], insofar as age hypergamy is still linked to status hypergamy [ 40 ]. Given the assumption that people, especially women, have greater freedom to create less socially constrained identities online [ 41 ], it was initially predicted that Internet dating might challenge gendered courtship behaviors. In an experimental design framework in which single adults are randomly assigned to a treatment group i. With the observational data at hand, however, we can make inferences of association at the level of the population, but there is a high risk of endogeneity and selection bias affecting results.
The Virtues and Downsides of Online Dating
One important concern is that users of phone dating apps may be systematically different from non-users in terms of both observable and unobservable characteristics, which may influence the type of relationships they establish. There are several potential sources of selection bias. First, people choosing a certain type of virtual dating tool may have different partnering intentions, values, or readiness to commit; this may have little to do with the dating environment itself. For instance, people holding less traditional family values may be both more likely to be selected into dating app use with its modern features , and less likely to pursue conventional family forms i. Though the main preconception is that Tinder and similar apps attract users searching for sexual partners only [ 7 ], research into the motivations for using dating apps revealed a wide variety of reasons, ranging from desire for casual sex to and thus not excluding the pursuit of long-term relationships [ 26 , 43 , 44 ]. There also seems to be no difference between app users and dating website users, and even when present e. Age or life course stage may also be a confounding factor as it is associated with the exposure to treatment i. Second, singles who choose mobile dating may have particular psychological features that affect the way they form and construct relationships. Certain personality dimensions, such as extraversion or internal locus of control i. Individuals that resort to a more agentic way of selecting partners, one that also involves constant interactions with others, may be particularly open, extroverted, and may have a high internal locus of control. Since research does seem to suggest that app users are more extroverted and open to new experiences than non-users [ 55 ], a comparative study of relationships initiated through phone apps and other settings needs to acknowledge differences in psychological profile. Finally, there may be structural reasons that influence both the use of phone dating apps and relationship outcomes, particularly exogamy. For instance, limited time to search for partners offline given job constraints or a diminished dating pool due to a narrow social circle, or living in less populated areas may push singles not only to try out different strategies of partner search, but also to broaden their mating preferences [ 56 ]. In the absence of repeated-measure data allowing to control for time-constant heterogeneity without observing it, this study attempts to minimize selection bias by employing several strategies. First, all the analyses control for a comprehensive set of variables that may moderate the relationship between app use and relationship patterns, such as age group, previous marital or parenthood experience, time pressure, and type of residential area see the following section. Second, I conduct a propensity score analysis [ 59 ] to examine if comparison groups e.Third and finally, I focus on the pre-partnering stage and examine several attitudinal, psychological, and structural characteristics of singles using dating apps in a complementary analysis. This strategy allows for a direct comparison between individuals exposed, albeit non-randomly, to the treatment condition and those in the control group. The survey is part of the federal population census program and aims to provide data on the current state and evolution of families, and more generally on the relationship between generations. It targets the permanent resident population living in private households, aged 15 to 79 years old, and is scheduled to take place every five years, starting with The survey is the first to include a measure on where couples met. The latter included the item on where couples met. The survey included an oversampling i. To account for this, I apply survey weights, as well as control for age and presence of children in multivariate models. The survey identified the presence of a residential partner by first asking about specific household members and their relationship to the respondent. To further counter concerns regarding the differential survival of relationships formed through dating apps, supplementary analyses see S6 Section in S1 File looked at relationships established in the last five years, with results largely similar to those reported here. The final sample used in the analyses included 3 , partnered individuals, of whom 4. S1 Table in S1 File provides a socio-demographic overview of the sample. The question was addressed to respondents over 20, who had partners living entirely or partially outside their household. If the female respondent was pregnant, the question referred to having another child in addition to the one expected. As with marital and cohabiting intentions, I grouped respondents who chose either one of the first two categories as having strong fertility intentions, and those who chose the last three as having no or weak fertility intentions.
Dating Apps and Their Sociodemographic and Psychosocial Correlates: A Systematic Review
The two questions related to fertility were addressed to women under 50, men who have a female partner under 50, and men under 60 with a same-sex partner. Furthermore, educational exogamy was operationalized as partners having different levels of education. Educational exogamy thus denotes couples that include one partner who did not graduate from university and another who did. To identify whether someone was a Swiss native or a migrant, I used information on current nationality, nationality at birth, and country at birth. If the respondent and their partner had a different migration profile, the couple was considered exogamous. Nevertheless, given that inter-partnering between immigrants and the native born remains a key measure of immigrant social integration [ 61 ], its significance is greater than inter-partnering between immigrants from different groups. The question was addressed to those older than 20, with a partner who did not live in the same household. Respondents were encouraged to provide an estimate of their door-to-door travel time via a commonly used transportation mode. The main independent variable concerns the context in which partners met. Though not verifiable, given the examples used in its description, the last category most likely refers to meeting through online social networks. Source: EFG Weighted data by wecritpers. Percentages before applying lowess smoothing are reported in S2 Table in S1 File. Same-sex couples, but not opposite-sex couples, in Switzerland currently have the possibility of entering registered partnerships; therefore, for heterosexual couples, cohabitation refers to co-residence without any legal implications. Given the importance of socio-economic resources for partnering transitions and expectations [ 63 , 64 ], in addition to education, I added a measure of employment. This distinguished between being employed grouping respondents who are salaried employees, independent, working for the family business, or in apprenticeship , or out of employment grouping respondents who are in unemployment, training, retirement, those who have a disability, homemakers, or others. To account for the potential impact of prior relationship and fertility experience on family formation intentions or assortative mating [ 65 , 66 ], the study controlled for whether the respondent was previously married; previously cohabited with another partner irrespective of their cohabitation leading to marriage ; has any living biological children, or any children in common including an ongoing pregnancy with the current partner. Considering the alignment between family behavior and family values [ 67 , 68 ], the expectation that dating apps facilitate less committed relationships may be particularly valid among less traditionally oriented individuals. Given the risk of endogeneity i.Instead, I focus on the degree of religiosity, which is a more stable aspect of social and individual identity [ 69 , 70 ] and is strongly associated with traditional marriage orientation [ 71 ]. For the analyses modeling relationship and life satisfaction, given the link between perceived health and subjective well-being [ 72 ], I added a measure of self-rated health. In the analysis of family formation intentions, due to the importance of partnership quality for relationship progression [ 64 ], I added a measure of relationship satisfaction. Finally, other controls that were included but proved insignificant are linguistic region, geographical distance between partners when modeling cohabiting intentions , and whether respondents experienced parental separation. First, the study reports regression-smoothed percentages of where heterosexual couples met in Switzerland over time Fig 1 , Panel A. To follow the evolution of online meeting contexts starting with the initial rise in dating platforms in the mids, this graph also includes couples that met between and in addition to those included in the main analysis i. For the purpose of drawing comparisons with trends occurring among heterosexual couples in the U. Due to a small number, couples that formed in the year of survey i. We notice that meeting through friends remains the main way that couples meet in Switzerland. Nevertheless, this social intermediary is in slow decline, as are other offline meeting places, particularly meeting through school, work, or family. What is rapidly increasing is meeting on the Internet, with a quarter of relationships initiated in the last two years having started online. Similar to Rosenfeld et al. These curves also indicate the transition from networked ways of selecting a partner to mate selection that essentially involves connecting with strangers, a trend alluding to the privatization of partner selection in both the U. As opposed to the U. We see that the initial rise in the Internet as context of matching is attributed to the use of dating websites, alongside other digital contexts such as online social networks, whereas the recent surge has been driven by the popularity of dating apps. In fact, after , the latter took over as the main online dating context in Switzerland.
The Scientific Flaws of Online Dating Sites
Given differences in socio-demographic profile across meeting context see the Descriptive Statistics section in S1 File , and the cross-sectional nature of the data, it is essential to check whether observed covariates are reasonably equally distributed between treatment i. The algorithm split the sample by quintiles, and, within each quintile, it tested whether the average propensity score differed in the treatment and comparison groups. The splitting continued until the program identified the smallest number of blocks where, for each block, the propensity score mean was equal across the two groups. In this case, the final number of blocks was five. The algorithm then continued by testing the balancing property for each covariate. The result of this test revealed that, for the current sample, the balancing property was satisfied, meaning that the propensity score had a similar distribution across respondents who used dating apps to find a partner and those who found their partner offline. The same outcome was reached when comparing the former to respondents who found their match through a dating website. Given that these tests indicate balance in terms of observed covariates, the multivariate analyses that follow are based on an unmodified sample. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that balance in measured variables does not indicate balance in unmeasured variables, and that it is still possible for residual confounding due to unobserved characteristics to occur. To examine if individuals who met their partner through dating apps are less focused on long-term commitment than those who met their partner elsewhere, a series of logistic regression models of having strong family formation intentions, accounting for an extensive set of covariates, are presented in Table 1. The results indicate that respondents who met through a dating app do not differ significantly in terms of marital intentions, fertility desire or fertility intentions from those who met their partner offline. Nevertheless, non-residential couples formed through dating apps have significantly stronger intentions to move in with their partner than those who met offline. Comparing dating apps to the other two online categories revealed no significant differences. In additional analyses not shown , I estimated ordered logistic regression models of family formation intentions operationalized on the original 5-point scale see Measurements sub-section. The results were similar regardless of analytic strategy.To explore whether there is gender variation in the link between meeting via dating apps and long-term commitment, Fig 2 reports predicted probabilities of family formation intentions by meeting context and gender, with all other variables held at mean value. The graph corresponding to marital intentions indicates that neither men nor women who met their partner through a dating app have significantly lower intentions to marry in the next two years than those who met their partner offline. Nevertheless, both men and women who met their match on a dating app, as well as women who found their partner via other online venues, have stronger cohabiting intentions than those who met their partner in non-digital settings. Based on logistic regression models including interactions between meeting context and gender, controlling for whether same-sex couple, type of union, age, tertiary education, whether employed, whether previously married, prior cohabitation, biological children, common children , religiosity, migration background, work-life conflict, relationship satisfaction, poor health, and partnership duration. To assess if relationships initiated on dating apps are linked to lower partnership satisfaction and individual well-being compared to relationships started elsewhere, especially on dating websites, Table 2 reports OLS regression coefficients predicting relationship and life satisfaction. The results indicate no significant difference between unions started offline and those started through dating apps. Additional models comparing couples who met through dating platforms and those who met through dating apps also reveal no significant differences. Nevertheless, findings from an extra analysis across union type see S4. Finally, to test whether dating apps are associated with greater exogamy than other meeting contexts, Table 3 first presents the results of three logistic regression models predicting educational exogamy, exogamy on origin i. The table then also reports findings for two multinomial logistic regression models predicting first, the age difference between partners, and second, geographical exogamy. All models controlled for exposure to offline marriage markets by including indicators of population density and time availability proxied by work-life conflict. First, when it comes to educational assortative mating, results indicated that meeting through dating apps was indeed associated with greater exogamy i. The effect is largely driven by tertiary-educated women partnering down see S4. An additional model employing the detailed categorization of offline meeting contexts results in S4 Table in S1 File revealed that dating apps have an enhancing effect on educational exogamy when compared to most offline settings, especially meeting at school or work, through a hobby or association, or via friends. Second, irrespective of migration background, meeting through dating apps had no effect on the likelihood of being part of an exogamous couple including a native and a migrant partner. Among natives, finding a partner online was related to greater exogamy on origin only when having used other digital tools such as online social networks. Furthermore, results showed that couples who met through dating apps were not significantly different from those who met offline in terms of the age difference between partners. Couples initiated through dating platforms were, however, closer in age than those initiated offline. Additional analysis including an interaction between meeting context and age group predicted probabilities graphed in S4. Lastly, results for geographical exogamy revealed that respondents who met their match via dating apps had to travel significantly greater distances both moderate and long to see their partner than those who met offline.
Using Crowdsourcing to Develop a Peer-Led Intervention for Safer Dating App Use: Pilot Study
Dating platforms do not seem to promote significantly more moderate-distance relationships, but they do have a positive and greater compared to dating apps effect when it comes to facilitating long-distance unions. To examine the characteristics of dating app users in the pre-partnering stage, I here present the results of a supplementary analysis focusing on a sub-population of singles looking for a partner in Switzerland. I specifically ran three different analyses examining the potential self-selection of singles using swipe-based apps with regards to: 1 family formation intentions and family values; 2 psychological profile; and 3 in-person meeting opportunities and conditions. The data for this analysis are drawn from wave 20 of the Swiss Household Panel SHP , which is a stratified random sample of private households whose members represent the non-institutional resident population in Switzerland in The survey uniquely compliments the EFG data, which largely focused on couples, by including a measure on where singles search for partners in Switzerland. The SHP has been conducted annually since , with refreshment samples meant to ensure the continuing representativeness of the population in Switzerland added in and The latest available wave i. The analysis relied on a sample of 1, single respondents. Section 5 in S1 File provides details on measurements, the socio-demographic composition of the sample, as well as tables with the results of multivariate analyses. First, findings in S5. Nevertheless, singles seeking a partner through dating apps both men and women, as an additional analysis including a gender interaction shows are significantly more likely to mention wanting to have a child in the next two years. This effect is apparent for singles using dating websites, but the dating app effect is larger in magnitude. As to psychological features i. Dating app users however seem to be significantly more extroverted than singles not using virtual tools of mate selection. Finally, the last set of analyses S5. This suggests that a potentially narrow social circle may push people into trying out dating platforms to meet partners. Dissatisfaction with personal relationships does not seem to be a selection mechanism for users of phone dating apps. What does appear as a more relevant aspect that predisposes people to use dating apps is limited time availability. Dating app users are significantly more likely than singles who do not use the Internet to search for a partner to mention being too exhausted after work to do what they would like.Using nationally representative survey data from Switzerland, this study provided a rich overview of the demographic characteristics and union patterns of couples who met through dating apps in comparison to those who met offline or through other online contexts of partner selection. The evidence seems to suggest that non-residential couples formed through mobile dating have a greater interest in cohabitation than couples who met offline. The effect was not driven by socio-economic vulnerability, or a certain life course stage it is valid even when controlling for education, employment status, and age , reflecting the increasingly universal appeal of non-marital coresidential unions across the Western world [ 13 ]. In the context of a consistently high divorce rate—with the exception of Perhaps the pragmatic approach to finding a partner on dating apps [ 29 ] is also reflected in subsequent decisions regarding living arrangements. Nevertheless, the data also indicated that individuals in couples initiated through a dating app were not necessarily less interested in marriage than those in couples formed elsewhere. In a country where registered partnerships are not yet an option for opposite-sex couples, and where marriage is still seen as the ultimate partnership arrangement, equivalent to starting a family [ 12 ], couples who met on dating apps showing greater interest in cohabitation most likely see it as a stage preceding marriage. Results suggest that in Switzerland, the culture of dating apps promoting easy access to a large dating pool may lengthen the time people take to find the right marital partner, and encourage intermediary steps i. Findings from the supplementary analysis examining the profile of dating app users in the pre-partnering stage see S5. Though app users score higher in extraversion see S5. What is more, women who met their match on a dating app were more likely to mention wanting and intending to have a child in the near future than those who met their partner offline. This is less likely a result of more commitment-oriented individuals staying in unions and more likely a result of an initial selection mechanism, as the auxiliary analysis looking at singles indicated that users of dating apps had significantly stronger fertility intentions than non-users S5. This study additionally showed that relationship satisfaction or general subjective well-being did not differ between couples who met on dating apps and those who met in non-digital settings, mitigating concerns regarding the poor quality of unions formed in a partnership market often thought to only encourage frivolous image-based matching [ 29 ]. Nevertheless, supplementary analyses S4. This implies that among digital tools for dating, websites and their options for more refined searches may indeed represent a better way of finding a well-matched partner. This advantage is however absent when looking at more committed unions, most likely because of selective exists i.
