Breaking Boundaries: The Uses & Gratifications of Grindr
Chad Van De Wiele
Wayne State University
585 Manoogian Hall, Detroit, MI 48201
ctvandew@gmail.com
Stephanie Tom Tong
Wayne State University
569 Manoogian Hall, Detroit, MI 48201
stephanie.tong@wayne.edu
ABSTRACT
“People-nearby applications” (PNAs) are a form of
ubiquitous computing that connect users based on their
physical location data. One example is Grindr, a popular
PNA that facilitates connections among gay and bisexual
men. Adopting a uses and gratifications approach, we
conducted two studies. In study one, 63 users reported
motivations for Grindr use through open-ended
descriptions. In study two, those descriptions were coded
into 26 items that were completed by 525 Grindr users.
Factor analysis revealed six uses and gratifications: social
inclusion, sex, friendship, entertainment, romantic
relationships, and location-based search. Two additional
analyses examine (1) the effects of geographic location
(e.g., urban vs. suburban/rural) on men’s use of Grindr and
(2) how Grindr use is related to self-disclosure of
information. Results highlight how the mixed-mode nature
of PNA technology may change the boundaries of online
and offline space, and how gay and bisexual men navigate
physical environments.
Author Keywords
People-Nearby Applications; Location-Based Social
Networks; Uses and Gratifications
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.2 User Interfaces
INTRODUCTION
The increasing modernization and expansion of the Internet
has produced a growth in the use of technology for social
purposes. This is particularly true for gay and bisexual men;
many scholars have argued that because of the stress
associated with organizing in the heteronormative
environment, gay men have turned to the Internet as a non-
threatening space in which to form connections, pursue
relationships, and develop their personal sexual identities
[2, 20, 32]. Before the Internet, gay and bisexual men
connected in various physical spaces, such as community
centers, bathhouses, cruising parks, and bathrooms. The
drawbacks of these physical spaces were the potential for
violence/rape, police arrest in public venues, or fear of
being “outed” [19]. In addition, such physical spaces were
often less available to men who lived in rural or suburban
areas [17]. Therefore, the Internet gave gay and bisexual
men a much-needed way to connect in an always-
accessible, publicly available, anonymous space [47].
This early adoption of the Internet is one reason that gay
and bisexual men’s use of technology has attracted
scholarly attention. However, despite the potentiality for
other research topics of interest, the bulk of previous work
regarding gay men and the Internet has centered on risky
sexual behaviors (i.e., “barebacking” or unprotected anal
intercourse), the spread of HIV/AIDS, or Internet addiction
and pornography [4, 5, 6, 30]. As Grov et al. [19] note, “In
contrast to technological advances, many of our research
questions remain grounded in models of disease
prevention.” Thus as new systems emerge and users adopt
them, current research foci must expand to reflect the
broader range of social, psychological, and technological
issues that are present among today’s population of gay and
bisexual men.
To fill this gap in the literature, we focus on the specific
user motivations of a form of ubiquitous computing known
as Grindr. Classified as a “location-based real-time” dating
application, or a “people nearby application” (PNA), Grindr
was developed and designed specifically for gay men. In
this study, we argue that the integration of location-based
data in Grindr has significantly changed the way gay and
bisexual men approach social connectivity by breaking
down the boundaries that previously governed physical and
virtual spaces.
In brief, PNAs are designed to collect each user’s
geographic location from a mobile phone. That location is
then transmitted to a centralized server, allowing other
users to access that information to see who is nearby [40].
Because of its immense popularity, both the popular press
and academic literature have speculated on how and why
men use Grindr. For example, outlets such as Vanity Fair
and The New York Times have suggested that the
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for
components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored.
Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to
post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org.
UbiComp '14, September 13 – 17, 2014, Seattle, WA, USA
Copyright 2014 ACM 978-1-4503-2968-2/14/09…$15.00.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2632048.2636070
overwhelming (if not sole) motivation for Grindr use is for
“casual sex” or “hook ups” [22, 50]. More recently, public
health research has documented the spread of sexually
transmitted diseases among men who report using Grindr
[33]. As Crooks [11] notes: “Although Grindr is relatively
new, the way it has so far registered in print, on television,
and in public health literature certainly recalls many
characterizations of gay life as laughable, hyper-sexualized,
or dangerous.”
While we agree with Crooks’s assessment of the current
representations of Grindr, previous survey research has
indeed shown that users frequently turn to Grindr to fulfill
sexual gratifications [25, 34]. However, also present in this
research are results that suggest other, less obvious
motivations for use, such as friendship, dating, or
monogamous romantic relationship initiation [20, 25, 34].
Despite these reports, many researchers note that there is
still a lack of consensus as to why men use PNA
technology, and their motivations for doing so [7, 19]:
“While the service is indubitably popular, its announced
reason for being remains deliberately vague” [11].
Therefore, the current study aims to (a) clarify user
motivations and (b) identify the communicative outcomes
associated with using ubiquitous technologies like Grindr.
The current research adopted a two-study approach. First,
by applying the uses and gratifications framework [23] we
add to the extant literature regarding the specific
motivations of Grindr use among gay and bisexual men. In
particular, we focus on the intersection of physical and
virtual environments to examine how Grindr use may differ
across localities. Secondly, as PNAs are a relatively new
form of ubiquitous computing, we examine how these
different motives for use affect self-disclosure on Grindr.
Lastly, it is important to note that while the current study
does include men of “other” sexual orientation whom we
reference as “MSMs” (i.e., men who have sex with other
men, but who do not identify themselves as gay or
bisexual), we concentrated on self-identified gay and
bisexual men, and how they use Grindr to fulfill different
physical, social, and psychological needs. Uncovering
motivations and understanding associated communication
behavior may enable better design of PNA technology by
uncovering the features that enable user experience and
satisfaction.
GRINDR: A PEOPLE-NEARBY APPLICATION
With more than four million users worldwide in 192
countries and roughly 10,000 new users downloading the
application daily, Grindr has proven to be a popular PNA
among gay and bisexual men [26]. Grindr functions in both
physical and virtual environments, which allows users to
connect with others in two ways. First, online presence is
established through a personal profile. Secondly, physical
presence is displayed by location data. In this way, Grindr
facilitates “mixed-mode” contact in which online
communication initiated through Grindr carries over to
immediate physical, offline contact. This is unlike other
(non-locative, web-based) dating websites where the
prospect of future physical interaction is a distant, or
anticipated possibility rather than an explicit reason for use.
Regarding online presence, users create profiles, which they
may personalize with a photo, a range of demographic
information, and an optional link to Facebook, Twitter, or
LinkedIn. Users are able to modify various sections of their
profile with content about their relationship status,
ethnicity, age, height, and weight. Furthermore, they may
specify their intentions for using Grindr in the “looking for”
section, by selecting from a list, including: chat, dates,
friends, networking, and relationship. Most users craft
profiles that contain some or all of these available elements,
while avoiding the display of content that Grindr has
recently banned (e.g., no content that suggests pornography,
drugs, firearms, or advertisements). Using this information,
individuals can prescreen and search for others based on
their personal preferences. Overall, the option to present
personal attributes and preferences on Grindr gives users a
“sliding scale of anonymity” [20] regarding the self-
disclosure of personal information.
In addition, Grindr gives users the ability to physically
locate partners using location-based technology. This is
done using the “show distance” feature that (when enabled)
indicates (in feet) how close one is to other available Grindr
members. This capability is unique to PNAs and allows
users to quickly translate online connections to offline
interactions, creating a “bridge” between virtual and
physical environments [41].
The design and ubiquity of Grindr offer a unique blend of
offline and online dynamics. The application itself
advertises its ability to locate other men who are “0 feet
away,” suggesting that Grindr can provide virtual and
physical access to other users along with geographic and
temporal immediacy. As a result, many men may expect to
achieve specific outcomes from its use. Of the studies that
have examined Grindr use, a resounding theme is the
myriad of motivations that users report [3, 7, 10, 11, 20, 25,
34]. As Crooks [11] noted: “…I often ask men I am
chatting with what they think Grindr is for and have yet to
solicit the same response twice, reflecting the open-ended
nature of the app and the strategic uses to which it is put.”
To provide a more systematic framework to investigate
potential user motivations, we turn to the uses and
gratifications (U&G) perspective of media use.
USES AND GRATIFICATIONS
The U&G framework assumes that individuals’ needs
influence their media use, and the outcomes obtained from
that media use attract and hold them to media content [35].
Overall, the U&G framework aims to identify: “The social
and psychological origins of needs, which generate
expectations of the mass media or other sources, which lead
to differential patterns of media exposure… resulting in
need gratifications and other consequences” [23]. These
need gratifications are defined as either sought or obtained;
gratifications sought refer to the intended or expected gains
from media use, whereas gratifications obtained are the
actual gains experienced from media use.
Also central to the U&G framework is the “active
audience” assumption, which considers the individual-level
intensions that connect need gratification and media choice
[23]. The active audience assumption suggests that
individuals are aware of their own social and psychological
needs, and actively seek out media to fulfill them. U&G
theorists acknowledge the reciprocal relationship between
users’ intentions and behaviors, articulating that while
users’ needs guide gratifications, both sought and obtained
gratifications may influence their needs [37].
Although the U&G framework was originally developed to
investigate and identify mass media effects, it has also been
applied to explain individuals’ use of newer Internet
technology [12, 21, 24, 28, 37] and mobile technology [18,
46]. One important difference between the early focus on
traditional mass media (such as television) and the shift to
new communication technologies is the greater degree of
interactivity the latter systems provide to users. In the U&G
context, interactivity refers to the degree of control
individuals experience in the communicative process; for
example, users’ ability to contribute information to the
system, the responsiveness of a medium to its users, and the
degree to which a medium facilitates communication
among users [35]. Thus the high degree of interactivity of
Internet and mobile communication technologies is not
merely consistent with the active audience assumption of
U&G, it extends the assumption—as interactivity increases,
so does the audience’s control over media, which gives
them a more “immediate” route to gratification than that
provided by traditional mass media systems [1].
Initial research on the behavior of mobile phone users
identified primary gratifications of sociability, relaxation,
mobility, immediacy, and instrumentality [27]. Although
these gratifications were identified as affordances of the
basic mobile phone, individual needs have changed along
with the technologies through which they are gratified. As
Weiss [48] explains, the motivations and gratifications of
today’s mobile phone users have transformed as these
devices have advanced. One such extension of the mobile
phone is the integration of ubiquitous computing systems
like Grindr.
But to uncover the specific uses and gratifications of Grindr
requires a deeper understanding of the confluence of place,
space, technology, and communication behavior of gay and
bisexual men. Below, we review how Grindr may facilitate
the breakdown of boundaries between online and offline,
public and private, and heteronormative and gay
communities.
SPACE, PLACE, BOUNDARIES, & TECHNOLOGY
In the past, the distinction between online and offline
spaces for gay men was very stark; offline spaces like
bathhouses or community centers were treated as distinctly
separate from online spaces [7]. And although Internet
chatrooms, bulletin boards, and other online channels were
sometimes used to arrange or coordinate meetups in offline
locations, they also functioned as independent spaces for
men to connect with each other in purely online contexts.
Furthermore, both online and offline spaces were often
isolated from heteronormative spaces, effectively excluding
gay and bisexual men (as well as transgender and lesbian
individuals) from heterosexualized environments [17].
These online/offline, hetero/gay boundaries often “forced”
gay men and women to choose between modalities and
cultures. However, because Grindr’s PNA technology
facilitates “co-situation” of spaces, these boundaries are
now much more fluid [7]. Grindr’s ability to integrate
seamlessly multiple contexts may result in a re-definition of
space and place within gay/bisexual and heteronormative
environments.
The Desegregation of Gay Space: Grindr in the
“Gayborhood”
Perhaps what makes Grindr so revolutionary is its ability to
redistribute and redefine the boundaries of “gay space.” The
importance of physical space for gay and bisexual men and
women was first reflected in the formation of
“gayborhoods” or “gay villages.” Historically, these spaces
arose after gay men and women were dishonorably
discharged from military service in World War II and
decided to form gay districts such as the Castro or WeHo
[15, 38]. Gayborhoods have existed for many years in
different forms, and have functioned to provide protection
in numbers, political and social networks, information
exchange, and increased community visibility and pride
[11, 38]. But recently some scholars have noted a “post-
gay” era in which the gayborhood’s distinction as a “gay”
social space is decreasing. As rising numbers of gay men
and women live among heterosexuals and more
heterosexual couples move into gay districts [9, 36], trends
between the 2000 and 2010 US Census data show that 87%
of gay male partners and 93% of lesbian women lived in
cities where segregation declined [38]. Desegregation may
signify greater tolerance, integration, or acceptance of
homosexuality, but others have argued this new post-gay
era characterizes a fragmenting of the gay community.
We argue that one reason Grindr has become so popular
among gay men is its ability to enable the current
desegregation of hetero/gay boundaries while
simultaneously maintaining (or even increasing) a feeling
of “virtual visibility” of the gay community. Specifically,
gay and bisexual men may use Grindr as a way to integrate
into heteronormative spaces, allowing desegregation to
continue while maintaining knowledge of the “queer
cartography” that defines their community [3]. In this way,
PNA technology can help individuals locate the gay
community that now exists outside of the districts that were
once zoned as gay villages.
As Batiste [3] suggests, the gay community is not a
“monolithic entity,” and construing it as such is not
necessarily our point. Rather, we wish to point out that gay
men may be using Grindr to achieve community-building
gratifications. Other scholars have also noted Grindr’s
potential to fulfill this purpose: “…just using these
applications creates a sense of community as members
continuously see each other online; they feel a part of
something” [3]. Thus, the connectivity that Grindr provides
may allow gay men to fulfill their needs for network
visibility and desegregation as they simultaneously
circumvent and integrate into heteronormative
environments.
As gay and bisexual men use Grindr to change the
demarcation and denotation of their community boundaries,
they may also be able to fulfill other social and/or
psychological gratifications. The “remapping the
heteronormative space” allows for the development of a
culture “through which gay men experience feelings of
community and belonging, in the form of friendships,
sexual liaisons or romantic relationships” [3]. Studies
indicate that Grindr has reportedly been used for the
initiation and development of friendships, monogamous
romantic relationships, and dating relationships [3, 10, 11,
20, 32]. Other scholars have been more critical of Grindr’s
role in the gay community, suggesting that it furthers
pragmatic functions (e.g., information exchange), but does
little to advance more affective issues (e.g., political aims)
of gay culture [11]. Yet overall, Grindr’s impact on and
adoption by gay and bisexual men cannot be understated.
Although a review of the existing research has allowed us
to identify broad classifications of physical (sex), social
(friendships, romantic relationships), and psychological
(sense of community) motives, to gain a more complete
understanding, the current study relied on the U&G
framework. This approach reflects a stronger grounding in
media theory as a much-needed addition to the research
currently being performed in public health areas. We
advance the following research question:
RQ1: What specific physical, social, and psychological
gratifications do gay, bisexual, and MSMs seek to fulfill
when engaging in Grindr use?
THE CURRENT STUDY
We adopted the traditional two-study U&G approach for
the current research [21, 29]. In Study 1, Grindr users were
asked to describe their general motives for using the
application. From these descriptions, a taxonomy was
generated using thematic coding and used to form the basis
of close-ended survey items. In Study 2, these items were
administered to a larger sample of Grindr users, and then
factor-analyzed to identify recurring motives of use.
STUDY 1 METHODOLOGY
Participants
The sample for Study 1 consisted of 63 men, ages 18 and
older (M= 22.18, SD= 4.01). The sample was 68%
Caucasian, 8% Hispanic, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2%
African-American, and 13% other, and 4% did not respond.
Respondents were 84% gay, 6% bisexual, 6% other, and
4% did not respond. Participants were recruited using the
Grindr application and social network websites, including
Facebook, Reddit, Tumblr, and Twitter. A snowball
sampling strategy was utilized in which participants were
asked to share the survey weblink with other known Grindr
users who fit the sampling criteria. The survey was open for
six weeks between the months of May and June 2013. Data
collection was closed when open-ended responses seemed
to reach the “saturation” point.
After indicating their informed consent, participants
accessed an online survey, and gave their responses to the
questionnaire items described below. Upon completion,
they were asked to help recruit other potential participants
who might have fit the inclusion criteria, were debriefed,
and thanked.
Measures
The online survey included four open-ended questions
adapted from an initial inventory of measures [21, 39]: (1)
What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think
about what you enjoy most when accessing Grindr? (2)
What other words describe what you enjoy most about
interacting through Grindr? (3) Using easy-to-understand
terms, please describe what you use Grindr for, and (4)
What functions of Grindr are most important to you?
As a form of ubiquitous computing, PNAs allow users to be
constantly logged on so Grindr use was not operationalized
in terms of overall number of hours or minutes participants
spent on the application, as this might have been difficult
for them to estimate and report. Instead, Grindr usage was
operationalized as: “On average, how many times do you
check your Grindr account in a given day?” Lastly,
participants were asked for basic demographic information.
Results
After removal of one outlier, analyses indicated that
respondents checked their Grindr account an average of
5.59 times daily (SD = 6.54). Responses ranged from 1 to
52, suggesting that all participants were familiar enough
with the application to answer the questions above.
The responses collected from Grindr users were coded
using thematic analysis, which is a method used for
“identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns (themes)
within data” [8]. Two coders examined the data from open-
ended responses, looking for patterned or related words or
statements within each response. These patterned themes
were then discussed and labeled according to their
commonalities. Thematic analysis has been used in
previous U&G research as a way to “identify responses that
are related” and find commonalities in open-ended response
data [21]. From this initial examination, six unique themes
emerged as primary categories associated with Grindr use
as seen in Table 1. These themes were used as the basis for
coding, and the data set was analyzed for frequency of
mentions.
Table 1: Open-ended descriptions of Grindr use
Analysis revealed that although casual sex was still very
popular, many participants described other gratifications.
For example, one participant mentioned the role Grindr
plays in creating “…a sense of community. The community
may be overtly and almost strictly sexual, but it’s a
community nonetheless. Its [sic] comforting to know that
there are other homosexual men in my small, rural area.”
Another motive was social inclusion and appeared to center
around approval-seeking and social acceptance. One
participant noted how Grindr helped him fulfill that need
for self-validation: “External validation. It feels good
knowing that there are attractive guys out there who think
I'm aesthetically pleasing.”
Also uncovered in the analysis was an entertainment
motivation. Some users reported that they didn’t actually
use Grindr for much interaction, but rather because, in the
words of one participant, he “love[s] laughing at some of
the ridiculous profiles.”
Other participants noted how Grindr facilitates basic social
interaction with other men. In addition to common themes
of “friendships” or “just talking to people” others noted
how PNAs can help start interaction by providing overt
identification of sexual orientation: “The ability to see self-
identifying gay men organized by geographic distance to
my location, whereas this can be a difficult task in the real
world because not everyone is easily identifiable as a
homosexual, and this can allow you to talk to someone you
otherwise wouldn’t be able to talk to in the real world.”
The fact that Grindr provides a place where one’s sexual
preferences are made explicitly known to others was seen
as a distinct communicative advantage that helped increase
social interaction: “I enjoy scoping out men who I might see
in the area who I would not normally approach as
potentially interested in other men. It sucks talking to and
feeling out whether a guy might be interested in going out,
only to find out he's actually straight. It can then be
awkward trying to segue that to a friendship.” Such themes
resonate with previous research indicating that Grindr
facilitates the social identification and signaling of the
(unobservable) qualities of queerness and openness among
gay men [10]. Lastly, romantic partnership motives were
also mentioned: “I was using to hopefully find someone
special.”
STUDY 2 METHODOLOGY
The open-ended responses from Study 1 were used to
generate the survey items detailed below. Based on the
participants’ descriptive responses, close-ended items were
generated for a large-scale online survey. Each item
contained a separate use item for the participant to evaluate.
Whenever possible, items were worded using participants’
responses from the open-ended questions from Study 1.
Participants
Participants were recruited using the same sampling
methods from Study 1. After removing incomplete and
unfinished surveys, the final sample consisted of 525 men,
aged 18 to 54 (M= 24.26, SD= 5.61). The sample was 82%
Caucasian, 5.8% Hispanic, 5.6% Asian/Pacific Islander,
1.9% African American, and 5% other. Respondents were
86% gay, 12% bisexual, 1% other, and 1% did not respond.
Daily number of account checks ranged from 1 to 50, M =
5.73, SD = 8.01. The survey was open between August and
November 2013.
Additional geographic location data for individual
respondents was also collected. The online survey tool
recorded the Internet protocol (IP) address of each
participant’s computer when they accessed the survey.
Using a combination of online geolocation providers and
third party websites (e.g., American Registry for Internet
Numbers, ipinfo.io, iplocation.net), participants’ geographic
locations were obtained by analyzing each individual IP
address. This process refers to the pairing of an IP address
to a geographical location, using host and network data.
Although this is not a measure of specific location, this data
collection method did provide a usable estimate in a way
that also retained respondent anonymity as suggested by the
institution’s IRB review board.
After excluding those with unverifiable IP addresses (N =
2), the remaining sample was 77% American with
participants representing 47 of the United States (including
Washington DC, excluding Idaho, New Hampshire, North
Dakota), and another 22% came from 25 additional
countries around the world. As Grindr’s usage statistics
Category
Exemplars
Frequency
Socializing
Talking to strangers;
Finding new friends
89
Sex
Hooking up with guys
42
Entertainment
I love laughing at
some of the ridiculous
profiles; Kill time
22
Romantic
Partnership
I was using Grindr to
hopefully find
someone special
17
Social
Inclusion
Ego boost; People
complimenting me
13
Community
It allows you to meet
part of the gay
community around you
9
suggest, they are operating in 192 countries, so these
localities are not entirely surprising.
Measures
The same demographic and Grindr use measures used in
Study 1 were used in Study 2. In addition, participants were
asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale for each close-
ended use item, “How important are each of the following
uses of Grindr to you, personally?” Response options
ranged from 1 = not at all important to 7 = very important.
There were a total of 26 statements representing the
gratifications of Grindr use.
Results
Responses were analyzed in order to identify overall
frequency of response, as well as to identify underlying
factor structure. The 26 items were subjected to an
exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation.
Consistent with previous U&G research [21, 24], criteria
for retention included eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater,
individual factor loadings of 0.5 or above, no significant
cross-loadings, and a simple interpretation with at least two
items per factor. We also examined the data to ensure that
all items contained sufficient variability. Factor loadings
and scree plot examination revealed six unique factors that
explained 68.83% of the variance. Application of these
criteria resulted in the factors described in the tables below.
Three items were dropped from the factor structure due to
low primary factor loadings.
Items loading on Factor 1 suggested that Grindr users are
seeking attention from other users or to alleviate feelings of
loneliness. Because each contained a statement regarding
the user-generated gratification of inclusion or attention,
this factor was labeled “social inclusion/approval” (α =
.95).
Table 2: Items and factor loadings for Factor 1
Four items loaded on Factor 2, which focused primarily on
sex gratifications, such as finding new partners for
casual/random sex (α = .91). This factor is consistent with
previous literature documenting gay men’s use of social
technologies for sexual gratifications.
Table 3: Items and factor loadings for Factor 2
Five items loaded significantly onto Factor 3 suggesting the
intended gratification of friendship building. The social
focus of these items such as “Find new friends” suggested a
“friendship/social network building” factor that reflected
community building and network visibility (α = .82).
Table 4: Items and factor loadings for Factor 3
Factor 4 contained four items that included browsing the
application for fun, or when bored, or curious (α = .67).
Items in this factor seemed to suggest a primary act of
“people watching” or “browsing” through profiles, without
the intention to actually initiating contact with any users.
This suggested an “entertainment” gratification, paralleling
other U&G studies on media use.
Table 5: Items and factor loadings for Factor 4
Factor 5 was labeled “romantic dating/relationships.” This
factor was indicated by motives such as looking for a dating
partner, long-term relationship, or boyfriend, and consisted
of two items (α= .92).
Table 6: Items and factor loadings for Factor 5
The three items loading on Factor 6 included user-intended
gratifications of “location-based search” functions by
“using the location service” (α= .66). This factor is unique
to PNA technologies, and represents a new content
gratification based on the availability of data provided by
the application.
Table 7: Items and factor loadings for Factor 6
Regarding RQ1, six distinct gratification factors were found
to be associated with Grindr use. Casual sex was still a clear
motive for use; however, respondents indicated additional
Factor 4: Entertainment
Loading
Identify new guys when I'm in an unfamiliar
location
.615
Satisfy my social curiosity
.673
Look at pictures of other men
.737
Alleviate my boredom
.503
Factor 1: Social Inclusion/Approval
Loading
Get self-validation from others
.923
To get an “ego-boost”
.925
Feel less loneliness
.600
Get attention from other gay men
.855
Get compliments from other guys
.929
Factor 2: Sex
Loading
Find new sexual partners
.923
Hook up with other guys
.945
Satisfy my sexual curiosity
.678
Have casual/random sex
.916
Factor 3: Friendship/Network
Loading
Find new friends
.600
Talk to my friends
.711
Build my social/friendship network
.834
“Plug-in" to the existing gay network
around me
.696
See what's happening in the gay community
.715
Factor 5: Romantic Relationships
Loading
Find someone to date
.906
Find a long-term relationship, partner, or
boyfriend
.890
Factor 6: Location-Based Searching
Loading
Meet other gay guys in the area
.721
Find other guys using the location service
.660
Talk to other guys in the gay community
.595
motivations. Many reported using Grindr to seek out social
inclusion/approval from other members; some reported
using the application to find long-term relational partners.
Others seemed to fit within the broader “socialization”
category identified in Study 1, but the factor analysis results
indicated that these motives were composed of two discrete
factors of friendship/social network building and location-
based searching. Not surprisingly, the factor of location-
based searching does showcase the uniqueness of Grindr’s
PNA features, and the ways in which individuals are
motivated to use this particular aspect of ubiquitous
computing. Participants also reported entertainment as a
motivation for use. Many other U&G studies have found
“entertainment” or “amusement” to be a major motivation
for use of a variety of interactive media, including social
network sites [37], text messaging [18], instant messaging
and email [24]. As an entertaining and interactive PNA,
Grindr is no exception.
Although uncovering the U&G of Grindr was the main
focus of this research, we also examined other ways in
which these uses of Grindr were both affected by and
influenced other behaviors.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION & IMPACT ON GRINDR USE
As PNAs make physical locality salient within a virtual
environment, we wanted to know how geography affects
Grindr use. Specifically, we hypothesized that the degree to
which gay and bisexual men use Grindr to fulfill need-
based gratifications would also depend upon their
geography. Because gay villages are typically found in
urban areas, this makes Internet access, social media, and
PNAs even more important to men who live in rural or
suburban areas and do not have access to a nearby gay
community. The different use of social media among those
in rural and urban areas has been well documented for all
users of technology [13], but especially for gay and
bisexual men, and MSMs [17].
Following existing work [3, 7, 17], it is predicted that the
gratifications of Grindr that men report may differ with
respect to the different geographic locations in which they
live. As Gray [17] states, “Unlike their urban and suburban
peers, young people living between the metropoles of San
Francisco, Chicago, and Manhattan face vastly different
access to agencies serving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender-identifying youth.” Urban areas provide better
access to gay villages, and so, men living in these areas do
not need Grindr for community building. However,
community visibility and network building would seem to
be most important for those men living in rural or suburban
areas who lack access to gay villages or communities:
H1a: Gay and bisexual men living in rural/suburban areas
report friendship/social network gratifications as being
more important than gay and bisexual men living in large
urban areas.
However, previous research done among urban populations
of gay and bisexual men suggests sex gratifications may be
more important for those living in larger urban areas. A
survey performed among men living in New York City
found casual sex to be rated as the most important use for
Grindr [34]. As previous research suggests, the ability and
potentiality to have anonymous sex with multiple partners
may be greater in urban areas rather than small towns [11].
H1b: Gay and bisexual men living in large urban areas
report sex gratifications as being more important than gay
and bisexual men living in rural/suburban areas.
Participants
Participants were the same as those described in Study 2.
To address H1a and H1b, the sample was first categorized
using classifications provided by the 2010 US Census. The
sample was divided into participants residing in “urban
areas” (e.g., population 50,000 or more) and those who
lived in “urban clusters” (e.g., population between 2,500
and 50,000) and rural areas (e.g., population under 2,500).
We excluded those individuals whose IP addresses
indicated international locations, as US Census
classifications were not appropriate to define locality. These
procedures left a total N = 407 respondents with 67% (N =
273) classified as living in urban areas and 33% (N = 134)
in urban clusters or rural areas. In the analyses described
below, urban clusters and rural locations were collapsed
into a single group and compared to urban areas.
Results
Two independent samples t-tests were conducted to
examine differences in Grindr use on the sex and
friendship/social network factors uncovered in RQ1.
Despite unequal group sizes, both analyses met
homogeneity of variance assumptions.
Regarding H1a, a significant difference was found for the
friendship/social network gratification factor, t (405) =
1.87, p = .031 (1-tailed). Men living in smaller urban
clusters (M = 3.70, SD = 1.36) reported that the
friendship/social network factor was significantly more
important than those men who resided in larger urban areas
(M = 3.41, SD = 1.38). This difference parallels arguments
made by many [7, 11, 17] about the different patterns of
Internet and social media use by gay men living in urban
versus rural areas. H1a was supported.
With respect to H1b, men living in urban areas (M =4.29,
SD = 1.74) reported greater importance of sex gratifications
than those living in smaller urban clusters (M = 3.95, SD =
1.75), t (405) = -1.82, p = .035 (1-tailed). Consistent with
previous research conducted among men sampled from
urban areas of West Hollywood and Long Beach, CA [34]
we found sex motives to be more important to men living in
urban areas compared to those in suburban/rural areas. As a
whole, the results of RQ1, H1a, and H1b suggest that
previous assumptions about the nature of physical space
and PNA use were supported by empirical observation.
THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON GRINDR
These results provide an important set of findings that help
describe and explain the nature of Grindr use. However, the
current research also investigated if such motives might be
able to further explain the communication behavior that
men display on the application. Of particular interest is the
amount of personal information that Grindr users self-
disclose in their profiles.
Toch and Levi [40] point out that the revelation of certain
information on PNAs can function as “trust mechanisms”
whereby users can signal to one another that they are more
or less truthful in their identity. Conveying trust in online
environments is also an important concept in warranting
theory [43, 44]. Walther and Parks [43] describe warranting
as the ability to provide a strong connection between one’s
self-presented online persona and a real “corporeally-
anchored” body in the physical world. An example of
warranting might be a user who presents self-described
demographics, and then links those self-descriptions
through photographs as a form of corroboration. When
users provide links to their other established social network
website accounts (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) this can
provide a way to verify one’s personal identity.
Of course, the desire to establish warrants through self-
disclosed information is tempered by the need to manage
one’s personal privacy. The risk of sharing information can
be too great for some users. For example, fears of being
sexually harassed or physically attacked are risks of Grindr
use often sensationalized by the popular press. More likely,
however, is the risk of being “outed” or recognized on
Grindr, which means some users are reluctant to post
photos in which they are physically identifiable. Thus one
factor that may affect a man’s amount of disclosure is his
sexual identity.
Some scholars have noted that the degree to which an
individual is “out” or “closeted” in his sexuality may affect
his willingness to share personal information with others:
“A closeted man may be unable, or unwilling, to be
completely honest online for fear of social repercussions”
[3]. Blackwell et al. [7] suggest that a man’s need to
conceal his information may be heightened if he does not
want to be identified within his professional community or
in other online or offline interaction spaces. Thus a
potential variable that may affect the communication of
self-disclosure is a man’s “degree of outness.” As a result,
we chose to measure and control for this variable in the
analyses below.
Overall, we predict that users who are motivated to use
Grindr to find casual sexual partners will likely embrace the
application’s enablement of anonymity, and disclose less
personal information than those who use Grindr to find
long-term relational partners or platonic friendships. We
also control for the possibility that one’s degree of outness
may affect willingness to self-disclose personal
information. Therefore, we advanced the following research
questions:
RQ2a: Which gratifications of Grindr use are related to the
frequency of self-disclosure on the application?
RQ2b: Which gratifications of Grindr use are related to the
honesty of self-disclosure on the application?
Participants
The same sample of participants described in Study 2 was
used in this analysis; however all participants (regardless of
geographic location) were included. After removing
unfinished or incomplete surveys, the final sample was N =
318. The average age was 24.23 (SD = 5.47), with a similar
racial makeup as seen previously. Participants reported
checking Grindr accounts an average of 5.59 times daily
(SD = 7.27). To make sure that participants were actually
engaging in self-disclosure, they were asked to indicate if
they disclosed any of the following information: age,
height, weight, race/ethnicity, screenname, real name,
photos, relationship status, “looking for,” links to other
social media accounts, physical location, and their
HIV/AIDS status. Responses received a score of 1 (yes) or
0 (no), and these categories were summed to form an
overall score for self-disclosure. Scores ranged from 2 to 11
(M = 7.59, SD = 1.87) indicating that all respondents
engaged in some self-disclosure and were qualified to
answer the survey questions.
Measures
To assess the two dimensions of self-disclosure, seven
statements were adapted from [49]. Frequency of self-
disclosure was measured with four items (α = .83): “I often
talk about myself with guys I meet on Grindr,” “I
frequently express my personal beliefs and opinions to guys
I chat with on Grindr,” “I often express my personal
feelings with other Grindr guys,” “I typically reveal
personal information about myself to guys I meet on
Grindr.”
Honesty of self-disclosure was measured with three items
(α = .73): “I am not always honest in my self-disclosures on
Grindr (reversed),” “I do not always feel completely sincere
when I reveal my own feelings, emotions, behaviors, or
experiences to guys I talk to on Grindr (reversed),” “The
information I share on Grindr is often completely honest.”
All items used 7-point Likert response scales, 1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Scores were coded so that
higher scores on each set of items indicated both greater
frequency (M =4.05, SD = 1.16) and honesty (M = 4.91, SD
= 1.26).
“Degree of outness” was also measured by asking
participants to indicate how many different social groups
were aware that they were either gay or bisexual, including:
immediate family members, extended family members,
close friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and classmates.
Each of the groups that participants indicated knew about
their sexual orientation received a score of 1. These were
then summed to form an index of “outness” that ranged
from 1.00 to 6.00 (M = 4.03, SD = 1.64).
Results
To address the research questions, hierarchal regression
analyses were conducted. Age, Grindr check-ins, and
degree of outness were included as mean-centered control
variables in all analyses. Although they were subjected to
an orthogonal rotation, the six gratification factors were
mean-centered to avoid problems with nonessential
multicollinearity.
Table 8: Predicting self-disclosure frequency. Predictors had a
variance inflation factor (VIF) ranging from 1.00 to 1.49
suggesting that multicollinearity was not a problem.
For RQ2a, no control variables in the first step were
significant, F (3, 314) = 0.94, p = .42, adj R
2
= -.001. The
second block included all six motivations identified in the
factor analysis, and the overall model was significant, F (9,
308) = 6.53, p < .001, adj R
2
= .14. Romantic relationship
and social interaction were both positively related to self-
disclosure frequency (see Table 8).
Regarding RQ2b, analyses indicated the first block
containing control variables was not significant, F (3, 314)
= 1.53, p = .21, adj R
2
= .005. Addition of the six factors in
the second block resulted in a significant result, F (9, 308)
= 4.14, p < .001, adj R
2
= .08. Romantic relationship
motives were positively associated with self-disclosure
honesty, whereas sex and social inclusion/approval motives
were negatively related with self-disclosure honesty (see
Table 9).
Table 9: Predicting self-disclosure honesty. Predictors had a
variance inflation factor (VIF) ranging from 1.00 to 1.50
suggesting that multicollinearity was not a problem.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study suggest that Grindr users are: (1)
motivated by multiple need-based gratifications, and (2) the
communicative processes that occur during system-
facilitated interactions (specifically the frequency and
honesty of self-disclosure) are related to those motivations.
Overall, the U&G approach was successful in identifying
six motives of Grindr use: social inclusion/approval, sex,
friendship/network, romantic relationships, entertainment,
and location-based searching.
It is worthwhile to note, apart from representations in the
popular press, these findings show that gay men use
ubiquitous computing to fulfill many needs besides casual
sex. Although sex is clearly a strong motivation for use, it is
not the only one. Grindr may not have been intentionally
designed to fulfill these particular needs, yet it is clear that
users are appropriating the technology to do so [45].
The above results also reinforce notions from Toch and
Levi [40] that PNAs are a form of ubiquitous computing
that may actually help people forge new relational
connections. Despite previous arguments that advancements
in ubiquitous computing were detracting from
communications in physical spaces [31, 42], it is possible
that PNAs provide a novel way for users to merge online
and offline connectivity, and redistribute the nature of space
within the gay community. This active “remapping” of
physical space through Grindr use [3] is changing the
meaning, structure, and functions of the gay community by
shifting parts of the physical “gayborhood” to online space.
Grindr Use and Communication Behavior
Results also indicated that of the six identified motivations
for Grindr use, romantic relationship motives were most
Variable
β
t
p
First Block
Age
.06
1.03
.31
Grindr Use
-.10
-1.77
.08
Degree of Outness
-.01
0.25
.80
Second Block
Sex
-.13
-2.12
.04
Social
Inclusion/Approval
-.13
-2.16
.03
Social Interaction
-.03
-0.50
.62
Entertainment
-.12
-1.91
.05
Location-Based Searching
.10
1.49
.14
Relationship/Dating
.16
2.66
.008
Variable
β
t
p
First Block
Age
.06
1.12
.26
Grindr Use
.01
0.21
.84
Degree of Outness
.064
1.13
.26
Second Block
Sex
.07
1.13
.26
Social Inclusion/Approval
.06
1.01
.31
Social Interaction
.19
2.92
.004
Entertainment
.03
0.44
.66
Location-Based Searching
.09
1.38
.17
Relationship/Dating
.22
3.69
.001
likely to be associated with self-disclosure behavior.
Specifically, users who seek partners for dating
relationships engage in more frequent self-disclosure on
Grindr and are more honest in those self-disclosures as
well. These results parallel previous research examining the
effects of romantic goal motivations on self-disclosure
behavior of heterosexual online daters [16]. The motivation
to find a romantic partner results in similar effects on
communication, regardless of sexual orientation.
Other motives were also associated with self-disclosure
behavior. Notably, users who sought out social inclusion
and sex gratifications were less likely to communicate
honest information about themselves to others. One
interpretation for these findings is that these different
motives induce differences in anticipation of future
interaction among Grindr users. When the anticipation of
future face-to-face interaction is high (as it tends to be with
relationships initiated through PNAs), it may increase
feelings of “accountability” with regard to the information
users disclose to others on the application. However, when
the interaction sought by users is intended to remain online,
users may not have the same expectations for face-to-face
interactions and may feel less pressure to reveal honest
information. For example, if users believe they are
arranging a one-time sexual encounter, they may not be
concerned with maximizing the honesty of their disclosures,
since future interactions beyond that one-time encounter are
not likely to occur and accountability is low [14].
Although the degree of outness variable did not show any
significant relationships with self-disclosure behavior, it is
possible that users are very much aware that the Grindr’s
PNA design makes some amount of self-disclosure
“unavoidable” if they want to use the application. Choosing
not to disclose information may jeopardize their ability to
make connections with other men [7]. The average degree
of outness in this sample was 4.03 on a scale of 1 to 6, with
only 13% of participants at or below the midpoint of 3.00.
This indicates that the majority of the sample believed their
sexual identity was known to multiple social groups. Thus
our sample may be over-representative of men who are out
and therefore more comfortable with self-disclosure. Future
research may engage in purposive sampling of closeted
individuals to see if their motives for Grindr use and self-
disclosure behavior differ from the current research.
Limitations
The largest limitation of this research concerns the snowball
sampling design. Obtaining access to the population of men
who use Grindr was difficult. Though the online sampling
technique used to find and recruit Grindr users was
generally successful and has been seen in other PNA [40]
and U&G research [21] it does not constitute a truly random
sample. More likely, this sample contained men who were
more comfortable sharing their opinions and behaviors with
researchers outside the LGBT and Grindr communities,
which may have affected results in unexpected ways.
Furthermore, given the subject of this research, it is clear
that the possibility for social desirability bias exists, though
we tried to minimize this with an anonymous online survey
design.
A secondary limitation exists in the measurement of
physical location through IP addresses. Although we cannot
confirm the complete accuracy of location information
collected from respondents (e.g., participants may have
accessed the survey from public Wi-Fi networks, mobile
operating systems, or someone else’s computer), this
method did provide a way to gather descriptive location
data. Additionally, we were very sensitive to the fact that
we were asking participants to reveal personal information,
and so we sought a way to gather data while retaining as
much participant anonymity and confidentiality as possible.
Future research should continue to explore the affects of
geographic location on Grindr use (e.g., urban, suburban,
and rural Grindr use).
Future Research
In Study 1, we also asked participants to describe what they
“disliked the most about using the Grindr application.” The
majority of responses reflected concerns over individual
safety when disclosing personal information to other
anonymous users. As one respondent suggested: “The
anonimity [sic] it provides for not only yourself but
everyone else, you need to proceed with caution these
people are strangers.”
Another respondent was concerned with the ways in which
Grindr may exacerbate the more negative dilemmas that
exist within the gay community:
“It [Grindr] often allows some of the worst aspects of the
gay community to flourish. Specifically, sex-obsessed
shallowness, racism (‘no blacks, sorry’), discrimination
against body types (‘no chubs’), discrimination against
perceived unattractiveness, discrimination against penis
size (I’ve seen guys that won’t talk to you if you're less than
9 inches) discrimination against femininity (‘masc looking
only for another masc’ or ‘no fems’), discrimination
against the practice of safer sex (‘poz looking to bareback’)
and general discrimination based on physical attributes.”
Although this is only one participant’s view, future research
should examine if other users believe such issues exist and
how ubiquitous computing systems may function to extend,
promote, or reify these less desirable dynamics.
Lastly, the current study focused primarily on the
technological uses and gratifications of Grindr, but future
research should also examine other important factors such
as how individuals’ experiences within physical localities
(e.g., community centers, gay bars/clubs, etc.) affects the
frequency and type of Grindr use. It may be interesting to
see if Grindr’s ubiquity adds to, supplants, or otherwise
detracts from physical localities in gay communities in
different ways.
REFERENCES
1. Alonzo, M. & Aiken, M. Flaming in electronic
communication. Decision Support Systems, 36 (2004),
205-213.
2. Baams, L., Jonas, K.J., Utz, S., Bos, H.M.W., & van
der Vuurst, L. Internet use and online social support
among same sex attracted individuals of different ages.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (2011), 1820-1827.
3. Batiste, D. P. “0 feet away”: The queer cartography of
French gay men’s geo-social media use.
Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 22,
(2013), 111-132.
4. Bauermeister, J.A., Leslie-Santana, M., Johns, M.M.,
Pingel, E., & Eisenberg, A. Mr. right and Mr. right
now: Romantic and casual partner-seeking online
among young men who have sex with men. AIDS &
Behavior, 2 (2011), 261-272.
5. Berg, R. C. Barebacking among MSM Internet users.
AIDS & Behavior, 12 (2008), 822-833.
6. Blackwell, C. The relationship among population size,
requests for bareback sex, and HIV serostatus in men
who have sex with men using the Internet to meet
sexual partners. Journal of Human Behavior in the
Social Environment, 20 (2010), 349-360.
7. Blackwell, C., Birholtz, J., & Abbott, C. Seeing and
being seen: Co-situation and impression formation
using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New
Media & Society, (2014), 1-20.
8. Braun, V., & Clark, V. Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3
(2006), 77-101.
9. Brown, M. Gender and sexuality II: There goes the
gayborhood. Prog in Human Geography, (2013), 1-9.
10. Bumgarner, B. A. Mobilizing the gay bar: Grindr and
the layering of spatial context. National
Communication Association, (2012).
11. Crooks, R. N. The rainbow flag and the green
carnation: Grindr in the gay village. First Monday, 11
(2013).
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/49
58/3790
12. Dimmick, J., Feaster, J.C., & Ramirez Jr., A. The
niches of interpersonal media: Relationships in time
and space. New Media & Society, 13, 8 (2011), 1265-
1282.
13. Duggan, M. & Brenner, J. The demographics of social
media users—2012. Pew Research Internet Project
(2012). http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/02/14/the-
demographics-of-social-media-users-2012/
14. Ellison, N.B., Hancock, J.T., & Toma, C.L. Profile as
promise: A framework for conceptualizing veracity in
online dating self-presentations. New Media & Society,
14, 1 (2012), 45-62.
15. Ghaziani, A. There goes the gayborhood? Contexts, 9
(2010), 64-66.
16. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Lai, C-H. First comes
love, then comes Google: An investigation of
uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in
online dating. Communication Research, 38 (2011),
70-99.
17. Gray, M. L. Out in the country: Youth, Media, and
Queer Visibility in Rural America. NYU Press, New
York, NY, USA, 2009.
18. Grellhesl, M. & Punyanunt-Carter, N.M. Using the
uses and gratifications theory to understand
gratifications sought through text messaging practices
of male and female undergraduate students. Computers
in Human Behavior, 28, 6 (2012), 2175-2181.
19. Grov, C., Breslow, A. S., Newcomb, M. E., Rosenberg,
J. G., & Bauermeister, J. A. Gay and bisexual men’s
use of the Internet: Research from the 1990s through
2013. The Journal of Sex Research, 51 (2014) 390-409.
20. Gudelunas, D. There’s an app for that: The uses and
gratifications of online social networks for gay men.
Society and Culture, 16 (2012), 347-365.
21. Joinson, A.N. Looking at, looking up or keeping up
with people? Motives and uses of Facebook. In Proc.
SIGCHI 2008, ACM Press (2008), 1027-1036.
22. Kapp, M. Grindr: Welcome to the world’s biggest,
scariest gay bar. Vanity Fair (2011).
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/05/gri
ndr-201105
23. Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., & Gurevitch, M. Uses and
gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly,
37 (1973), 509-523.
24. Ku, Y-C., Chu, T-H., & Tseng, CH. Gratifications for
using CMC technologies: A comparison among SNS,
IM, and e-mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 29
(2013), 226-234.
25. Landovitz, R.J., Tseng, CH., Weissman, M., Haymer,
M., Mendenhall, B., Rogers, K., Veniegas, R.,
Gorbach, P.M., Reback, C.J., & Shoptaw, S.
Epidemiology, sexual risk behavior, and HIV
prevention practices of men who have sex with men
using Grindr in Los Angeles, California. Journal of
Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of
Medicine, 90 (2013), 729-739.
26. Learn more. http://grindr.com/learn-more
27. Leung, L. & Wei, R. More than just talk on the move:
Uses and gratifications of the cellular phone.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77
(2000), 308-329.
28. Lev-On, A. Campaigning online: Use of the Internet by
parties, candidates and voters in national and local
election campaigns in Israel. Policy & Internet, 3, 1
(2011), 1-28.
29. Lindqvist, J., Cranshaw, J., Wiese, J., Hong, J., &
Zimmerman, J. I’m the mayor of my house: Examining
why people use foursquare—a social-driven location
sharing application. In Proc. of CHI 2011, ACM Press
(2011), 2409-2418.
30. Mustanski, B., Lyons, T., & Garcia, S.C. Internet use
and sexual health of young men who have sex with
men: A mixed-methods study. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 40 (2011), 289-300.
31. Putnam, R.D. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival
of American community. Simon & Schuster, New
York, NY, USA, 2000.
32. Raj, S. Grindring bodies: Racial and affective
economics of online queer desire. Critical Race and
Whiteness Studies, 7, 2 (2011), 1-12.
33. Redina, H. J., Jimenez, R. H., Grov, C., Ventuneac, A.,
& Parsons, J. T. Patterns of lifetime and recent HIV
testing among men who have sex with men in New
York City who use Grindr. AIDS & Behavior, 18
(2014), 41-49.
34. Rice, E., Holloway, I., Winetrobe, H., Rhoades, H.,
Barman-Adhikari, A., Gibbs, J., Carranza, A., Dent, D.,
and Dunlap, S. Sex risk among young men who have
sex with men who use grindr, a smartphone geosocial
networking application. Journal of AIDS and Clinical
Research, 3 (2012).
35. Ruggiero, T.E. Uses and gratifications theory in the
21
st
century. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 1
(2000), 3-37.
36. Seidman, S. Beyond the Closet: The Transformation of
Gay and Lesbian Life. Routledge, New York, NY,
USA, 2002.
37. Smock, A.D., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D.Y.
Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratifications
approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27, 6 (2011), 2322-2329.
38. Spring, A. L. Declining segregation of same-sex
partners: Evidence from Census 2000 and 2010.
Population Research & Policy Review, 32 (2013), 687-
716.
39. Stafford, T.F., Stafford, M.R., & Schkade, L.L.
Determining uses and gratifications for the Internet.
Decision Sciences, 35, 2 (2004), 259-288.
40. Toch, E. & Levi, I. Locality and privacy in people-
nearby applications. In Proc. UbiComp 2013, ACM
Press (2013), 539-548.
41. Toch, E. & Levi, I. What can ‘people-nearby’
applications teach us about meeting new people? In
Proc. UbiComp 2012, ACM Press (2012), 802-803.
42. Turkle, S. Alone together: Why we expect more from
technology and less from each other. Basic Books,
New York, NY, USA, 2012.
43. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. Cues filtered out, cues
filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and
relationships. Handbook of Interpersonal
Communication, 3
(2002) 529–563.
44. Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L. M., &
Shulman, H.C. Self-generated versus other-generated
statements and impressions in computer-mediated
communication: A test of warranting theory using
Facebook. Communication Research, 36 (2009), 229–
253.
45. Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L.,
Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. Computer networks
as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and
virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22
(1996), 213-238.
46. Wei, R. & Lo, VH. Staying connected while on the
move: Cell phone use and social connectedness. New
Media & Society, 8 (2006), 53-72.
47. Weinrich, J. D. Strange bedfellows: Homosexuality,
gay liberation, and the Internet. Journal of Sex
Education & Therapy, 22 (1997), 58-66.
48. Weiss, A.S. Exploring new apps and location-based
services on the smartphone. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 90 (2013), 435-456.
49. Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. Conceptualization and
measurement of reported self-disclosure. Human
Communication Research, 2 (1976), 338-346.
50. Wortham, J. How Grindr is changing the way we
connect. New York Times (2013).
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/how-grindr-
is-changing-the-way-we-all-
connect/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
