Online Dating: Meta-Synthesis Finds Diverse Motives Across Users
A new meta-synthesis published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships maps the wide range of reasons people turn to dating apps, especially among groups that have been underrepresented in prior work. By synthesizing findings from 21 qualitative studies, the authors identify eight major motive categories — and show how motivations differ by age and sexual identity while highlighting gaps in the current survey instruments researchers typically use.
The research team ran a systematic search across databases including PsycINFO, PubMed, and ProQuest to locate qualitative investigations of dating-app use. From more than 7,000 initial records they retained 21 studies published in English or Spanish. The dataset included interview-based work with people of varied ages, gender identities, and sexual orientations from countries such as the United States, China, South Africa, India, and Mexico.
Through thematic analysis the team distilled eight overarching motive categories: romantic relationships, sexual relationships, socializing, entertainment, self-enhancement, convenience, curiosity, and external factors. Many categories contained multiple subthemes: entertainment included uses such as distraction or stress relief; self-enhancement covered efforts to build self-esteem, practice flirting, or experiment with identity. Romantic aims — seeking a long-term partner, marriage, or companionship — were the most commonly reported motive and appeared in almost every study.
Sexual motives frequently surfaced as well, often tied to short-term encounters, though not exclusively. Some participants described using apps to explore sexuality with a partner or within committed relationships. Socializing was another common theme: users sought friends, travel companions, or emotional connection, and some reported turning to apps for platonic interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The synthesis also highlights motives that standard quantitative checklists tend to miss, such as joining apps out of curiosity, boredom, peer pressure, or to move on from a breakup. A minority even reported using apps for business networking or to meet people in specific professions — uses seldom captured by conventional surveys.
Certain motivations were particularly salient for marginalized groups. Sexual-minority participants reported greater reliance on apps to access community and reduce risk when public expressions of same-sex attraction are stigmatized or unsafe. As the authors note, in some contexts dating apps provide a “comfort zone” where users need not guess others’ sexual orientation or fear rejection and violence; one example in the source text references the app Jack’d in this regard.
Corresponding author Rachael Robnett, a psychology professor at the University of Nevada, told reporters the project was led by doctoral alumnus Dr. Jenna McPherson. Robnett emphasized the value of a meta-synthesis: “The major advantage of a meta-synthesis is that it allows researchers to detect patterns across a wide body of research that are not apparent when you focus on the findings of a single study.” She added that participants who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer particularly valued the safety, belonging, and convenience dating apps can afford.
Age also shaped motives: older adults were more likely to use apps for romantic companionship and to combat social isolation, rather than for sex or self-esteem boosts. One retired man interviewed for the original studies reported turning to apps after losing regular social contacts and wanting to avoid loneliness.
Surprisingly, the authors report few clear differences by gender. They caution, however, that many source studies treated gender binarily and failed to disaggregate cisgender, transgender, and nonbinary experiences, limiting the ability to detect nuanced gender-based patterns.
The authors call attention to persistent gaps in dating-app research: an overreliance on young, heterosexual samples and on quantitative checklists that omit motives common among older adults, gender-diverse individuals, and sexual minorities. They recommend that future studies collect and report more complete demographic information and that survey instruments be revised to include a broader range of motivations.
Implications extend to product design. Because users deploy apps for friendship, emotional support, identity exploration, and skill-building — in addition to romance and sex — platforms could consider more flexible experiences that acknowledge varied intentions. Some newer services already enable friend-finding or networking, but the synthesis suggests even mainstream dating apps might better serve users by surfacing options for nonromantic connections.
The authors acknowledge limitations: restricting the review to English- and Spanish-language articles may have missed culturally specific motives reported in other languages, and the quality and reporting detail of original studies varied. Robnett noted that several articles lacked information about participants’ sexual identity and few focused on people aged 40 and older, which constrains conclusions about age-related differences.
Still, the meta-synthesis — titled “Motives for engaging in online dating: A meta-synthesis” and authored by Jenna L. McPherson, Claudia Q. Luu, Jessica P. Nguyen, Melanie Garcia, and Rachael D. Robnett — provides a more inclusive picture of why people use dating apps and offers directions for research, clinical practice, and product development.
For more details, see the study in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
