CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING

Volume 20, Number 12, 2017 ORIGINAL ARTICLES

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2017.0279

Correlates of Tinder Use and Risky Sexual

Behaviors in Young Adults

Gilla K. Shapiro, MA (Cantab), MPP/MPA,1,2 Ovidiu Tatar, MD, MSc,2 Arielle Sutton, BA,1
William Fisher, PhD,3 Anila Naz, MD, MPH, MSc,2 Samara Perez, PhD,1,2 and Zeev Rosberger, PhD1,2,4,5

Abstract

Tinder is a frequently used geosocial networking application that allows users to meet sexual partners in their
geographical vicinity. Research examining Tinder use and its association with behavioral outcomes is scarce.
The objectives of this study were to explore the correlates of Tinder use and risky sexual behaviors in young
adults. Participants aged 18–26 were invited to complete an anonymous online questionnaire between January
and May 2016. Measures included sociodemographic characteristics, Tinder use, health related behaviors, risky
sexual behaviors, and sexual attitudes. Associations among these variables were estimated using multivariate
logistic regressions. The final sample consisted of 415 participants (n = 166 Tinder users; n = 249 nonusers).
Greater likelihood of using Tinder was associated with a higher level of education (OR = 2.18) and greater
reported need for sex (OR = 1.64), while decreased likelihood of using Tinder was associated with a higher level
of academic achievement (OR = 0.63), lower sexual permissiveness (OR = 0.58), living with parents or relatives
(OR = 0.38), and being in a serious relationship (OR = 0.24). Higher odds of reporting nonconsensual sex
(OR = 3.22) and having five or more previous sexual partners (OR = 2.81) were found in Tinder users. Tinder
use was not significantly associated with condom use. This study describes significant correlates of using Tinder
and highlights a relationship between Tinder use with nonconsensual sex and number of previous sexual
partners. These findings have salience for aiding public health interventions to effectively design interventions
targeted at reducing risky sexual behaviors online.

Keywords: attitudes, Tinder, young adults, condom use, consent, sexual behavior

Introduction the number of users of GSN applications (e.g., Tinder) is in-

creasing.4,5 Tinder has an estimated 50 million users world-
wide, with 39% between 16 and 24 years of age.6,7 Young
O ver the last few years, the Internet and geosocial net-
working (GSN) applications have emerged as popular
forums to meet potential sexual partners. For example, a survey
adults who have an interest in sexual exploration may use apps
such as Tinder.8 Tinder is fast, casual, easy to use, and the
of a large Swedish sample found that 35% of men and 40% of preferred dating application among college students.9 For ex-
women aged 18–65 met a sexual partner online.1 The GSN ample, a recent study found that 17% of participants reported
application Tinder, established in 2012, has become increas- that they engaged in casual sex on a Tinder date.10
ingly popular.2,3 Tinder allows users to anonymously view a There is a great necessity to study partner-seeking be-
handful of profile pictures in their geographic vicinity and haviors online in general and to evaluate Tinder use specif-
‘like’ another user by swiping right or ‘‘pass’’ by swiping ically, as there have been assertions of a relationship between
left. Mutually interested users are ‘matched’ and can then Tinder use and undesirable outcomes. For example, the
chat, meet, and engage in a sexual or romantic relation- Rhode Island Department of Health (2015) released a press
ship. While the number of visits to classic dating sites (e.g., statement describing a sexually transmitted infection (STI)
Match.com and OkCupid) has been constant in the last year, ‘‘epidemic’’ and indicated that the increase of STIs has been

1
Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
2
Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada.
3
Department of Psychology, Western University, London, Canada.
4
Louise Granofsky Psychosocial Oncology Program, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada.
5
Department of Psychiatry and Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

727
728 SHAPIRO ET AL.

attributed to the use of social networking sites (such as Tinder) on Facebook, who were entered into a draw to win one of
to arrange casual and anonymous sexual encounters.11 two cash prizes. The recruitment statement specified that
There is limited research investigating the characteristics of ‘We are looking for participants (aged 18–26) to complete
emerging GSN application (e.g., Tinder) users and associated a 45-minute questionnaire that will be evaluating dating,
behaviors, with most research evaluating partner seeking on relationship, and sexual health practices’. The study was
the Internet (although not Tinder per se).7 Previous studies approved by McGill University’s Research Ethics Board
have shown that an increase of online sexual activity among (#295–1215).
young adults, including seeking sexual partners on the Inter-
net, is associated with a lower Grade Point Average (GPA),12 Measures
older age,12–14 higher comfort or interest in sexually related
The survey items were selected based on findings from the
topics, and less religiosity.15 One study found no significant
existing research literature concerning correlates of online
difference in sexual permissiveness between Tinder users and
sexual partner seeking.26,27 The following validated scales
nonusers after controlling for age; however, this study was
were included: (1) the Sexual Compulsivity Scale (10 items
conducted using small samples (Tinder users n = 30, nonusers
measured from 1- ‘‘not at all like me’’ to 4- ‘‘very much like
n = 19) and was not specific to young adults.16
me’’, e.g., ‘‘my sexual thoughts and behaviors are causing
Young adults seeking sexual partners online have also been
problems in my life’’)26; (2) the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale
associated with negative health outcomes such as increased
(BSAS; 23 items measured from 1-‘‘strongly agree’’ to 5-
risk of contracting an STI,11,12,17–19 unwanted pregnancies,12
‘‘strongly disagree’’).28 The BSAS consists of four subscales:
sexual regret, anxiety, and depression.20 In addition, various
permissiveness (10 items; e.g., ‘‘casual sex is acceptable’’),
risky behaviors have been associated with seeking sexual
birth control (3 items; e.g., ‘‘birth control is part of respon-
partners on the Internet and mobile-based applications, in-
sible sexuality’’), communion (5 items; e.g., ‘‘sex is usually an
cluding condomless sex,7,13,17,21 increased number of previous
intensive, almost overwhelming experience’’), and instru-
sexual partners,7,18,22 and increased alcohol use.21 Further-
mentality (5 items; e.g., ‘‘sex is primarily a bodily function,
more, a recent study by Cabecinha et al. in British adults
like eating’’)28; and (3) two subscales from the Need for
(n = 15 162) found that seeking a sexual partner online was
Sexual Intimacy Scale (NSIS; measured from 1- ‘‘disagree
associated with condomless sex, higher number of partners,
definitely’’ to 6- ‘‘agree definitely’’): Need for Sex (8 items;
and greater STI diagnoses and HIV testing (in men).7 Com-
e.g., ‘‘I need sex everyday’’), and Need for Affiliation
paratively, there has been little research examining Tinder use
(9 items; ‘‘I need a partner who loves me’’).27 Mean scores
and sexual behaviors. To our knowledge, only one published
were calculated for sexual compulsivity, permissiveness, birth
abstract exists that has associated Tinder use with problematic
control, communion, instrumentality, need for sex, and need
alcohol use, nonconsensual sex, and sexual hookups in a small
for affiliation.
sample (n = 44) of female college students.23
Other measures included assessments of sociodemogra-
There is a need to better understand the correlates of Tinder
phic characteristics (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, educa-
use and risky sexual behaviors. In particular, there is a paucity
tion, and so on), general sexual health related behaviors and
of literature evaluating and comparing the correlates of three
outcomes (e.g., age at first sexual intercourse, history of STI,
risky sexual behaviors: not using condoms, multiple sexual
and vaccination against HPV),29 Tinder use (‘‘do you use
partners, and engaging in nonconsensual sex. Greater research
Tinder?’’), and sexual behaviors. Three different sexual
is required to investigate the psychosocial correlates of Tinder
behaviors were examined: condom use (‘‘the last time you
use, an increasingly popular GSN application, with socio-
had oral or genital intercourse, did you or your partner use
demographic characteristics, attitudes, psychosocial factors,
protection (e.g., a condom)?’’), previous number of sexual
and behavioral outcomes in young adults. Furthermore, the
partners (‘‘during your life, with how many people have you
available literature on online partner seeking has been mostly
had sexual intercourse (oral and/or genital)?’’), and noncon-
examined in men who have sex with men (MSM),3,22,24,25
sensual sex (‘‘has someone who you met tried to have oral
with a scarcity of research conducted in the general college
and/or genital intercourse with you without your consent?’’).30
population.17 The objectives of this study were twofold: (1) to
assess the correlates of Tinder use and (2) to assess correlates
Data cleaning and analysis
of three sexual behaviors in young adults.
Data cleaning involved removing participants in the fol-
Materials and Methods lowing successive steps (Fig. 1): (1) duplicates; (2) age eli-
gibility criteria (aged 18–26) were not met; (3) incorrect
Participants and data collection
answer to the attention check question (i.e., ‘‘Barack Obama
Data were collected through an English online survey, was the first president of the United States’’); (4) fewer than
hosted by Qualtrics, a survey hosting service, between Jan- 4 minutes questionnaire completion time; (5) missing re-
uary and May 2016. Males and females, aged 18–26, were sponse to the question ‘‘do you use Tinder’’ without which
eligible to participate in this study. Participants were re- data analysis would not be possible; (6) missing more than
cruited at McGill University, located in Montreal, Canada. 50% of responses to the survey; and (7) outliers in terms of
Participants were recruited using two strategies. Students in number of sexual partners. Missing values for scale scores and
the psychology undergraduate program received course continuous variables were replaced by means.
credit as compensation to participate. In addition, to recruit a Descriptive statistics was calculated for demographic
larger and more diverse sample of university students, we also items. We used the two-sample tests for equality of pro-
recruited participants through advertisements (flyers) placed portions and t tests to assess significant differences. Lin-
around the campus and using social media announcements ear measured outcomes were tested for normality and were
CORRELATES OF TINDER USE AND RISKY SEXUAL BEHAVIORS 729

Results
Sample
Data cleaning results are displayed in Figure 1.a The final
sample consisted of 415 participants, with 166 Tinder users
(40%) and 249 non-Tinder users (60%). In total, 210 indi-
viduals were recruited from the psychology undergraduate
participant pool program (82% female), and 201 individuals
were recruited using advertisement around the university
(79% female) (Supplementary Table S1; Supplementary Data
are available online at www.liebertpub.com/cyber). The
sample consisted predominantly of females (81%), individuals
who identified as straight (80%), White individuals (55%),
individuals who identified as atheist or agnostic (48%), indi-
viduals who lived with peers or partners (60%), and individ-
uals who reported being in a serious relationship (42%).
Sociodemographic characteristics and significant differences
between Tinder users and nonusers are displayed in Table 1.
Correlates of Tinder users compared to nonusers
Results of multivariate logistic regression and model fit
diagnostics are presented in Table 2. Increased odds of using
Tinder were associated with higher education (OR = 2.18) and
greater need for sex (OR = 1.64). Decreased odds of using
Tinder was associated with having a higher GPA (OR = 0.63),
decreased sexual permissiveness (OR = 0.58), living with
parents or relatives (OR = 0.38), and being in a serious rela-
tionship (OR = 0.24).

Correlates of sexual behaviors

The assumption of normality did not hold for the number of
previous sexual partners (M = 5.67; SD = 6.31, Shapiro–Wilk
test p < 0.001). Moreover, this variable was extremely skewed
FIG. 1. Data cleaning flow diagram. and was therefore dichotomized.
The binomial simple logistic regression analyses exam-
ining the relationship between Tinder use and sexual be-
haviors can be found in the Supplementary Table S2. We
dichotomized if extremely skewed.31 For binary outcomes, we
used three multivariate logistic models to assess correlates
used multivariate logistic regression and reported odds ratios
of three risky sexual behaviors: (1) condom use at the last
and 95% confidence intervals. We included in the multivariate
sexual intercourse, (2) number of previous sexual partners,
logistic regression models all independent variables of interest
and (3) nonconsensual sex. A correlation matrix of con-
simultaneously. The following logistic regression model di-
tinuous independent variables can be found in Supplemen-
agnostic criteria were used: (1) Rank Discrimination Index C
tary Table S3. The correlates of three risky sexual behaviors
whereby higher c values indicated better model ability to
and model fit diagnostics are presented in Table 3.
classify individuals correctly into groups according to their
outcome (C = 0.5 indicates random guessing and c = 1 perfect Condom use. Females had 2.43 times higher odds of
discrimination), (2) Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) for reporting using condoms (during last intercourse) compared
comparing models whereby the model with the lowest BIC to males. Reporting higher need for sex (OR = 0.51) and
was preferred,32 (3) Variation Inflation Factor (VIF) with being in a serious relationship (OR = 0.41) were associated
a cutoff value of <10 for ruling out collinearity issues,33 and with lower odds of using condoms during the last sexual
(4) Cessie–van Houwelingen goodness-of-fit test whereby intercourse (Table 3).
p > 0.05 suggests no evidence to reject a good fit.34
For Tinder use, we studied multiple models containing Number of sexual partners. Reporting five or more
interactions between independent variables and compared previous sexual partners were associated with reporting a
these models with the model without interactions. The se- history of a STI (OR = 20.89), casually dating (OR = 4.12),
lection of the multivariate logistic regression model for being a Tinder user (OR = 2.81), and older age (OR = 2.52)
examining Tinder use unfolded in two phases. In the first (Table 3). Lower odds of reporting five or more previous
phase, we excluded term interaction models with VIF >10. sexual partners were associated with older age at first
In the second phase, we used the lowest BIC value to select sexual intercourse (OR = 0.44), lower sexual permissive-
the final model. ness (OR = 0.36), and not living alone (OR = 0.24 for those
Analysis was performed in SPSS Statistics v.23 and R living with peers or partners and OR = 0.14 for those living
v3.3.2. with parents or relatives) (Table 3).
730 SHAPIRO ET AL.

Table 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics Discussion

of the Total Sample, Tinder Users, and Nonusers
This study explored the sociodemographic characteristics
Tinder and psychosocial factors associated with Tinder use and
Total users Nonusers
n = 415 n = 166 n = 249 three sexual behaviors in young adults. Often, sexual be-
haviors are evaluated in separate samples using different
n (%) n (%) n (%) correlates. A strength of this study was the ability to compare
Gender correlates across sexual behaviors using the identical inde-
Female 336 (81.0) 130 (78.3) 206 (82.7) pendent variables and sample. Similar to previous research
Male 77 (18.6) 36 (21.7) 41 (16.5) related to online partner seeking, we found that a large
Sexual orientation proportion (40%) of young adults aged 18–26 reported using
Straight 333 (80.2) 126 (75.9) 207 (83.1) the Tinder application.13 Although some studies have found
Lesbian, Gay, 57 (13.7) 30 (18.1)a 27 (10.8)
Bisexual (LGB) gender differences whereby men are more likely to look for
Other (e.g., queer, 25 (6.0) 10 (6.0) 15 (6.0) sexual partners online,7,35 our study, similar to previous re-
questioning) search,15 did not find gender differences.
Education As expected, being less sexually permissive (e.g., dis-
High school 215 (51.8) 90 (54.2) 125 (50.2) agreement with casual sex or having sex with multiple part-
College/ 200 (48.2) 76 (45.8) 124 (49.8) ners) was associated with a lower likelihood of using Tinder
University and lower likelihood of having five or more previous sexual
Ethnicity partners. These results are aligned with other research findings
White 227 (54.7) 100 (60.2) 127 (51.0) that more restrictive attitudes about sex and sexuality, greater
East or South 118 (28.4) 43 (25.9) 75 (30.1) religiosity, and less openness to experience are associated with
Asian
Other (e.g., Arab, 70 (16.9) 23 (13.9) 47 (18.9) less online sexual activity.15,36,37 This study found that re-
Black, Latin) porting a higher need for sex (e.g., increased need of having
Religion sex every day) was associated with a greater likelihood of
Atheist/agnostic 197 (47.5) 89 (53.6)a 108 (43.4) using Tinder. Interestingly, while using Tinder was associated
Christian 89 (21.4) 32 (19.3) 57 (22.9) with the reported need for sex, it was not associated with the
Other (i.e., Islam, 129 (31.1) 45 (27.1) 84 (33.7) reported need for affiliation (increased need of a loving part-
Hinduism, ner). In contrast, previous research suggests that Tinder users
Buddhism, (aged 18–30) did not rate either ‘‘casual sex’’ or ‘‘intimacy’’
Judaism)
as important motivators for using the app.10 These differences
Living situation may be due to the use of validated scales in this study, as
Peers/partners 249 (60.0) 118 (71.1)b 131 (52.6)
Parents/relatives 108 (26.0) 28 (16.9) 80 (32.1)b opposed to single questions. Future research would be useful
Alone 57 (13.7) 20 (12.0) 37 (14.9) to clarify the different motivators for using Tinder (i.e., for
Relationship status sex-seeking purposes or finding a long-term relationship).
Serious 175 (42.2) 40 (24.1) 135 (54.2)b College students are engaging in risky behaviors that can
relationship have a detrimental impact on their health such as an increased
Single 172 (41.4) 81 (48.8)a 91 (36.5) chance of getting a STI, having nonconsensual sex, anxiety,
Single but 68 (16.4) 45 (27.1)b 23 (9.2) and depression.20 Similar to previous research, we found that
casually dating being in a serious relationship was associated with a lower
likelihood of using condoms.38 Our results show that being in
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) a serious relationship was also associated with a lower like-
lihood of using Tinder; this is in line with Cabecinha et al. who
Age 20.73 (1.73) 20.56 (1.63) 20.84 (1.79) found that females with no stable partner were more likely to
GPA 3.36 (0.65) 3.25 (0.51) 3.42 (0.73)b
use the Internet to find sexual partners.7 This study found that
Bold integers indicate a significant difference between Tinder and a history of having a STI was strongly associated with number
non-Tinder samples. GPA = grade point average. ‘‘Other’’ is not dis- of previous sexual partners and nonconsensual sex. It is pos-
played for ‘‘gender’’ and ‘‘living situation’’ as it contains two or sible that individuals who are not using Tinder and report only
less cases.
a
significance level <0.05. one sexual partner perceive themselves at a lower risk of
b
Significance level <0.01. contracting a STI compared to individuals who seek partners
on the Internet and have multiple partners.39 In our opinion,
young adults in a relationship who may perceive themselves at
lower risk are still vulnerable for contracting a STI and should
Nonconsensual sex. Higher odds of reporting noncon- be included in health promotion interventions.
sensual sex were associated with a history of a STI (OR = 4.45), In line with evidence from previous research related to
Tinder use (OR = 3.22), sexual orientation (OR = 2.80), being finding sexual partners online,7,18,22,23 this study found that
female (OR = 2.53), increased sexual compulsiveness (OR = using Tinder is positively related to reporting more sex-
1.77), and decreased communion (OR = 1.58). Lower odds of ual partners and nonconsensual sex. This study also found
reporting nonconsensual sex were associated with increased higher likelihood of reporting nonconsensual sex in females
age at first sexual intercourse (OR = 0.81), living with parents and sexual minority groups. These results are not surpris-
or relatives (OR = 0.23), and higher importance of religion ing as women are thrice more likely to be sexually assaulted
(OR = 0.45) (Table 3). on campus.40 While evidence exists that higher sexual
CORRELATES OF TINDER USE AND RISKY SEXUAL BEHAVIORS 731

Table 2. Multivariate Logistic Regression of Tinder Use Compared to Nonuse

Independent variables Independent variable category (Reference) OR 95% CI
Gender Female (Male) 0.90 0.46–1.74
Sexual orientation LGB (Straight) 1.64 0.82–3.26
Other (Straight) 1.15 0.39–3.33
Education College/University (High school) 2.18 1.15–4.16
Ethnicity East or South Asian (White) 0.96 0.55–1.69
Other (i.e., Arab, Black, Latin) (White) 0.53 0.27–1.06
Religion Atheist/Agnostic (Christian) 1.10 0.55–2.19
Other (i.e., Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism) 0.97 0.50–1.90
(Christian)
Living situation Peers/partners (Alone) 1.39 0.66–2.92
Parents/relatives (Alone) 0.38 0.15–0.96
Relationship Status Serious Relationship (Single) 0.24 0.14–0.42
Single but casually dating (Single) 1.91 0.96–3.80
Age (M = 20.73; SD = 1.73) 22 (19) 0.75 0.45–1.23
GPA (M = 3.36; SD = 0.64) 3.7 (3.09) 0.63 0.46–0.87
Importance of religion in daily life 5 (2) 1.24 0.65–2.36
(M = 3.59; SD = 1.38)
Age at first sexual intercourse 18 (17) 1.02 0.88–1.19
(M = 17.64; SD = 1.63)
History of STI Yes (No) 2.72 0.89–8.35
Vaccinated against HPV Yes (No) 0.86 0.52–1.44
Compulsivity score 1.5 (1.1) 1.04 0.83–1.30
(M = 1.4; SD = 0.47)
Permissiveness score 3.55 (2.35) 0.58 0.37–0.90
(M = 2.99; SD = 0.86)
Birth control score 2 (1) 0.89 0.64–1.24
(M = 1.56; SD = 0.75)
Communion score 3 (2) 1.05 0.76–1.47
(M = 2.55; SD = 0.79)
Instrumentality score 3.6 (2.6) 1.07 0.74–1.55
(M = 3.06; SD = 0.72)
Need for sex score 3.63 (2.25) 1.64 1.10–2.44
(M = 2.95; SD = 1.00)
Need for affiliation score 5.78 (4.5) 1.22 0.85–1.76
(M = 4.56; SD = 0.85)
Tinder users (n = 166) were compared to nonusers (n = 246) to examine differences in sociodemographic characteristics, sexual history, and
sexual attitudes. Two and one Tinder nonusers were, respectively, excluded due to missing data for gender and living situation. Bold indicates
that odds ratios and confidence intervals are statistically significant, ( p < 0.05). For interval data, the third quartiles are compared to the first
quartiles (reference in brackets). Model fit indices: C = 0.792, Cessie–van Houwelingen p = 0.98, VIF (1.11; 2.82), and BIC = 597.63.
BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion; VIF, variation inflation factor; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; M, mean; SD, standard deviation.

compulsivity is associated with an increased number of Similarly, as this study examined users of the Tinder appli-
sexual partners in both genders,41,42 this study’s results do cation, the results may not generalize to other online dating
not reinforce this association. Interestingly, reporting non- applications, particularly those that invest time and money to
consensual sex was associated with agreement with beliefs create an online profile (e.g., Match.com). Users on such
regarding sexual compulsivity (i.e., beliefs that sexual sites may systematically differ to Tinder users (e.g., be
thoughts and behaviors are causing problems in one’s life) seeking more serious relationships).43
and disagreement with beliefs regarding sexual communion Participants in this study were asked to self-report their
(i.e., belief that sex is an intense overwhelming experience). sexual preferences and behaviors. These accounts may be
subject to unreliability and distortion. According to Coxon
(1999), retrospective bias is probably the greatest threat to
Limitations
accuracy in sexual behavior data, and participants’ self-
There were several limitations to this study. The sample reported sexual tendencies must therefore be interpreted with
consisted of young adults who were primarily female and caution.44 Furthermore, as there is little previous research in
White, which restrict the generalizability of these findings. this field, our research was exploratory and included a large
732 SHAPIRO ET AL.

Table 3. Multivariate Logistic Regressions of Risky Sexual Behaviors

Condom use at last Number of previous
intercourse OR sexual partners OR Nonconsensual sex
Independent variables (Reference) (95%CI), n = 341 (95%CI), n = 327 OR (95%CI), n = 412
Tinder use (No) 1.40 (0.81–2.39) 2.81 (1.39–5.69) 3.22 (1.77–5.86)
Female (Male) 2.43 (1.21–4.89) 1.09 (0.46–2.60) 2.53 (1.12–5.70)
LGB (Straight) a 1.05 (0.45–2.43) 2.80 (1.38–5.69)
Other (e.g., queer, questioning) (Straight) a 0.92 (0.22–3.91) 1.03 (0.32–3.33)
College/University (High school) 1.08 (0.57–2.04) 1.61 (0.70–3.70) 1.23 (0.61–2.48)
East or South Asian (White) 1.18 (0.65–2.14) 0.57 (0.27–1.20) 0.63 (0.32–1.26)
Other (i.e., Arab, Black, Latin) (White) 0.92 (0.46–1.83) 0.81 (0.34–1.96) 0.86 (0.40–1.87)
Atheist or Agnostic (Christian) 1.58 (0.78–3.19) 0.56 (0.23–1.40) 0.91 (0.41–1.99)
Other (i.e., Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, 1.04 (0.52–2.05) 0.64 (0.26–1.57) 0.51 (0.23–1.11)
Judaism) (Christian)
Peers or partners (Alone) 0.73 (0.35–1.53) 0.24 (0.09–0.66) 0.56 (0.26–1.21)
Parents or relatives (Alone) 0.48 (0.19–1.16) 0.14 (0.04–0.49) 0.23 (0.08–0.64)
Serious relationship (Single) 0.41 (0.23–0.73) 0.75 (0.35–1.61) 1.93 (1.00–3.69)
Single but casually dating (Single) 0.68 (0.32–1.42) 4.12 (1.64–10.38) 0.77 (0.34–1.74)
Age (22 vs. 19) 0.77 (0.47–1.26) 2.52 (1.28–4.94) 0.94 (0.53–1.67)
GPA (3.7 vs. 3.09) 0.98 (0.79–1.23) 0.91 (0.71–1.17) 1.08 (0.86–1.35)
Importance of religion (5 vs. 2) 0.78 (0.40–1.49) 0.68 (0.29–1.60) 0.45 (0.21–0.97)
Age at first sexual intercourse (18 vs. 17) 1.15 (1.00–1.33) 0.44 (0.35–0.56) 0.81 (0.68–0.97)
History of a STI (Yes vs. No) 0.65 (0.21–2.01) 20.89 (2.16–202.13) 4.45 (1.19–16.63)
Vaccinated against HPV (Yes vs. No) 0.75 (0.43–1.29) 0.92 (0.46–1.82) 0.61 (0.34–1.08)
Compulsivity score (1.5 vs. 1.1) 1.25 (0.99–1.57) 1.00 (0.75–1.35) 1.77 (1.39–2.26)
Permissiveness score (3.55 vs. 2.35) 0.73 (0.47–1.15) 0.36 (0.19–0.67) 0.85 (0.51–1.40)
Birth control score (2 vs. 1) 1.00 (0.71–1.40) 0.79 (0.50–1.25) 0.88 (0.60–1.29)
Communion score (3 vs. 2) 0.96 (0.68–1.35) 0.71 (0.46–1.11) 1.58 (1.10–2.27)
Instrumentality score (3.6 vs. 2.6) 0.72 (0.50–1.05) 1.20 (0.75–1.93) 0.72 (0.48–1.09)
Need for sex score (3.63 vs. 2.25) 0.51 (0.33–0.79) 0.96 (0.58–1.60) 0.65 (0.41–1.02)
Need for affiliation score (5.22 vs. 4.11) 1.11 (0.75–1.64) 0.91 (0.56–1.46) 0.99 (0.66–1.50)
Bold indicates odds ratios and confidence intervals that are statistically significant. For interval data, the third quartile was compared to
the first quartile (reference in brackets). The three multivariate logistic models have good discriminant capacity, adequate goodness of fit,
and low multicollinearity: condom use (C = 0.717, Cessie–van Houwelingen p = 0.92, VIF [1.10; 2.78]); number of sexual partners
(C = 0.883, Cessie–van Houwelingen p = 0.27, VIF [1.05; 3.21]); and nonconsensual sex (C = 0.802, Cessie–van Houwelingen p = 0.21,
VIF [1.11; 2.29]).
a
Not included because of small sample size within categories.

number of variables to assess the correlates of Tinder use and is more greatly associated with risky sexual behaviors. In
risky behaviors. Finally, as this study was cross-sectional in the future, it would also be helpful to compare using Tinder
design, a causal relationship could not be determined. to using other GSN applications.
As Tinder use was associated with a greater risk of non-
consensual sex and multiple sexual partners, public health
Future research directions
interventions may seek to protect users by constructing in-
As our sample was predominantly female, future research terventions that address nonconsensual sex and the potential
should focus on replicating this research in males and exam- STI risk of having multiple sexual partners among Tinder
ining gender differences in Tinder use and risky sexual be- users. As recommended by Holloway et al., the develop-
haviors. It would also be beneficial for future research to ment of app-based programs may be appropriate in reaching
discern the nature and direction of the relationship between college students.3 Another solution to reduce unnecessary
using Tinder and high-risk sexual behaviors, potentially in a risks and sexual violence related to using Tinder (or other
longitudinal design. Current findings are consistent with the GSN applications) would be to provide a consent form as
view that Tinder use directly leads to sexually risky situa- part of the subscription process. Some interventions, such as
tions, but they are also consistent with the view that Tinder Britain’s ‘‘ask Angela’’ initiative, which encouraged indi-
use is a marker for ‘‘the type of person’’ who is inclined to viduals who feel threatened or uneasy on a date to ‘‘ask for
engage in risky behaviors. Of course, both may be true. A Angela at the bar’’, have been developed (and adapted in
comparison between Tinder- initiated sexual contacts and other countries) to reduce sexual assault while meeting mat-
non-Tinder initiated sexual contacts within individuals ches from online dating applications in person.45 As such, if a
would be useful in teasing out whether Tinder-initiated Tinder date or meet-up feels unsafe this code phrase signals
sexual contact is due to the type of person who seeks sex on that an individual needs help getting to safety to a bartender,
Tinder or to the nature of sexual contact that is encouraged waiter, or someone nearby. It would be helpful to evaluate the
on the Tinder application. Moreover, it would be advanta- effectiveness of these different methods in reducing sexual
geous to explore whether increased frequency of Tinder use violence.
CORRELATES OF TINDER USE AND RISKY SEXUAL BEHAVIORS 733

Conclusions 8. Fielder RL, Carey MP. Predictors and consequences of sexual

‘‘hookups’’ among college students: a short-term prospective
In a heterogeneous sample of young adults, this study
study. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2010; 39:1105–1119.
identified the sociodemographic and psychosocial correlates 9. Smith C. (2017) 45 Impressive Tinder Statistics (March
of using Tinder. In multivariate analyses, participants who 2017). http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/tinder-
used Tinder were more likely to have engaged in noncon- statistics/2 (accessed May 24, 2017).
sensual sexual contact and had multiple sexual partners. 10. Ligtenberg L. (2015) Tinder, the App that is setting the
However, in multivariate analyses, there was no significant dating scene on fire: a uses and gratifications perspective.
difference in Tinder users versus nonusers in terms of con- Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
dom protection. These findings may help to effectively target 11. Rhode Island Department of Health. (2015). HEALTH Re-
interventions in reducing high-risk behaviors in the young leases New Data on Infectious Syphilis, Gonorrhea, and HIV
adult population. www.ri.gov/press/view/24889 (accessed May 24, 2017).
12. Buhi ER, Cook RL, Marhefka SL, et al. Does the Internet
represent a sexual health risk environment for young peo-
Note
ple? Sexually Transmitted Diseases 2012; 39:55–58.
a. Only one individual was found to be an extreme outlier 13. Choi EP, Wong JY, Lo HH, et al. The association between
in regards to number of sexual partners. This partici- smartphone dating applications and college students’ casual
pant reported 150 lifetime partners. This participant sex encounters and condom use. Sexual & Reproductive
was male, 22 years of age, White, gay, educated at the Healthcare 2016; 9:38–41.
university level, living alone, single, protestant, and 14. Adefuye AS, Abiona TC, Balogun JA, et al. HIV sexual
had a GPA of 3.71. The range of sexual partners for the risk behaviors and perception of risk among college stu-
rest of the sample was 0–50. dents: implications for planning interventions. BMC Public
Health 2009; 9:281.
15. Velezmoro R, Negy C, Livia J. Online sexual activity:
Acknowledgments cross-national comparison between United States and Per-
uvian college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2012;
Gilla Shapiro acknowledges support she receives as a 41:1015–1025.
CIHR Vanier Canada Graduate Scholar and Queen Elizabeth 16. Gatter K, Hodkinson K. On the differences between
II Diamond Jubilee Scholar. Samara Perez acknowledges Tinder versus online dating agencies: questioning a myth.
support as a CIHR Vanier Canada Graduate Scholar. This An exploratory study. Cogent Psychology 2016; 3:1162414.
study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health 17. Almeida M, Gibbs J, Estcourt C. Are geosocial networking
Research (Grant #288295). (GSN) apps associated with increased risk of STIs & HIV:
a systematic review. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2016;
Author Disclosure Statement 92 (Suppl 1):A19.
18. McFarlane M, Bull SS, Rietmeijer CA. Young adults on
No competing financial interests exist. the Internet: risk behaviors for sexually transmitted dis-
eases and HIV(1). Journal of Adolescent Health 2002; 31:
11–16.
References
19. McFarlane M, Bull SS, Rietmeijer CA. The Internet as a
1. Daneback K, Mansson SA, Ross MW. Using the Internet Newly Emerging Risk Environment for Sexually Trans-
to find offline sex partners. CyberPsychology & Behavior mitted Diseases. JAMA 2000; 284:443–446.
2007; 10:100–107. 20. Bachtel MK. Do hookups hurt? Exploring college students’
2. Greenfield R. (2013) Tinder: A Hook-Up App Women Ac- experiences and perceptions. Journal of Midwifery &
tually Use. www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/ Women’s Health 2013; 58:41–48.
tinder-hook-app-women-actually-use/317875 (accessed May 21. Horvath KJ, Rosser BR, Remafedi G. Sexual risk taking
23, 2017). among young internet-using men who have sex with men.
3. Holloway IW, Dunlap S, Del Pino HE, et al. Online social American Journal of Public Health 2008; 98:1059–1067.
networking, sexual risk and protective behaviors: consid- 22. Lehmiller JJ, Ioerger M. Social networking smartphone
erations for clinicians and researchers. Current Addiction applications and sexual health outcomes among men who
Reports 2014; 1:220–228. have sex with men. PLoS One 2014; 9:e86603.
4. McGrath F. (2015) What to Know About Tinder in 5 Charts. 23. Dir AL, Cyders MA, Riley EN, et al. Tinder use and as-
www.globalwebindex.net/blog/what-to-know-about-tinder-in- sociations with problematic alcohol use and sexual hookups
5-charts (accessed May 24, 2017). among college females. Alcoholism Clinical & Experi-
5. Bilton N. (2014) Tinder, the Fast-Growing Dating App, mental Research 2015; 39:147A.
Taps an Age-Old Truth. https://nyti.ms/102PyeL (accessed 24. Grosskopf NA, LeVasseur MT, Glaser DB. Use of the In-
May 24, 2017). ternet and mobile-based ‘‘apps’’ for sex-seeking among
6. Mander J. (2015) Why Tinder Has a Lot of Positives to men who have sex with men in New York City. American
Shout About. www.globalwebindex.net/blog/why-tinder-has- Journal of Men’s Health 2014; 8:510–520.
a-lot-of-positives-to-shout-about (accessed May 24, 2017). 25. Ko NY, Tseng PC, Huang YC, et al. Seeking sex partners
7. Cabecinha M, Mercer CH, Gravningen K, et al. Finding through the internet and mobile phone applications among
sexual partners online: prevalence and associations with sexual men who have sex with men in Taiwan. AIDS Care 2016;
behaviour, STI diagnoses and other sexual health outcomes in 28:927–931.
the British population. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2017 26. Kalichman SC, Johnson JR, Adair V, et al. Sexual sensa-
[Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2016-052994. tion seeking: scale development and predicting AIDS-risk
734 SHAPIRO ET AL.

behavior among homosexually active men. Journal of 38. Misovich SJ, Fisher JD, Fisher WA. Close relationships and
Personality Assessment 1994; 62:385–397. elevated HIV risk behavior: evidence and possible under-
27. Marelich WD, Lundquist J. Motivations for sexual intimacy: lying psychological processes. Review of General Psy-
development of a needs-based sexual intimacy scale. Inter- chology 1997; 1:72–107.
national Journal of Sexual Health 2008; 20:177–186. 39. Hickey MT, Cleland C. Sexually transmitted infection risk
28. Hendrick C, Hendrick SS, Reich DA. The brief sexual at- perception among female college students. Journal of the
titudes scale. Journal of Sex Research 2006; 43:76–86. American Association of Nurse Practitioners 2013; 25:377–384.
29. Buhi ER, Klinkenberger N, McFarlane M, et al. Evaluating 40. Flack WF, Jr., Daubman KA, Caron ML, et al. Risk factors
the Internet as a sexually transmitted disease risk environ- and consequences of unwanted sex among university stu-
ment for teens: findings from the communication, health, dents: hooking up, alcohol, and stress response. Journal of
and teens study. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 2013; Interpersonal Violence 2007; 22:139–157.
40:528–533. 41. Stupiansky NW, Reece M, Middlestadt SE, et al. The role
30. Black SR, Schmiege S, Bull S. Actual versus perceived of sexual compulsivity in casual sexual partnerships among
peer sexual risk behavior in online youth social networks. college women. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity 2009;
Translational Behavioral Medicine 2013; 3:312–319. 16:241–252.
31. MacCallum RC, Zhang S, Preacher KJ, et al. On the 42. Benotsch ED, Kalichman SC, Pinkerton SD. Sexual com-
practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psy- pulsivity in hiv-positive men and women: prevalence,
chological Methods 2002; 7:19–40. predictors, and consequences of high-risk behaviors. Sexual
32. Fabozzi FJ, Focardi SM, Svetlozar TR, et al. (2014) Model Addiction & Compulsivity 2001; 8:83–99.
Selection Criterion: AIC and BIC—Appendix E. In The 43. Chan J, Ghose A. Internet’s dirty secret: assessing the impact
Basics of Financial Econometrics: Tools, Concepts, and of online intermediaries on HIV transmission. Management
Asset Management Applications. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Information Systems Quarterly 2014; 38:955–975.
Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 399–403. 44. Coxon AP. Parallel accounts? Discrepancies between self-
33. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, et al. (1995) Multi- report (diary) and recall (questionnaire) measures of the
variate Data Analysis. New York: Macmillan. same sexual behaviour. AIDS Care 1999; 11:221–234.
34. Hosmer DW, Hosmer T, Le Cessie S, et al. A comparison 45. Scotti M. (2016). Feeling unsafe on a date? British cam-
of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. paign says just ask for ‘Angela’. http://globalnews.ca/news/
Statistics in Medicine 1997; 16:965–980. 3041586/feeling-unsafe-on-a-date-british-campaign-says-
35. Boies S. University students’ uses of and reactions to online just-ask-for-angela (accessed May 24, 2017).
sexual information and entertainment: links to online and
offline sexual behaviour. The Canadian Journal of Human Address correspondence to:
Sexuality 2002; 11:77–89. Gilla K. Shapiro
36. Carpenter CJ, McEwan B. The players of micro-dating: Department of Psychology
individual and gender differences in goal orientations to- McGill University
ward micro-dating apps. First Monday 2016; 21. 2001 McGill College Avenue
37. Timmermans E, De Caluwé E. To Tinder or not to Tinder, Montreal H3A 1G1
that’s the question: an individual differences perspective to Canada
Tinder use and motives. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences 2017; 110:74–79. E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright of CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking is the property of Mary Ann
Liebert, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.