Tweet
Hellolol, visitor!
Article about top 10 free dating sites 2015:
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and Dating Apps and Their Sociodemographic and Psychosocial Correlates: A Systematic Review. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
GO TO SITE
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Abstract. The emergence and popularization of dating apps have changed the way people meet and interact with potential romantic and sexual partners. In parallel with the increased use of these applications, a remarkable scientific literature has developed. However, due to the recency of the phenomenon, some gaps in the existing research can be expected. Therefore, the objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the empirical research of the psychosocial content published in the last five years (2016–2020) on dating apps. A search was conducted in different databases, and we identified 502 articles in our initial search. After screening titles and abstracts and examining articles in detail, 70 studies were included in the review. The most relevant data (author/s and year, sample size and characteristics, methodology) and their findings were extracted from each study and grouped into four blocks: user dating apps characteristics, usage characteristics, motives for use, and benefits and risks of use. The limitations of the literature consulted are discussed, as well as the practical implications of the results obtained, highlighting the relevance of dating apps, which have become a tool widely used by millions of people around the world. 1. Introduction. In the last decade, the popularization of the Internet and the use of the smartphone and the emergence of real-time location-based dating apps (e.g., Tinder, Grindr) have transformed traditional pathways of socialization and promoted new ways of meeting and relating to potential romantic and/or sexual partners [1,2,3,4]. It is difficult to know reliably how many users currently make use of dating apps, due to the secrecy of the developer companies. However, thanks to the information provided by different reports and studies, the magnitude of the phenomenon can be seen online. For example, the Statista Market Forecast [5] portal estimated that by the end of 2019, there were more than 200 million active users of dating apps worldwide. It has been noted that more than ten million people use Tinder daily, which has been downloaded more than a hundred million times worldwide [6,7]. In addition, studies conducted in different geographical and cultural contexts have shown that around 40% of single adults are looking for an online partner [8], or that around 25% of new couples met through this means [9]. Some theoretical reviews related to users and uses of dating apps have been published, although they have focused on specific groups, such as men who have sex with men (MSM [10,11]) or on certain risks, such as aggression and abuse through apps [12]. Anzani et al. [1] conducted a review of the literature on the use of apps to find a sexual partner, in which they focused on users’ sociodemographic characteristics, usage patterns, and the transition from online to offline contact. However, this is not a systematic review of the results of studies published up to that point and it leaves out some relevant aspects that have received considerable research attention, such as the reasons for use of dating apps, or their associated advantages and risks. Thus, we find a recent and changing object of study, which has achieved great social relevance in recent years and whose impact on research has not been adequately studied and evaluated so far. Therefore, the objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the empirical research of psychosocial content published in the last five years (2016–2020) on dating apps. By doing so, we intend to assess the state of the literature in terms of several relevant aspects (i.e., users’ profile, uses and motives for use, advantages, and associated risks), pointing out some limitations and posing possible future lines of research. Practical implications will be highlighted. 2. Materials and Methods. The systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [13,14], and following the recommendations of Gough et al. [15]. However, it should be noted that, as the objective of this study was to provide a state of the art view of the published literature on dating apps in the last five years and without statistical data processing, there are several principles included in the PRISMA that could not be met (e.g., summary measures, planned methods of analysis, additional analysis, risk of bias within studies). However, following the advice of the developers of these guidelines concerning the specific nature of systematic reviews, the procedure followed has been described in a clear, precise, and replicable manner [13]. 2.1. Literature Search and Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria. We examined the databases of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Medline, as well as PsycInfo and Psycarticle and Google Scholar, between 1 March and 6 April 2020. In all the databases consulted, we limited the search to documents from the last five years (2016–2020) and used general search terms, such as “dating apps†and “online dating†(linking the latter with “appsâ€), in addition to the names of some of the most popular and frequently used dating apps worldwide, such as “tinderâ€, “grindrâ€, and “momoâ€, to identify articles that met the inclusion criteria (see below). The selection criteria in this systematic review were established and agreed on by the two authors of this study. The database search was carried out by one researcher. In case of doubt about whether or not a study should be included in the review, consultation occurred and the decision was agreed upon by the two researchers. Four-hundred and ninety-three results were located, to which were added 15 documents that were found through other resources (e.g., social networks, e-mail alerts, newspapers, the web). After these documents were reviewed and the duplicates removed, a total of 502 records remained, as shown by the flowchart presented in Figure 1 . At that time, the following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) empirical, quantitative or qualitative articles, (2) published on paper or in electronic format (including “online firstâ€) between 2016 and 2020 (we decided to include articles published since 2016 after finding that the previous empirical literature in databases on dating apps from a psychosocial point of view was not very large, in fact, the earliest studies of Tinder included in Scopus dated back to 2016, (3) to be written in English or Spanish, and (4) with psychosocial content. No theoretical reviews, case studies/ethnography, user profile content analyses, institutional reports, conference presentations, proceeding papers, etc., were taken into account. Flowchart of the systematic review process. Thus, the process of refining the results, which can be viewed graphically in Figure 1 , was as follows. Of the initial 502 results, the following exclusion criteria were applied: (1) pre-2016 documents (96 records excluded), (2) documents that either did not refer to dating apps or did so from a technological approach (identified through title and abstract, 239 records excluded), (3) published in a language other than English or Spanish (10 records excluded), (4) institutional reports, or analysis of the results of such reports (six records excluded), (5) proceeding papers (six records excluded), (6) systematic reviews and theoretical reflections (26 records excluded), (7) case studies/ethnography (nine records excluded), (8) non-empirical studies of a sociological nature (20 records excluded), (9) analysis of user profile content and campaigns on dating apps and other social networks (e.g., Instagram, nine records excluded), and (10) studies with confusing methodology, which did not explain the methodology followed, the instruments used, and/or the characteristics of the participants (11 records excluded).
Top 10 free dating sites 2015
Article about top 10 free dating sites 2015:
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and Dating Apps and Their Sociodemographic and Psychosocial Correlates: A Systematic Review. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
GO TO SITE
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Abstract. The emergence and popularization of dating apps have changed the way people meet and interact with potential romantic and sexual partners. In parallel with the increased use of these applications, a remarkable scientific literature has developed. However, due to the recency of the phenomenon, some gaps in the existing research can be expected. Therefore, the objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the empirical research of the psychosocial content published in the last five years (2016–2020) on dating apps. A search was conducted in different databases, and we identified 502 articles in our initial search. After screening titles and abstracts and examining articles in detail, 70 studies were included in the review. The most relevant data (author/s and year, sample size and characteristics, methodology) and their findings were extracted from each study and grouped into four blocks: user dating apps characteristics, usage characteristics, motives for use, and benefits and risks of use. The limitations of the literature consulted are discussed, as well as the practical implications of the results obtained, highlighting the relevance of dating apps, which have become a tool widely used by millions of people around the world. 1. Introduction. In the last decade, the popularization of the Internet and the use of the smartphone and the emergence of real-time location-based dating apps (e.g., Tinder, Grindr) have transformed traditional pathways of socialization and promoted new ways of meeting and relating to potential romantic and/or sexual partners [1,2,3,4]. It is difficult to know reliably how many users currently make use of dating apps, due to the secrecy of the developer companies. However, thanks to the information provided by different reports and studies, the magnitude of the phenomenon can be seen online. For example, the Statista Market Forecast [5] portal estimated that by the end of 2019, there were more than 200 million active users of dating apps worldwide. It has been noted that more than ten million people use Tinder daily, which has been downloaded more than a hundred million times worldwide [6,7]. In addition, studies conducted in different geographical and cultural contexts have shown that around 40% of single adults are looking for an online partner [8], or that around 25% of new couples met through this means [9]. Some theoretical reviews related to users and uses of dating apps have been published, although they have focused on specific groups, such as men who have sex with men (MSM [10,11]) or on certain risks, such as aggression and abuse through apps [12]. Anzani et al. [1] conducted a review of the literature on the use of apps to find a sexual partner, in which they focused on users’ sociodemographic characteristics, usage patterns, and the transition from online to offline contact. However, this is not a systematic review of the results of studies published up to that point and it leaves out some relevant aspects that have received considerable research attention, such as the reasons for use of dating apps, or their associated advantages and risks. Thus, we find a recent and changing object of study, which has achieved great social relevance in recent years and whose impact on research has not been adequately studied and evaluated so far. Therefore, the objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the empirical research of psychosocial content published in the last five years (2016–2020) on dating apps. By doing so, we intend to assess the state of the literature in terms of several relevant aspects (i.e., users’ profile, uses and motives for use, advantages, and associated risks), pointing out some limitations and posing possible future lines of research. Practical implications will be highlighted. 2. Materials and Methods. The systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [13,14], and following the recommendations of Gough et al. [15]. However, it should be noted that, as the objective of this study was to provide a state of the art view of the published literature on dating apps in the last five years and without statistical data processing, there are several principles included in the PRISMA that could not be met (e.g., summary measures, planned methods of analysis, additional analysis, risk of bias within studies). However, following the advice of the developers of these guidelines concerning the specific nature of systematic reviews, the procedure followed has been described in a clear, precise, and replicable manner [13]. 2.1. Literature Search and Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria. We examined the databases of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Medline, as well as PsycInfo and Psycarticle and Google Scholar, between 1 March and 6 April 2020. In all the databases consulted, we limited the search to documents from the last five years (2016–2020) and used general search terms, such as “dating apps†and “online dating†(linking the latter with “appsâ€), in addition to the names of some of the most popular and frequently used dating apps worldwide, such as “tinderâ€, “grindrâ€, and “momoâ€, to identify articles that met the inclusion criteria (see below). The selection criteria in this systematic review were established and agreed on by the two authors of this study. The database search was carried out by one researcher. In case of doubt about whether or not a study should be included in the review, consultation occurred and the decision was agreed upon by the two researchers. Four-hundred and ninety-three results were located, to which were added 15 documents that were found through other resources (e.g., social networks, e-mail alerts, newspapers, the web). After these documents were reviewed and the duplicates removed, a total of 502 records remained, as shown by the flowchart presented in Figure 1 . At that time, the following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) empirical, quantitative or qualitative articles, (2) published on paper or in electronic format (including “online firstâ€) between 2016 and 2020 (we decided to include articles published since 2016 after finding that the previous empirical literature in databases on dating apps from a psychosocial point of view was not very large, in fact, the earliest studies of Tinder included in Scopus dated back to 2016, (3) to be written in English or Spanish, and (4) with psychosocial content. No theoretical reviews, case studies/ethnography, user profile content analyses, institutional reports, conference presentations, proceeding papers, etc., were taken into account. Flowchart of the systematic review process. Thus, the process of refining the results, which can be viewed graphically in Figure 1 , was as follows. Of the initial 502 results, the following exclusion criteria were applied: (1) pre-2016 documents (96 records excluded), (2) documents that either did not refer to dating apps or did so from a technological approach (identified through title and abstract, 239 records excluded), (3) published in a language other than English or Spanish (10 records excluded), (4) institutional reports, or analysis of the results of such reports (six records excluded), (5) proceeding papers (six records excluded), (6) systematic reviews and theoretical reflections (26 records excluded), (7) case studies/ethnography (nine records excluded), (8) non-empirical studies of a sociological nature (20 records excluded), (9) analysis of user profile content and campaigns on dating apps and other social networks (e.g., Instagram, nine records excluded), and (10) studies with confusing methodology, which did not explain the methodology followed, the instruments used, and/or the characteristics of the participants (11 records excluded).
Top 10 free dating sites 2015