Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal of Sexual Health logoLink to International Journal of Sexual Health
. 2023 Jun 9;35(3):383–398. doi: 10.1080/19317611.2023.2220000

Online Dating Site Use to Cope with Minority Stress in Gay and Bisexual Men in Germany: Findings from Two Survey Studies

Manuel Cargnino a,✉, Richard Lemke b
PMCID: PMC10903603  PMID: 38601724

Abstract

Objective

For gay and bisexual men who are confronted with minority stress, online dating sites may provide opportunities for coping. Extant research has largely neglected this, and those pieces that did address it did not sufficiently account for different motivations of use.

Methods

Two survey studies served to explore links between minority stress, online dating use, and well-being (Study 1: N = 97, Study 2: N = 25,884).

Results

The present work finds evidence that the use of online dating sites may have limited buffering effects on associations between minority stress and well-being.

Conclusions

The findings contribute to existing work on online dating and the mental health of gay and bisexual men.

Keywords: Minority stress, online dating sites, coping, well-being

The popularity of online dating sites (ODS) and mobile dating apps among users has continued to grow ever since their introduction a couple of decades ago (Finkel et al., 2012; Sumter & Vandenbosch, 2019). These platforms mainly serve to connect users with one another to each other as they seek to form romantic relationships and casual sexual encounters (Ranzini, 2021; Sumter & Vandenbosch, 2019). While online dating is widespread and used across different societal groups, it is used more frequently by individuals with minoritized sexual identities (Rosenfeld, 2018; Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012; Sumter & Vandenbosch, 2019). Moreover, homo- and bisexual individuals are up to three times more likely to meet a romantic partner online than heterosexual users (Goldenberg, 2019; Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012). One reason why ODS are used more by members of queer communities than others may be the anonymity and safety provided by online communication (Lemke & Weber, 2017; Sumter & Vandenbosch, 2019), since people with minoritized sexual identities still face stigmatization, discrimination, violence, and in many places even prosecution across the globe today.

Gay and bisexual men face many of these specific challenges and simultaneously frequently use ODS (Goldenberg, 2019; Lemke, 2020; Meyer, 2003). Moreover, the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003) suggests that this group must deal with specific stressors not experienced by heterosexual individuals. As such, not only can ODS make it easier for people with minoritized sexual identities, such as homo- and bisexual men to connect to others, to find a partner, and “live out” their sexuality, but it can also help them deal with the detrimental effects posed by minority stress. On the other hand, dependence on ODS and maladaptive uses may counteract any positive effects to some degree (Zervoulis et al., 2020). As such, it remains unclear how far the use of ODS may help individuals to cope with stressors related to their sexual orientation.

The present work intends to shed light on whether ODS are used by gay and bisexual men to improve their well-being and to deal with certain adversities they face. Specifically, it focuses on the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003; Sattler & Lemke, 2019) which suggests that sexual minorities are exposed to specific stressors, such as experiences of victimization and negative attitudes toward their own sexual orientation. This marks the first time that research has addressed the role of online dating in the relationship between minority stress and well-being. It, therefore, promises new insights into the ways particularly vulnerable social groups deal with the group-specific hazards they are confronted with in their lives. It especially scrutinizes how far the use of ODS for various reasons may facilitate coping with minority stressors and, therefore, how and to what extent using ODS contributes to the mental health of gay and bisexual men. Moreover, this research can contribute to the impact of minority stress and ODS on sexual health as both of the former were found to be linked to the latter by related research before (Bonilla-Zorita et al., 2021; Sönmez et al., 2022).

ODS use and coping

While research on the use of dating platforms to cope with detrimental psychological states and life circumstances is scarce, some research was conducted on the role of digital media in coping in general (for a review, see Wolfers & Schneider, 2021). This research claimed that online communication had the capacity to help users in their efforts to acquire sources of social support, in regulating affect, and in their efforts to cope with psychological distress in general. However, it also raised the possibility of maladaptive coping and problematic (e.g., addictive) online media use among users (Wolfers & Schneider, 2021).

Applying these findings to gay and bisexual men, it may be the case that this group uses ODS to help deal with the social stigma represented in “deviant” sexual preferences by facilitating users seeking to experience anonymous and noncommittal (sexual) encounters (Lemke & Weber, 2017). Hence, ODS might also enable for coping as they may facilitate exploring sexual pleasure, to find sexual partners, and to find fulfilling sexual relationships free of stigma. A prominent theoretical model that formulates the specific stressors to which individuals with minoritized sexual identities are exposed and includes assumptions on coping mechanisms is the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003).

Minority stress model

The notion of minority stress originally aimed at explaining the link between minority sexual orientations and poorer (mental) health outcomes when compared to heterosexual individuals (Brooks, 1981; King et al., 2008; Meyer, 2003; Sattler et al., 2017). It was introduced by Brooks (1981), who was the first to elaborate on how the exposure to chronic stress among sexual minorities (in her study, lesbian women) may lead to negative health outcomes in these groups. Her work came in a time when minority sexual identities were pathologized in public discourses and even research (Rich et al., 2020). Based on this work, Meyer (1995) elaborated on the minority stress model in the study of minority stress among gay men. According to the model, individuals with a minority sexual orientation are exposed to specific stressors. For instance, they experience victimization (e.g., discrimination and physical and psychological violence), rejection sensitivity (i.e., the expectation of being rejected by others because of one’s sexual orientation), and internalized homophobia/homonegativity (i.e., the intrapsychic rejection of their own and others’ sexual identity, which may result from experiences of their own or others’ victimization; see also Sattler et al., 2016). However, further factors, such as group identity and the concealment of one’s sexual orientation likewise play a part in the model (Meyer, 2003). Minority stress can hence be conceived of as a form of societally induced hazard to members of so-called sexual minorities. Empirical studies on the minority stress model in various countries underscored the role of minority stressors in explaining poorer health outcomes among gay men, for instance, with regard to the development of mental disorders or engaging in sexual risk behavior (King et al., 2008; Sönmez et al., 2022).

According to the minority stress model, coping moderates the relationship between minority stress and mental health. Individuals who experience minority stress may engage in coping strategies on either a group or personal level (Meyer, 2003; Sattler et al., 2016). While personal-level resources refer to, inter alia, protective personality traits and control beliefs and may apply to anyone, minority groups are thought to particularly draw on group-level coping. For instance, men who feel strongly attached to the gay community may perceive minority stressors as less threatening, which therefore diminishes possible negative impacts on mental health (Meyer, 2003). A survey among gay men in Germany (Sattler et al., 2016) found that it may, in particular, be the social support from other gay men that enables them to cope with minority stress (in this case, rejection sensitivity). Positive attitudes toward being gay and other rather group-level variables (e.g., active participation in gay rights activism) did not affect the relationship between minority stress and well-being in this study. In general, coping strategies that enable individuals to reduce the detrimental consequences of minority stress without entailing negative side effects (e.g., alienation from the gay community through avoidance) can be considered beneficial in the long term (Dewaele et al., 2013).

The minority stress model is not an exhaustive model of stressors experienced by gay and bisexual men and the coping strategies used to counteract them. Other group-specific stressors relate to, for instance, gender conformity pressures, societal standards of masculinity, and permissive social norms in drug abuse within the gay community (see Miller, 2020; Pachankis, 2015). Nevertheless, the present study focuses on the minority stress model as it is an empirically well-founded model that identifies the stressors experienced by sexual minorities and their ways of coping with them. In addition to extant research, the present work addresses the use of online dating sites as potentially important environments for gay and bisexual men to cope with minority stress.

Online dating and well-being

Research into the benefits and risks associated with the use of online dating sites is scarce. Extant work on links between online dating and well-being that includes individuals with heterosexual and minoritized sexual orientations has found evidence for both beneficial and detrimental effects of ODS use (for a review, see Bonilla-Zorita et al., 2021). Among the general benefits of ODS are, for instance, the possibility to match the characteristics of potential partners with one’s own preferences and to increase the “efficiency” of dating (Finkel et al., 2012; Goldenberg, 2019). One common critique of ODS has been that they foster an objectification of potential romantic and sexual partners since available “options” are displayed in marketplace-like context (e.g., Bonilla-Zorita et al., 2021; Chan, 2018; Finkel et al., 2012). In studies that also include individuals with heterosexual orientation, the use of ODS was found to be related to a desire to not disclose personal information or be exposed to sexual aggression and/or harassment (Bonilla-Zorita et al., 2021). Furthermore, the constant availability of potential alternatives, as is the case in most online dating contexts, may destabilize interpersonal connections (Le et al., 2010) and may, in particular, be detrimental for users who are less “successful” in terms of the number of interactions they have with other users (Her & Timmermans, 2021). Moreover, effects may vary depending on individual differences between users, such as personality traits or attachment styles (Coffey et al., 2022). However, whether the use of ODS has a positive or negative effect may to a large extent depend on the specific motives underlying that use. For instance, a study of mostly heterosexual Tinder users (Her & Timmermans, 2021) found that compulsive use and use due to the desire to find a relationship are positively related to sadness and anxiety.

Initial research into ODS use among men who have sex with men and their well-being also showed that both beneficial and the detrimental effects were at play (Zervoulis et al., 2020). In the present work, well-being is mainly conceived of as individuals’ subjective satisfaction with their lives and their experience of positive (vs. negative) affect, both of which are substantially related to several indicators of mental health (Diener et al., 1985; Watson et al., 1988). On the one hand, ODS may provide gay and bisexual men opportunities to connect to a community in which they can freely express and act out their sexual and emotional needs. On the other hand, depending on the frequency and motivation behind their use, using ODS may be linked to becoming disconnected from the queer community, feeling lonely, and dissatisfaction (as was found in a study on men who have sex with men using the dating app “Grindr,” Zervoulis et al., 2020). Furthermore, some research points to links between ODS use among gay and bisexual men, substance abuse, and risky sexual behaviors (Bonilla-Zorita et al., 2021). However, also within this group, the beneficial and detrimental effects of ODS use appear to depend on the specific motives behind it (Zervoulis et al., 2020).

While dating apps like Grindr are predominantly seen as facilitating casual sexual encounters between men, research shows that users can have multiple motives to use them, such as for social interaction, social inclusion, dating, and entertainment (Van De Wiele & Tong, 2014). A survey on gay and bisexual men (Zervoulis et al., 2020) found some tentative evidence that the effects of ODS use on well-being depend on the motivation behind the use. More precisely, higher frequency of overall use appeared to lead to lower levels of life satisfaction, self-esteem, and sense of community. However, the effects were moderated by the motivation behind the use. Lower levels were only observed in individuals whose primary motives of ODS use were dating, to make friends, to “kill time” (entertainment), or to connect with the gay community, while lower levels were not observed in individuals whose primary motive was to find sexual encounters.

A qualitative focus-group study on the uses and gratifications of social media among gay men (Gudelunas, 2012) pointed to the importance of digital communication technologies for gay men in general, and perceived them “as part of a larger history of gay men communicating with other gay men within a culture where talk about homosexuality is closely policed and often restricted” (p. 348). Dating platforms, such as Grindr may therefore uniquely facilitate gay and bisexual men as they seek to “solidify their real and imagined social networks as well as find partners for practical, sexual pleasures” (p. 360), and enable mutual recognition and contact within otherwise heteronormative and oftentimes hostile societal environments (Lemke, 2020). The use of ODS among gay and bisexual men may hence also serve to cope with the adversities resulting from marginalization, discrimination, and violence against individuals with minoritized sexual identities.

Present research

The primary goal of the present study is to assess whether online dating sites are environments that help gay and bisexual men cope with minority stress. Prior research has yielded mixed findings on the effects of ODS use and pointed to potential risks and benefits (Bonilla-Zorita et al., 2021; Zervoulis et al., 2020). It revealed that ODS may especially be important to individuals with minoritized sexual identities who are often in need of anonymity and “safe spaces” to make contact with one another (Gudelunas, 2012; Lemke, 2020). Research into the well-being of individuals with minoritized sexual identities found that specific minority stressors may account for poorer health outcomes among this group (Meyer, 2003; Sattler et al., 2017). This research furthermore pointed to the role of group-level coping and social support as factors of influence that aid individuals in dealing with such stressors (Sattler et al., 2016). The present work is the first to link these lines of research and to suggest that the use of dating platforms may be beneficial for gay and bisexual men as it provides them with social resources that help them to cope with distress resulting from their membership to a minority group. This study can therefore enhance our understanding of dating behavior and health-related outcomes of a societal group that is particularly vulnerable to specific stressors and their detrimental effects.

Against this background, the present research will address a range of hypotheses and research questions. First, we investigate possible associations between minority stress, use of online dating platforms, and users’ well-being and pose the following overarching research question:

RQ1: How are minority stress, use of online dating sites, and users’ well-being related to each other?

Based on this research question we formulate specific hypotheses. First, we attempt to replicate earlier findings on the link between minority stress and well-being among gay and bisexual men in Germany and therefore hypothesize

H1: Minority stress (victimization, rejection sensitivity, internalized homonegativity) is negatively related to ODS users’ well-being.

Furthermore, following the assumption that the use of ODS may help individuals in dealing with and diminishing minority stress, for instance, through strengthening their minority identities and receiving social support, lower levels of minority stress should be experienced by those who use ODS more regularly. It is therefore hypothesized:

H2: Minority stress (victimization, rejection sensitivity, internalized homonegativity) is negatively related to the use of dating platforms.

Most importantly, and as outlined above, the use of online dating sites might moderate (i.e., weaken) the link between minority stress and the well-being of gay and bisexual men.

H3: The use of dating platforms moderates the association between minority stress and well-being. The more they are used, the smaller the association.

Related research suggested that some forms of ODS use may be beneficial, while others can have detrimental effects. The specific motivation for using ODS may therefore determine whether it helps individuals in coping or not. For example, those who search for social support online may also find it. Conversely, if ODS are used as the only way to get in contact with one’s community and to connect to other men, expectations may be more easily frustrated. As there is only tentative and in part inconclusive evidence on the role of different motives in the effects of ODS use on well-being, the following research question is posited:

RQ2: To what extent does the motivation behind ODS use moderate the link between minority stress and well-being?

Lastly, the present work explores whether the hypothesized effects of ODS use are dependent on the specific platform being used. For example, platforms like Grindr, which require users to mainly present themselves through images, do not allow for long profile texts, and place users’ sexual preferences prominently within user profiles, may be less suitable for group-level coping as they are predominantly used for casual sexual encounters rather than to facilitate the forming of durable relationships. Hence, the following research question is formulated:

RQ3: Does the type of ODS platform moderate the link between minority stress and well-being?

Study overview

Two survey studies on gay and bisexual men in Germany served to address the hypotheses and research questions. Study 1 addressed all the above listed hypotheses and research questions. Its aim was to provide an initial and fine-grained perspective on relationships between minority stress, well-being, and the use of ODS. Study 2 aimed to replicate findings on the hypotheses by drawing on a secondary analysis of data from a large sample of gay and bisexual men who use ODS.

Study 1: Method

Study 1 was a correlational survey study. Subjects were assessed individually through online questionnaires. Subjects provided their consent in advance of participation and after receiving thorough information on the purpose of the study and how their data and privacy would be protected. The study was approved by the institutional review board on 10 September 2020 (protocol no. 2009DCCM4530) and data were collected between September 2020 and January 2021. This study’s hypotheses, measures, and data analysis plan were pre-registered1 in the Open Science Framework (OSF).

Sample

Participants were self-identified gay and bisexual men and were recruited via different online channels (e.g., social media, dating platforms, and queer organizations). The final convenience sample consisted of 97 men (Age: M = 38.34, SD = 11.86, min = 19, max = 73). 1% (n = 1) of participants stated they had no educational qualifications, 22.7% (n = 22) had a middle school degree, 21.6% (n = 21) a high school degree, 49.5% (n = 48) a university degree, and 5.2% (n = 5) a Ph.D. 70.1% (n = 68) said they were employed, 11.3% (n = 11) were students, 6.2% (n = 6) self-employed, and 3.1% (n = 3) were unemployed. 9.3% (n = 9) of participants said that their family had migrated at some point.

Measures

Frequency of the use of dating platforms was assessed by asking participants how often they log onto specific dating platforms/apps (Grindr, PlanetRomeo, Scruff, Hornet, Jack’d, Tinder, Other; For each of the sites the possible answers were 1: Never, 2: About once a month or less, 3: About once a week, 4: Once a day, 5: More than once a day but <5 times per day, 6: 5 or more times a day, 7: I am almost constantly logged on to it; see Zervoulis et al., 2020). Furthermore, the personal importance of ODS was assessed by one item (“In general, how important are ODS for you personally?” 1: very unimportant, 5: very important; M = 3.34, SD = 0.90). 48.5% (n = 47) indicated ODS to be important” (4) or very important” (5) to them, 15.4% (n = 15) indicated that they are “unimportant” (2) or “very unimportant” (1). Moreover, participants were asked why they use ODS (adapted from Zervoulis et al., 2020). They were given a collection of statements and asked to indicate the extent to which each statement applies to them (1: does not apply to me at all, 5: completely applies to me, see Table 1) and which is their number one reason to use ODS.

Table 1.

Study 1: Reasons for ODS use, means, standard deviations, and percentage of “number one reason” answers.

Item M (SD) % “number one reason”
I use ODS to make new friends. 3.02 (1.16) 9.3 (n = 9)
I use ODS to meet people to have sex with. 3.88 (1.32) 51.5 (n = 50)
I use ODS to find a partner. 2.63 (1.56) 22.7 (n = 22)
I use ODS to “kill” time. 3.35 (1.24) 7.2 (n = 7)
I use ODS to connect to the gay/queer community. 3.06 (1.31) 5.2 (n = 5)
I use ODS to receive interesting or useful information 2.03 (1.16) 0 (n = 0)
I use ODS to receive material (e.g., money) or non-material support. 1.28 (0.67) 0 (n = 0)
I use ODS to receive support in emotionally difficult situations. 1.61 (0.95) 0 (n = 0)
Open in a new tab

Victimization was measured by asking participants about the frequency with which they had experienced victimization since the age of 16 (Possible answers were 0: never, 1: once, 2: twice, 3: three times or more; see Herek & Berrill, 1990; Sattler et al., 2016). Five items representing different types of experienced victimization were used (“Verbal insults or threatened with physical violence,” “Personal property damaged or destroyed,” “Punched, kicked, beaten, or physically wounded in another way,” “Chased or followed,” “Sexually harassed or sexually assaulted”) and responses were collapsed into a single average scale score (M = 1.83, SD = 0.71, Cronbach’s α = .71)

Rejection sensitivity was measured by three items (see, Pachankis, 2015; Sattler et al., 2016). Participants were to state how they perceived particular situations in terms of social rejection of their sexual orientation (“You go to get an STD check-up, and the man taking your sexual history is rude toward you,” “You go to a party, and you and your partner are the only non-straight people there, no one talks to you,” “You are in a locker room in a gym. One guy nearby moves to another area to change clothes” (1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree). Responses were collapsed into average scores, M = 2.60, SD = 1.02, Cronbach’s α = .77.

Internalized Homonegativity (adapted from Sattler et al., 2016) was measured by the extent to which participants agreed with three items (“I feel ashamed of my sexual orientation,” “I sometimes resent my sexual orientation,” “When I think of my sexual orientation, I feel depressed.” (Answers ranged from 1: strongly disagree, to 5: strongly agree; average scores: M = 1.74, SD = 0.98, Cronbach’s α = .86).

Well-being was measured in terms of participants’ life satisfaction. Five statements were presented (e.g., “I am satisfied with my life,” “My life conditions are excellent,”) and answers ranged from 1: strongly disagree, to 7: strongly agree; (Diener et al., 1985; Janke & Glöckner-Rist, 2012b, M = 4.59, SD = 1.21; Cronbach’s α = .87), and additionally they were asked to evaluate how much positive and negative affect they experienced during the past week (they had to state the extent to which they experienced the following 21 positive, e.g., “interested,” “strong,” “proud,” and negative affective states, e.g., “angry,” “guilty,” “hostile.” Answers ranged from 1: not at all, to 5: very much; adapted from Janke & Glöckner-Rist, 2012a; Watson et al., 1988).

Study 1: Results

Contrary to our original plans, i.e., before data collection had taken place (see pre-registration), structural equation modeling was not performed as the previously calculated necessary sample size (N = 300) was not achieved. Nevertheless, a post-hoc power analysis showed that our sample size was large enough to detect moderate effect sizes within multiple regression analyses, while small effects could only be detected with a power < .80.

RQ1 asked how minority stress, use of ODS, and well-being are related to each other. Based on this question, hypotheses were formulated. To address H1, which posited that minority stress is negatively related to users’ well-being, multiple regression analyses were performed with minority stress dimensions as predictors, and life satisfaction and positive and negative affect as criteria. Victimization (β = −.22, p = .017) and internalized homonegativity (β = −.45, p < .001) negatively predicted life satisfaction, while rejection sensitivity was unrelated to it (β = .02, p = .841, R2 = .28). Furthermore, positive affect during the previous seven days was negatively predicted by internalized homonegativity (β = −.21, p = .040), but not related to victimization (β = −.19, p = .073) or rejection sensitivity (β = −.10, p = .328, R2 = .11). However, the experience of negative affect was positively predicted by victimization (β = .32, p < .001) and internalized homonegativity (β = .41, p < .001), but was unrelated to rejection sensitivity (β = .13, p = .129, R2 = .36). Taken together, H1 was partially supported.

H2 hypothesized that minority stress is negatively related to the use of dating platforms. However, a regression analysis with minority stress dimensions as predictors and overall frequency of dating platform use revealed that none of the former was related to the latter (R2 = .01). Further analyses on the level of specific dating platforms (i.e., the frequency of use of a specific platform as a criterion) confirmed these results, thus lending no support for H2. Moreover, as shown within an exploratory correlation analysis (see Table 2), the use of dating platforms was, in turn, unrelated to well-being, i.e., life satisfaction (r = −.02, p = .855), negative affect (r = .16, p = .121), and positive affect (r = .02, p = .822).

Table 2.

Study 1: Correlations between main constructs.

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. MS: Victimization −                            
2. MS: Rejection sensitivity .23* −                          
3. MS: Internalized homonegativity .18 .06 −                        
4. Life satisfaction −.30** −.06 −.48*** −                      
5. Negative affect .43*** .23* .47*** −.40*** −                    
6. Positive affect −.25* −.15 −.25* .53*** −.27** −                  
7. Use of ODS .04 −.06 .02 −.02 0.16 .02 −                
8. Motive “make new friends” .01 .08 .32** −.39*** .19 −.19 .20* −              
9. Motive “meet people for sex” .10 −.15 −.07 .09 .06 .15 .36*** .07 −            
10. Motive “find partner” .10 .29** .32** −.28** .24* −.19 .01 .34*** −.23* −          
11. Motive “kill time” .09 .06 .04 −.13 .22* −.07 .41*** .34*** .34*** .15 −        
12. Motive “contact with community” .02 .14 .22* −.12 .30** .05 .40*** .43*** .11 .04 .27** −      
13. Motive “informational support” .00 .01 .21* −.12 .23* .02 .17 .39*** .01 .07 .12 .51*** −    
14. Motive “instrumental support” −.02 .17 .26* −.19 .15 .03 −.03 .35*** .06 .34*** .09 .18 .26* −  
15. Motive “emotional support” .15 .05 .20* −.30** .35*** −.10 .02 .41*** −.04 .29** .08 .34*** .51*** .42*** −
Open in a new tab

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, N = 97.

Moderated regression analyses were performed to address H3, which assumed that the use of dating platforms moderates the association between minority stress and well-being, with higher levels of use weakening the association. Interaction terms were built from the mean-centered minority stress dimensions and overall dating platform use, and the resulting three terms entered in hierarchical multiple regression analyses with life satisfaction, negative, and positive affect as criteria. Only the moderation term of rejection sensitivity and dating platform use predicted negative affect (this was, however, only marginally significant: β = −.17, p = .056). An inspection of simple slopes using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes et al., 2010) revealed the effects of rejection sensitivity on negative affect for different frequencies of dating platform use. It showed that the effect of rejection sensitivity on negative affect becomes weaker the more frequently dating platforms are used. None of the other moderation terms significantly predicted any of the indicators of well-being (see Table 3). In sum, these findings provide limited support for H3.

Table 3.

Study 1: Results on hypothesis 3.

  Life satisfaction
 Negative affect
 Positive affect
b (SEb) β t p ΔR 2 b (SEb) β t p ΔR 2 b (SEb) β t p ΔR 2
Step 1 (predictors)         .28         .38         .11
Victimization −.38 (.16) −.22 −2.40 .018   .29 (.08) .31 3.66 <.001   −.20 (.11) −.19 −1.82 .072  
Rejection sensitivity .02 (.11) .02 .20 .842   .09 (.06) .14 1.68 .097   −.07 (.08) −.10 −.95 .343  
Internalized homonegativity −.55 (.11) −.45 −4.95 <.001   .27 (.06) .40 4.83 <.001   −.16 (.08) −.21 −2.08 .041  
Dating app use 0 (.14)   0 .02 .984   .13 (.07) .15 1.77 .081   .03 (.10) −.03 .30 .767  
Step 2 (moderator)         .02         .03         .02
Victimization × dating app use .02 (.21) .01 .09 .930   −.02 (.10) −.01 −.16 .873   −.10 (.15) −.07 −.68 .500  
Rejection sensitivity × dating app use −.07 (.15) −.05 −.49 .623   −.15 (.08) −.17 −1.94 .056   .08 (.10) −.09 .79 .429  
Internalized homonegativity × dating app use .19 (.13) .15 1.54 .128   <.001 (.06) <.001 −.05 .963   −.10 (.09) −.12 −1.13 .260  
Total R2         .30         .41         .14
ANOVA Step 1: F(4,92) = 9.01, p < .001 Step 1: F(4,92) = 14.11, p < .001 Step 1: F(4,92) = 2.92, p = .025
Step 2: F(3,89) = 0.96, p = .413 Step 2: F(3,89) = 1.47, p = .228 Step 2: F(3,89) = 0.84, p = .476
Open in a new tab

Moderated regression analyses predicting life satisfaction, negative affect, and positive affect.

RQ2 asked whether the moderation of the association between minority stress and well-being by ODS use is contingent on specific motivations for using such sites. To address it, moderated regression analyses were conducted with dimensions of minority stress as predictors, indicators of well-being as criteria, and reasons for dating platform used as moderators. There was a significant interaction effect of rejection sensitivity and the motive to use dating platforms “to find a partner” on positive affect (β = .34, p = .033). Simple slopes indicated that the more dating platforms are used to find a partner, the weaker the association between rejection sensitivity and positive affect. However, the association appears to become positive when the motive to find a partner is very pronounced (see Figure 1). Furthermore, there was a significant interaction effect of internalized homonegativity and the motive to use dating platforms “to find a partner” on negative affect (β = .26, p = .021). Here, a higher motivation to use ODS to find a partner was linked to a strengthening (!) of the negative association between internalized homonegativity and negative affect. There was also a marginally significant interaction effect of internalized homonegativity and the motive to use ODS “to make friends” (β = .27, p = .061). An inspection of simple slopes shows that the more ODS is used to find new friends, the smaller becomes the negative association between internalized homonegativity and life satisfaction. Lastly, there was a marginally significant interaction effect of victimization and the motive to use ODS to receive emotional social support on life satisfaction (β = −.26, p = .060). It indicated that the association between victimization and life satisfaction is more negative the more ODS is used to receive emotional support.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Study 1: Interaction effects of ODS use motives and minority stress dimensions on well-being.

On the level of exploratory bivariate correlations (Table 2), internalized homonegativity turned out to be positively associated with the number of motives for using ODS, such as “make new friends” (r = .32, p = .002), “find a partner” (r = .32, p = .001), and “keep in touch with the gay community” (r = .22, p = .033). Among the other minority stress dimensions, only rejection sensitivity was positively associated with the motive “find a partner” (r = .29, p = .004). Frequency of dating platform use was correlated with the motives “kill time” (r = .41, p < .001), “keep in touch with the gay community” (r = .40, p < .001), “meet people to have sex with” (r = .36, p < .001), and, to a lesser extent, “make new friends” (r = .20, p = .049).

Finally, RQ3 asked whether the moderation effect proposed in H3 (more frequent use of dating platforms decreases the effect of minority stress on well-being) varies according to the specific dating platform used. Moderated regression analyses were run, but this time using the frequency of use of four popular dating platforms among gay and bisexual men (Grindr, PlanetRomeo, Scruff, and Tinder) as moderators. Among these, Tinder use weakly moderated the association between rejection sensitivity and negative affect (β = −.20, p = .052, ΔR2 = .04), thus offering a narrower explanation for the effect found in H3 (see Figure 2). Simple slopes suggested that the positive association between rejection sensitivity and negative affect becomes weaker at higher frequencies of use. Furthermore, the use of PlanetRomeo moderated the association between internalized homonegativity and life satisfaction; however, this was only marginally significant (β = .16, p = .086, ΔR2 = .02). An inspection of simple slopes showed that the negative association between internalized homonegativity and life satisfaction is somewhat weakened at higher frequencies of PlanetRomeo use.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Study 1: Interaction effect of Tinder use and rejection sensitivity on negative affect.

Study 2

The purpose of study 2 was to replicate and extend findings on the main hypotheses on a large sample of users of ODS, thereby overcoming limitations posed by the relatively small sample in study 1. To this end, H1, H2, and H3 were addressed.

Study 2: Method

For study 2, data from the German subsample of the “Gay Happiness Monitor” (GHM) survey (Lemke & Tornow, 2015) were used for a secondary analysis. The GHM was a large-scale international survey. Gay and bisexual male users of ODS were asked about their life conditions, well-being, and perception of gay rights in their country via an online questionnaire. Invitations to participate were sent through the ODS PlanetRomeo.com. This site is mainly aimed at men who identify as gay and bisexual, and is also used by people who identify as trans* (Lemke & Tornow, 2015). For the present research, the German subsample was included in the analyses. Participants in this subsample were on average 38.92 years old (SD = 12.45). After excluding participants who did not complete the questionnaire, completed the questionnaire in <300 s, indicated a place of residence out of Germany, indicated a sexual orientation different than gay or bisexual, or did not respond to one of the items assessing minority stress, N = 25,884 participants from Germany remained for the analyses. 0.8% (n = 220) of participants stated they had no educational qualifications, 34.9% (n = 9037) completed primary school, 30.0% (n = 7778) completed high school, and 34.2% (n = 8849) completed a university degree.

Measures

The personal importance of dating platforms was assessed by the question “How important is the following in helping you to find dates and sex with men?—Using chat and dating sites on the Internet.” Possible answers were 1: not important, 2: semi-important, 3: very important; M = 2.53, SD = 0.62.

Victimization was assessed by four items which asked participants about their experiences of victimization due to their sexual orientation: “Have you ever experienced victimization due to your sexual orientation?” The forms given were (1) Verbal insults, (2) Threatened with violence, (3) Minor physical assaults, (4) Serious physical assaults. Possible choices were 0: never, 1: yes, more than one year ago, 2: yes, in the last year. Responses were averaged to obtain a single score of victimization (M = 0.33, SD = 0.39, Cronbach’s α = .72).

Perceived Stigma was assessed via six items on participants’ perception of stigma: “Most people around me… (1) …believe that a gay/bisexual man is just as trustworthy as the average heterosexual citizen. (2) …will hire a gay/bisexual man if he is qualified for the job. (3) …would treat a gay/bisexual man just as they would treat anyone else. (4) …would willingly accept a gay/bisexual man as a close friend.” A second set of questions followed: “Most men around me… (5) …would willingly play in a sports team with a gay/bisexual man. (6) …would willingly share a changing cubicle and shower (e.g., in a public swimming pool or gym) with a gay/bisexual man.” Answers ranged from 0: strongly disagree, to 6: strongly agree. The scale was used instead of rejection sensitivity and more generally taps into perceived attitudes toward gay and bisexual men within individuals’ environment. To determine perceived stigma, average scores were built from the reversed responses (M = 1.77, SD = 1.33, Cronbach’s α = .89).

Internalized Homonegativity was assessed by five items: (1) “I am not worried about anyone finding out that I am gay/bisexual” (r), (2) “I feel comfortable discussing my homo-/bisexuality” (r), (3) “Even if I could change my sexual orientation, I wouldn’t” (r), (4) “I feel comfortable about being gay/bisexual” (r), (5) “I would prefer to be solely or more heterosexual.” Answers ranged from 0: strongly disagree, to 6: strongly agree; M = 1.54, SD = 1.48, Cronbach’s α = .81.

Finally, well-being was assessed by the satisfaction with life scale (see above; answers ranged from 1: strongly disagree, to 7: strongly agree; M = 4.92, SD = 1.44, Cronbach’s α = .91).

Study 2: Results

To address H1 (which assumed there were negative associations between minority stress and well-being), a multiple regression analysis was performed with minority stress dimensions as predictors and life satisfaction as a criterion variable. Victimization (β = −.16, p < .001), internalized homonegativity (β = −.28, p < .001), and perceived stigma (β = −.24, p < .001, R2 = .23) negatively predicted life satisfaction. H1 was thus supported.

H2, which assumed a negative relationship between minority stress and the use of dating platforms, was addressed within a multiple regression analysis with minority stress dimension as predictors and the use of dating platforms as a criterion. A small negative association emerged between victimization and dating platform use (β = −.04, p < .001), while relationships were positive for internalized homonegativity (β = .03, p < .001) and perceived stigma (β = .05, p < .001, R2 = .02). Overall, H2 found scarce support, with two of the three effects measured showing the opposite direction of what was hypothesized. On an exploratory level, the personal importance of ODS was marginally and negatively related to life satisfaction (r = −.05, p < .001).

H3 assumed that the use of dating platforms moderates the association between minority stress and well-being, with more use weakening the association. In a moderated regression analysis, minority stress dimensions, use of dating platforms, and the mean-centered products of the latter (moderation terms) were included as predictors, while life satisfaction served as a criterion. Dating platform use (for sex and dating) only moderated the association between internalized homonegativity and life satisfaction, yet the effect was very small (β = .02, p < .001). It did not moderate associations with perceived stigma (β = −.01, p = .109) and victimization (β = .01, p = .262). An analysis of simple slopes showed that in accordance with H3, the positive association between internalized homonegativity and life satisfaction weakens as the importance of dating platforms to individuals for sex and dating increases. In conclusion, there was limited support for H3.

Discussion

The present work addressed the role of online dating site use among gay and bisexual men to cope with the specific stressors they are confronted with due to their sexual orientations. Survey data from two studies found overall limited evidence that ODS are used to deal with the specific distress experienced by gay and bisexual men.

Minority stress impacts life satisfaction and affect

In line with prior research using national and international samples (Dürrbaum & Sattler, 2020; Meyer, 2003; Sattler & Lemke, 2019), the present work showed that the experience of minority stress among gay and bisexual men in Germany is substantially and negatively related to health-related outcomes. The present findings underscore that the experience of minority stress is not only related to an increased risk of mental health problems but that it also manifests itself in gay and bisexual men having lower levels of overall satisfaction with their lives, as well as experiencing diminished positive and increased negative affect. Internalized homonegativity predicted different indicators of well-being particularly strongly. However, experiences of victimization, rejection sensitivity, and perceptions of negative attitudes among gay and bisexual men (perceived stigma) are also linked to poorer well-being. Our findings suggest that gay and bisexual men are continuously exposed to stressors resulting from anti-queer prejudice and hostility that impair their well-being. However, prior work also showed that those exposed to minority stressors do not passively endure the resulting adversities but instead actively engage in coping strategies, e.g., by drawing on social support from the queer community (Sattler et al., 2016).

Limited effects of ODS use in coping

The present work addressed the role of online dating site use in coping with minority stress, and in both studies, weak support was found for the notion that the use of ODS generally buffers associations between minority stress and well-being. In accordance with related research (Zervoulis et al., 2020), our findings suggest that motivations for use are important when addressing online dating among gay and bisexual men and its associations with well-being. In contrast to related work, the present research found no evidence across two studies that online dating use generally decreases well-being in terms of life satisfaction, positive, and negative affect (see also Bonilla-Zorita et al., 2021).

The role of motivations of use

Furthermore, unlike the findings of prior work (Zervoulis et al., 2020), we found that using ODS to make friends or to find a partner can be beneficial under certain circumstances. For instance, those who use ODS to make new friends (and, hence, to gain social resources) appear to be more prepared to deal with internalized homonegativity and modify its impact on life satisfaction. When ODS is used to find a partner, it appears that the negative effects of minority stress on well-being may be exacerbated when increases in negative affect are experienced and mitigated when it comes to decreases in positive affect. Interestingly, the relational motive of searching for a partner appears to buffer the effects of rejection sensitivity as a “social dimension” of minority stress but also exacerbates the effects of internalized homonegativity as an “individual dimension” of minority stress. This supports the notion that coping with minority stress not only needs to be regarded distinctly for different coping strategies but also with regard to specific dimensions of minority stress (see findings by Sattler et al., 2016).

A further important finding is that those who specifically look for emotional support on ODS may not be very successful in coping with the effects of victimization using this method. Instead, and in contrast to findings on the potential of online media to aid affect regulation in coping with distress (see Wolfers & Schneider, 2021), expectations of finding emotional assistance on ODS may be frustrated by incongruencies with other users’ motives and even lead to an exacerbation of adverse effects of victimization experiences (see also Her & Timmermans, 2021; Zervoulis et al., 2020).

We also found that the use of ODS for dating and sexual encounters may buffer the negative impact of internalized homonegativity on life satisfaction, yet only to a small extent. Besides this, there was limited evidence on the effects on well-being of the perhaps most prominent motive for using ODS among gay and bisexual men, i.e., to find sex partners. Moreover, while most subjects named casual sexual encounters as the number one reason to use ODS, correlational findings show that frequency of use is at least as strongly associated with motives related to entertainment (using ODS to “kill time”) and with building/maintaining connections to the queer community. This puts into perspective the view that ODS use among gay and bisexual men is solely focused on sexuality and suggests that these platforms can be far more than simply platforms to facilitate anonymous and casual sexual encounters; for some people, they act as places that can help to create a positive identity, to find support by the community, and to form social relationships (Gudelunas, 2012). Our findings provide some support for the notion that instead of being harmful (e.g., Bonilla-Zorita et al., 2021), the possibility of acting out one’s sexuality through ODS may benefit the sexual and mental health of people with minoritized sexual identities. Through the accessibility of ODS, the latter might to some extent be more likely to develop a positive view of themselves, their identities, and sexuality.

The role of specific dating platforms

Lastly, the present work found some evidence that coping could be more successful on some dating platforms than on others. In particular, we found that the use of Tinder may mitigate the impact of rejection sensitivity on negative affect. The fact that Tinder appears not to be predominantly used for sexual encounters, but instead is primarily used for finding relationships (Her & Timmermans, 2021) may explain this finding. More precisely, with more users looking for committed relationships, it may be easier to find social resources which serve social needs previously violated by the expectation of social rejection. Furthermore, the function of “matching” employed by this platform (i.e., users can only write to each other when they show mutual interest beforehand) presumably decreases the risk of rejection experiences and frustrating interactions.

Limitations

The present work has some limitations which need to be taken into account when interpreting the findings. First, Study 1 is limited by its particularly small sample size. The limited accessibility of the target population and the sensitive topics touched upon by this study constrained our data collection. For this reason, even though our parameter estimates can provide useful information on the processes addressed within this study, they need to be interpreted with care regarding the relatively high risk of a type II error. More precisely, due to the small sample size, there is an increased likelihood of false negative results in terms of having missed effects that might have been detected with a larger sample. Moreover, some of the findings of study 1 are bolstered by statistically only marginally significant effects, which implies an increased risk of a type I error. In these cases, there is a higher likelihood of false positive results in terms of “finding” effects that might “disappear” in a larger sample. This is particularly true, for example, when it comes to the role of “Victimization” in the present analysis, which also showed only limited effects in other national and international analyses on well-being and sexual identity based on the Gay Happiness Monitor survey (Lemke, 2022; Sattler & Lemke, 2019). Nevertheless, particularly due to the investigation of different motives and different platforms in Study 1, which were both not available in the larger sample of Study 2, the combined interpretation of both studies helps to further understand the dynamics of online dating use and well-being. At the same time, results on the main hypotheses are bolstered by the findings of Study 2 (which employed a very large sample). However, there were some incongruencies in the operationalization of constructs between our two studies, which poses a further limitation. For instance, while in Study 1 the use of online dating was operationalized in more general terms and by frequency of usage, in Study 2 it related to the importance individuals placed on ODS for dating and sex. Furthermore, the operationalization of minority stress differed in some parts between Study 1 and Study 2. These divergences reduce the ability to compare results and are due to the use of extant survey data in Study 2. Most importantly, how men use dating platforms was asked in a rather specific way in Study 2 (personal importance of ODS for dating and sex), and therefore it remains unclear whether results would have differed if a more general operationalization had been used. To overcome these flaws, future research should base on large (and ideally representative) samples when addressing the role of specific motives of ODS use in dealing with the adverse effects of minority stress and compare the predictive value of different operationalizations of ODS use.

Conclusion

The present work is the first to investigate whether the use of online dating sites among gay and bisexual men can mitigate the negative impact of minority stress that has repeatedly been demonstrated by related research. It corroborates findings that minority stress also has negative effects on gay and bisexual men’s life satisfaction and the levels of positive and negative affective states experienced by them. In contrast to other research, however, the present work found no evidence that the use of ODS generally has a negative impact on gay and bisexual men’s well-being. Instead, it strengthened the notion that the adaptivity of online dating rather depends on the specific motivation underlying its use. In this regard, some of the present evidence supports the idea that ODS use can aid men in dealing with the adverse effects of minority stress. Furthermore, positive effects could be dependent on the specific dating platform used and its affordances. This work specifically adds to research on the minority stress model by emphasizing the importance of group-level coping through digital communication technologies. Altogether, the present work can advance knowledge on the understudied issue of well-being among members of vulnerable sexual minority groups, particularly by pointing to their agency in using digital technologies to deal with the adverse effects of social discrimination.

Note

1

The pre-registration file can be found here: https://osf.io/wgzn6?view_only=0c6dd170b54d410ea40cdfb327f10157.

Funding Statement

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

References

  1. Bonilla-Zorita, G., Griffiths, M. D., & Kuss, D. J. (2021). Online dating and problematic use: A systematic review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(6), 2245–2278. 10.1007/s11469-020-00318-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brooks, V. R. (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington Books. [Google Scholar]
  3. Chan, L. S. (2018). Ambivalence in networked intimacy: Observations from gay men using mobile dating apps. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2566–2581. 10.1177/1461444817727156 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Coffey, J. K., Bond, D. K., Stern, J. A., & Van Why, N. (2022). Sexual experiences and attachment styles in online and offline dating contexts. International Journal of Sexual Health, 34(4), 665–678. 10.1080/19317611.2022.2110349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dewaele, A., Van Houtte, M., Cox, N., & Vincke, J. (2013). From coming out to visibility management—A new perspective on coping with minority stressors in LGB youth in Flanders. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(5), 685–710. 10.1080/00918369.2013.773818 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dürrbaum, T., & Sattler, F. A. (2020). Minority stress and mental health in lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths: A meta-analysis. Journal of LGBT Youth, 17(3), 298–314. 10.1080/19361653.2019.1586615 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66. 10.1177/1529100612436522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldenberg, D. (2019). Disconnected connectedness: The paradox of digital dating for gay and bisexual men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 23(3), 360–366. 10.1080/19359705.2019.1620071 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gudelunas, D. (2012). There’s an App for that: The uses and gratifications of online social networks for gay men. Sexuality & Culture, 16(4), 347–365. 10.1007/s12119-012-9127-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J., & Myers, T. A. (2010). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. In Bucy E. P. (Ed.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (1st ed., pp. 434–465). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203938669 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Her, Y.-C., & Timmermans, E. (2021). Tinder blue, mental flu? Exploring the associations between Tinder use and well-being. Information, Communication & Society, 24(9), 1303–1319. 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1764606 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Herek, G. M., & Berrill, K. T. (1990). Documenting the victimization of lesbians and gay men: Methodological issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 301–315. 10.1177/088626090005003005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Janke, S., & Glöckner-Rist, A. (2012a). Deutsche Version der Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Zusammenstellung Sozialwissenschaftlicher Items Und Skalen. 10.6102/ZIS146 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Janke, S., & Glöckner-Rist, A. (2012b). Deutsche Version der Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Zusammenstellung Sozialwissenschaftlicher Items Und Skalen. 10.6102/ZIS147 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. King, M., Semlyen, J., Tai, S. S., Killaspy, H., Osborn, D., Popelyuk, D., & Nazareth, I. (2008). A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people. BMC Psychiatry, 8(1), 70. 10.1186/1471-244X-8-70 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17(3), 377–390. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lemke, R. (2022). Linking public opinion perception, minority, and stigma – An integrated model of hiding male same-sex affection in public. Journal of Homosexuality, 1–29. 10.1080/00918369.2022.2059970 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lemke, R. (2020). The association of the availability of offline gay scenes and national tolerance of homosexuality with gay and bisexual men’s sexual online dating behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106172. 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106172 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lemke, R., & Tornow, T. (2015). Gay happiness monitor—Results overview from a global survey on perceived gay-related public opinion and gay well-being. Johannes Gutenberg University. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lemke, R., & Weber, M. (2017). That man behind the curtain: Investigating the sexual online dating behavior of men who have sex with men but hide their same-sex sexual attraction in offline surroundings. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(11), 1561–1582. 10.1080/00918369.2016.1249735 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36(1), 38–56. 10.2307/2137286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Miller, B. (2020). A picture is worth 1000 messages: Investigating face and body photos on mobile dating apps for men who have sex with men. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(13), 1798–1822. 10.1080/00918369.2019.1610630 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Pachankis, J. E. (2015). A transdiagnostic minority stress treatment approach for gay and bisexual men’s syndemic health conditions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(7), 1843–1860. 10.1007/s10508-015-0480-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ranzini, G. (2021). So how did you two meet? Exploring the role of online dating in the composition of LGBTQ couples. In Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association (ICA), Online Conference. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rich, A. J., Salway, T., Scheim, A., & Poteat, T. (2020). Sexual minority stress theory: Remembering and honoring the work of Virginia Brooks. LGBT Health, 7(3), 124–127. 10.1089/lgbt.2019.0223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Rosenfeld, M. J. (2018). Are Tinder and dating apps changing dating and mating in the USA? In van Hook J., McHale S. M., & King V. (Eds.), National symposium on family issues: Vol. 9. Families and technology (pp. 103–117). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547. 10.1177/0003122412448050 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sattler, F. A., & Lemke, R. (2019). Testing the cross-cultural robustness of the minority stress model in gay and bisexual men. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(2), 189–208. 10.1080/00918369.2017.1400310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sattler, F. A., Wagner, U., & Christiansen, H. (2016). Effects of minority stress, group-level coping, and social support on mental health of German gay men. PLOS One, 11(3), e0150562. 10.1371/journal.pone.0150562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sattler, F. A., Zeyen, J., & Christiansen, H. (2017). Does sexual identity stress mediate the association between sexual identity and mental health? Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4(3), 296–303. 10.1037/sgd0000232 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sönmez, İ., Berg, R. C., Yazıcılaroğlu, S. S., Thurlby, N., & Schmidt, A. J. (2022). Comparison of the influence of internalized homonegativity on sexual risk behavior of men who have sex with men in Spain and Turkey. International Journal of Sexual Health, 34(4), 644–657. 10.1080/19317611.2022.2094043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Sumter, S. R., & Vandenbosch, L. (2019). Dating gone mobile: Demographic and personality-based correlates of using smartphone-based dating applications among emerging adults. New Media & Society, 21(3), 655–673. 10.1177/1461444818804773 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Van De Wiele, C., & Tong, S. T. (2014). Breaking boundaries: The uses & gratifications of grindr. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 619–630). 10.1145/2632048.2636070 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Wolfers, L. N., & Schneider, F. M. (2021). Using media for coping: A scoping review. Communication Research, 48(8), 1210–1234. 10.1177/0093650220939778 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Zervoulis, K., Smith, D. S., Reed, R., & Dinos, S. (2020). Use of ‘gay dating apps’ and its relationship with individual well-being and sense of community in men who have sex with men. Psychology & Sexuality, 11(1–2), 88–102. 10.1080/19419899.2019.1684354 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Sexual Health are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES