Does Online Dating Make Relationships More Successful? Replication and Extension of a Previous Study

Abstract

A previous study has found a negative correlation between meeting one’s romantic partner in online dating (vs. offline) and marriage quality through a quota sample of the U.S. population. This current study replicates and extends this previous study by analyzing another sample of the U.S. population from the Pew Research Center (N = 2,787). Largely consistent with the previous finding, we found that meeting one’s partner in online dating (vs. offline) was marginally related to experiencing less relationship success among people in a marital relationship. However, the difference was not observed among people in a nonmarital romantic relationship. In addition, sharing or discussing one’s relationship or dating life (i.e., relationship talks) on social media (RToSM) conditioned the link between meeting venue and relationship success. That is, for marital relationships, meeting in online dating was only linked to less relationship success among people with no RToSM but not among those who had RToSM; for nonmarital relationships, there was a positive link between meeting in online dating and relationship success among those who had RToSM, but this positive link was not observed among those who had no RToSM. We further discuss the implications of our findings on the long-term impact of online dating in marital and nonmarital romantic relationships.

Introduction

Are romantic relationships that begin with online dating more successful than those that begin offline? The question is critical as online dating has become a common way for American couples to meet.¹ Drawing upon Knapp’s relational stage model,² Sharabi theorized potential impacts of online dating in different stages of relationship development.³ On the one hand, online dating seems to afford a large pool of potential dates and a more selective dating process, thus helping people make better mate choices (i.e., the selection effect of online dating). On the other hand, Sharabi argued that people in a relationship beginning with online dating can have less shared network members, thus receiving less network support for their relationship, compared with relationships beginning offline (e.g., being introduced by family or friends), which can make the former type of relationships less stable and vulnerable to change (i.e., the network support deficiency effect of online dating).^4,5

Although research has revealed short-term relational impacts of online dating mostly regarding mate selection and relationship initiation,^6–9 the impact on relationship success in the long term is relatively underexplored, with a few exceptions.^10,11 More than a decade ago, Cacioppo and colleagues found that marriages beginning with online dating (vs. offline) were more satisfying and less likely to dissolve.¹⁰ Though the study implied an optimistic view regarding the long-term impact in a pre-mobile dating era, the online dating landscape has greatly changed as mobile dating applications such as Tinder become more commonplace. Narr witnessed a pessimistic turn of online dating toward a more fast-paced, marketized, and gamified dating process, which can stand against the original intention of careful selections for a more compatible partner.¹² Narr further contended that such a turn can lead to poorer relationship outcomes from online dating.

Indeed, Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall revealed that marriages beginning with online dating were less satisfying and less stable compared with those beginning offline.¹¹ The finding contradicts what Cacioppo et al. found over a decade ago, potentially indicating the limitation of online dating in producing more satisfying and stable marriages in recent years. Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall further revealed that the network support—that is, support from network members (e.g., friends, family) for one’s marriage—mediated such differences. Specifically, they found that people who begin their marriage with online dating (vs. offline) received less support from their network members, which was related to lower marriage satisfaction and stability. Their finding is consistent with prior research that reveals the importance of network support for relationship success.^4,5 Although network support is beneficial to relationship success,^4,5 beginning one’s relationship in online dating can be associated with lower involvement of social network members in the course of that relationship, from meeting one’s partner to having further relational interaction.^1,3 In addition, online dating-initiated relationships are often associated with social stigma.^13–15 These factors can lead to less network support for the relationships that begin in online dating, compared with the relationships that begin offline.^11,15 In sum, Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall’s study is important because it is among the first few studies to clearly indicate a negative impact of online dating on the long-term success of relationships, contradicting Cacioppo et al.’s finding.

Given the novelty and importance of Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall’s finding and its contradiction with earlier research, it will be timely and valuable to replicate and extend their study with different datasets and hypotheses that further explore the nuances behind the existing findings. For replication, we hypothesized that individuals who begin their marriage with online dating perceive less relationship success than those who begin their marriage offline (H1). In addition, we sought to extend Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall's study.¹¹ First, Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall did not test nonmarital romantic relationships (e.g., relationships in which two people are together as a couple but not married). Prior research has examined the impact of online dating on earlier stages of relationship development such as first dates⁶ and on marital relationships,^10,11 the relationships in the stages between initiation and marriage remain underexplored. Thus, inclusion of nonmarital relationships in the investigation can help enhance the generalizability of findings. Will we observe a similarly negative link between meeting in online dating and relationship success in nonmarital relationships? As people move forward from dating to marriage, they tend to be more motivated to involve their network members (e.g., friends, family) in their relationship interaction, which can help them gain network support for their relationship.^16,17 However, Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall showed that even among these married individuals, there was a negative association between meeting their spouse in online dating (vs. offline) and network support. It stands to reason that for individuals in nonmarital relationships, who are less motivated to involve their network members in their relationship interaction than married individuals,^16,17 meeting in online dating can be associated with even less network support, which may lead to less successful romantic relationships.^4,5 Thus, it is likely that, similar to H1, individuals who begin a nonmarital relationship with online dating perceive less relationship success than those who begin a nonmarital relationship offline (H2), and the negative relationship between meeting one’s partner through online dating (vs. offline) and relationship success should be stronger among individuals in a nonmarital relationship than those in a marital relationship (H3). However, the lack of network support of relationships beginning with online dating—owing to the aforementioned reasons—may be compensated by support-seeking on social media. A core argument by Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall is that online dating is associated with obtaining less network support for one’s relationship. However, as online dating-initiated relationships can further develop on other social platforms,¹⁸ it is important to consider the role of nononline dating social platforms. For example, social media can provide opportunities in garnering support. Prior research has shown that self-disclosure on social media is related to more received social support.^19,20 Theoretically speaking, sharing or discussing one’s relationship or dating life on social media, defined as relationship talk on social media (RToSM), may compensate for the network-related disadvantages associated with meeting one’s partner in online dating by helping individuals involve network members in their relationship interaction and obtain more support for their relationship. Investigating this compensating effect of RToSM will add valuable insights to the finding from Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall. We reasoned that such a compensating effect should be observed in both marital and nonmarital relationships that begin in online dating because both nonmarital and marital relationships benefit from network support.^4,5 Therefore, we predicted that the negative association between meeting in online dating (vs. offline) and relationship success can be attenuated by sharing and discussing one’s relationship on social media, among people in a marital (H4) and nonmarital relationship (H5). Taken together, we tested the hypotheses with a secondary dataset from the Pew Research Center American Trends Survey Wave 56. The findings help understand how online dating can affect how romantic relationships and families form and develop.

Methods

Procedure

To test the hypotheses, we conducted secondary analyses of the data from the 2019 Pew Research Center American Trends Panel Wave 56.²¹ This survey, focusing on online dating in the United States, was collected by the Pew Research Center between October 16 and October 28, 2019. The sampling methods were aimed at representing the American population. A total of 4,860 panelists completed the survey (response rate: 81.7% among active panelists).

The institutional review board’s approval was not required for this secondary analysis of de-identified, publicly available data from the Pew Research Center. Of note, the authors are not affiliated with the Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center bears no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations of the data presented here. The opinions expressed herein, including any implications for policy, are those of the authors and not of Pew Research Center.

Sample profile

Because the focus of this study was relationship success among partnered people, we only included participants in a marital or committed nonmarital romantic relationship in subsequent analyses. In addition, because we aimed to compare people who began their relationship with online dating or offline, we only included those who clearly indicated they met their partner through these two venues. The criteria led to a final sample of 2,787 participants. In the final sample, 47.4%, were male (n = 1,322), 52.8% were female (n = 1,472), and four participants did not disclose their sex. The majority of the participants were not older than 65 years (18–29: 14.9%, n = 414; 30–49: 36.1%, n = 1,006; 50–64: 29.8%, n = 830; older than 65: 19.2%, n = 535). Nearly half graduated from college (47.4%, n = 1,322). In addition, 71.4% of the sample were White and non-Hispanic (n = 1,989). In terms of family income, the majority of participants (83.4%, n = 2,279) reported receiving more than $30,000 per year. As for sexuality, 71.5% of the sample were heterosexual (n = 1,992) and 27.1% self-identified nonheterosexually (n = 756). The majority of participants reported that they are in a heterosexual relationship (86.5%, n = 2,347), whereas the rest were in a same-sex relationship. Majority of the sample had been in a romantic relationship more than 5 years (76.2%, n = 2,123), whereas the rest reported a relationship that had lasted less than 5 years (23.5%, n = 655).

Measurement

To measure meeting venue, we recoded the variables PARTNERMEET_W56 and ONMEET_W56 into a new variable, meeting venue (0 = meeting offline [n = 2410], 1 = meeting in online dating [n = 377]). To measure relationship type, we re-coded MARITAL_W56 and MARITAL1_W56 into a new variable, relationship type (0 = In a marital relationship [n = 1882], 1 = in a nonmarital relationship [n = 905]). To measure relationship success, we used an item on a 4-point scale (FAMSURV19RELAT_W56.; 1 = very well, 4 = not at all well). Participants were asked, “Overall, would you say that things in your relationship are going…?” We reverse-coded the variable so that a higher score indicates higher relationship success (M = 3.50, SD = 0.64). To measure RToSM, we recoded an item (SNSCHECK.b_W56) that asked participants whether they have used social media to share or discuss things about their relationship or dating life (0 = no, have not done this [n = 1431], 1 = yes, have done this [n = 684]). Lastly, we followed prior research (Cacioppo et al. and Sharabi & Dorrance-Hall)^10,11 to control the effects of age, sex (0 = male, 1 = female), education, family income, race (0 = non-White, 1 = White), couple type (0 = heterosexual couple, 1 = same-sex couple), and duration of relationship (M = 4.55, SD = 1.57) because they can affect experience in relationships, thus confounding the associations of interest.

Data analysis

We first checked the bivariate correlations between variables (Table 1). Then, we tested the hypotheses by running moderation models in PROCESS macro developed by Hayes in SPSS 22.0, including relationship type as a moderator.²² This is feasible because PROCESS macro can produce ready-for-use effect estimations on the links of interest for each relationship type. Specifically, we ran Model 1 in PROCESS macro to test H1–3 and Model 2 to test H4–5. We did not use the weights provided by the Pew Research Center because PROCESS macro does not allow weight input and our study was not focused on describing trends but on making theoretically informed between-group comparisons.

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations

	MV	RT	RToSM	RS	Age	Sex	Edu	Income	Race	CT
RT	0.176^**
RToSM	0.139^**	0.135^**
RS	−0.013	−0.124^**	−0.017
Age	−0.157^**	−0.283^**	−0.348^**	0.036
Sex	−0.053^**	0.069^**	0.116^**	−0.032	−0.205^**
Edu	−0.192^**	0.033	−0.031	−0.051^**	0.047^*	0.104^**
Income	0.093^**	−0.278^**	−0.092^**	0.105^**	0.176^**	−0.190^**	−0.418^**
Race	0.004	−0.144^**	−0.032	0.045^*	0.193^**	−0.056^**	−0.078^**	0.204^**
CT	0.142^**	0.179^**	0.018	0.015	0.013	−0.128^**	−0.121^**	0.097^**	−0.035
RD	0.323^**	−0.560^**	−0.271^**	0.056^**	0.521^**	−0.074^**	0.081^**	0.226^**	0.130^**	−0.015

CT: 0 = heterosexual couple, 1 = same-sex couple; race: 0 = non-White, 1 = White; MV: 0 = offline, 1 = online; RT: 0 = in a marital relationship, 1 = in a nonmarital relationship; RtoSM: 0 = no, have not done this, 1 = yes, have done this; sex: 0 = male, 1 = female.

CT, couple type; MV, meeting venue; RD, relationship duration; RT, relationship type; RtoSM, relationship talk on social media.

^* p < .05, ^** p < .01.

Results

The results showed that the interaction between meeting venue (i.e., online dating vs. offline) and relationship type (i.e., marital vs. nonmarital) approached marginal significance (b = 0.13, SE = 0.07, p = 0.065, 95% confidence interval or CI : [−0.0085, 0.2753]; see Table 2 [Model 1] and Figure 1). Largely consistent with the prediction of H1, for marital relationships, those who met their partner in online dating experienced less successful relationships than those who their partner met offline, though the difference was marginally significant (b = −0.10, SE = 0.05, p = 0.065, 95% CI : [−0.2006, 0.0059]). However, for nonmarital romantic relationships, meeting venue was not related to relationship success (b = 0.04, SE = 0.05, p = 0.499, 95% CI : [−0.0684, 0.1405]). H2 and H3 were not supported.

FIG. 1.

The association between meeting venue and relationship success differed by relationship type.

Table 2.

Regressions of Relationship Success on Meeting Venue, Relationship Type, Relationship Talk on Social Media, and Covariates

	Relationship success
	Model 1		Model 2
	b (SE)	p	b (SE)	p
Meeting venue (MV)	−0.10 (0.05)	0.065	−0.24 (0.07)	<0.001
Relationship type (RT)	−0.19 (0.04)	<0.001	−0.22 (0.04)	<0.001
MV × RT	0.13 (0.07)	0.065	0.14 (0.08)	0.083
Relationship talk on social media (RToSM)	—	—	−0.06 (0.04)	0.113
MV × RToSM	—	—	0.24 (0.08)	0.003
Age	−0.01 (0.02)	0.739	−0.01 (0.02)	0.663
Sex	−0.01 (0.03)	0.594	−0.02 (0.03)	0.479
Education	−0.02 (0.02)	0.175	−0.01 (0.02)	0.614
Income	0.02 (0.01)	0.013	0.02 (0.01)	0.002
Race	0.03 (0.03)	0.358	0.06 (0.03)	0.073
Couple type	0.06 (0.04)	0.117	0.05 (0.04)	0.214
Duration of relationships	−0.01 (0.01)	0.313	−0.03 (0.01)	0.043
Constant	3.57 (0.09)	<0.001	3.58 (0.10)	<0.001
Model summary	F(10, 2649) = 6.99		F(12, 2018) = 6.43
	R² = 0.03		R² = 0.04
	p < 0.001		p < 0.001

Meeting venue: 0 = offline, 1 = online; relationship type: 0 = in a marital relationship, 1 = in a nonmarital relationship; relationship talk on social media: 0 = no, have not done this, 1 = yes, have done this; sex:0 = male, 1 = female; race: 0 = non-White, 1 = White; couple type: 0 = heterosexual couple, 1 = same-sex couple.

In addition, the interaction between meeting venue and RToSM was significant (b = 0.24, SE = 0.08, p = 0.003, 95% CI : [0.0834, 0.3965]; see Table 2 [Model 2] and Figure 2). For marital relationships, among individuals who did not share or discuss their relationship or dating life on social media, meeting one’s partner in online dating was related to less relationship success compared with meeting one’s partner offline (b = −0.24, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001, 95% CI : [−0.3690, −0.1049]). By contrast, among individuals who did share or discuss, relationship success did not differ by meeting venue (b = 0.00, SE = 0.08, p = 0.969, 95% CI : [−0.1445, 0.1504]). H4 was supported. For nonmarital relationships, among individuals who did not share or discuss their relationship on social media, the association between meeting venue and relationship success was not significant (b = −0.10, SE = 0.07, p = 0.164, 95% CI : [−0.2352, 0.0398]). However, among those who did share or discuss, meeting one’s partner in online dating was related to more relationship success compared with meeting one’s partner offline (b = 0.14, SE = 0.07, p = 0.045, 95% CI [0.0030, 0.2815]). Therefore, whereas H5 predicted a divergent negative pattern of the moderating effect of the variable, RToSM, we observed a divergent positive pattern of the moderating effect of RToSM. H5 was not supported.²³

FIG. 2.

The association between meeting venue and relationship success differed by whether individuals had relationship talks on social media among individuals in a marital or nonmarital romantic relationship.

Discussion

The current study aimed to replicate and extend Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall in examining the “online dating effect” on the long-term success (i.e., beyond the initial stage) of romantic relationships.¹¹ We conducted secondary analyses on a dataset of partnered Americans from the Pew Research Center. For replication, we largely confirmed Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall’s finding on the potentially negative impact of online dating on marital relationships. We found that for marital relationships, meeting one’s partner in online dating was associated with less relationship success compared with meeting one’s partner offline, though the association merely approached marginal significance (p = 0.065).

In addition, we extended Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall’s work by finding that relationship success did not differ by meeting venue among individuals in a nonmarital romantic relationship. In the literature review, we reasoned that the network support explanation forwarded by Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall should apply to nonmarital relationships even to a greater extent given a weaker motivation of the latter to integrate their social networks than people in a marital relationship.^4,5 The discrepancy between our reasoning and our finding may imply that the network explanation is not sufficient in explaining the online dating effect in the long-term success of romantic relationships. However, an alternative explanation is that people in marital and nonmarital romantic relationships can have different criteria in assessing relationship success (“… things in your relationship are going …”; 1 = not well at all, 4 = very well) because they have different expectations for their relationship. It is likely that people in a nonmarital relationship have less serious expectations for their relationship and more causal goals. Therefore, even potentially facing a more severe network support deficiency, because the expectations of people who begin a nonmarital relationship in online dating may be lower than those who begin a marital relationship with online dating, thus more easily met.

Our second extension of Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall’s work is that we revealed the moderating role of RToSM on the link between meeting venue and relationship success. Drawing upon the notion of that online-initiated relationships develop in a multimedia system,¹⁸ we investigated the role of sharing about and discussing one’s relationship on social media, in addition to considerations given to online dating platforms. Specifically, because self-disclosure on social media can help individuals garner network support for their relationship, it is plausible that RToSM can buffer the negative effect of online dating on relationship success in marital relationships. In addition, the potential support-seeking function of RToSM may also counteract the uncertainty induced by online dating, thus enabling the positive selection effect of online dating to manifest in nonmarital relationships. This finding indicates the usefulness of considering the “online dating effect” from a multimedia perspective, beyond discussing the role of online dating platforms. Of note, these findings should be interpreted with caveats as the dataset we used is cross-sectional. In addition, the limited number of items available prevented us from assessing the reliability and validity of our measures. Furthermore, though we have controlled a series of potential covariates (e.g., duration of the relationship), we were not able to control other factors (e.g., attachment styles) owing to the lack of measures in the data. Those factors could confound the link between online dating and relationship success and may be addressed in future research.^24,25

Despite these limitations, our study provides valuable insights on an underexplored topic—the online dating effect on long-term success of romantic relationships—by replicating and extending one recent study that has provided unique findings on the topic.¹¹ Taken together, we extended Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall’s work by demonstrating how the link between meeting one’s partner in online dating (vs. offline) and relationship success can differ by relationship type and by support-seeking strategy. Although this link was at best nonsignificant, at worse negative in marital relationships, the link was at worse nonsignificant, at best positive in nonmarital romantic relationships. Perhaps we observed such a difference because people in nonmarital romantic relationships tend to have more casual goals and less constraints in reversing mate choice, which can enhance the positive effect of online dating on mate selection²⁶; by contrast, people in a marital relationship can have more serious relational expectations and a stronger emphasis on commitment and responsibility,³ which can make the negative impact of online dating on network support deficiency more salient. We encourage future research to test these speculations with longitudinal designs and better measures, accounting for different goals and expectations in marital and nonmarital relationships, to further understand existing findings. In addition, the contrast between findings from our study and Sharabi and Dorrance-Hall’s study with Cacioppo and colleagues’ study also warrants more investigations into the impact of shifts in online dating culture and platforms.¹² Furthermore, though the moderating effect of time is beyond the scope of the current study—we simply controlled duration of relationship in our regressions—it will be valuable for future studies to explore whether differences between online and offline-initiated relationships diminish over time with longitudinal designs. Lastly, our study provides practical implications for online dating users. For example, online dating may have a more positive role play in nonmarital romantic relationships than romantic relationships and seeking help on social media can be essential for the success of relationships beginning with online dating as it may compensate for the downsides of online dating.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback to earlier versions of this manuscript.

Authors’ Contributions

J.M.H.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft. R.Z.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing—Original Draft. Y.Z.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—Original Draft.

Data Availability

The data used in the current study is accessible at the website of the Pew Research Center: .

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Funding Information

The study did not receive any financial support.

References

Rosenfeld

, Thomas

, Hausen

. Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2019; 116(36):17753–17758; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1908630116

Mark. L

. Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Allyn & Bacon: Needham Heights, MA, USA; 1978.

Sharabi

. The enduring effect of internet dating: Meeting online and the road to marriage. Communication Research, 2024; 51(3):259–284; doi: 10.1177/00936502221127498

Bryant

, Conger

. Marital success and domains of social support in long-term relationships: Does the influence of network members ever end? Journal of Marriage and Family, 1999; 61(2):437–450; doi: 10.2307/353760

Felmlee

. No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social Forces, 2001; 79(4):1259–1287; doi: 10.1353/sof.2001.0039

Sharabi

. Exploring how beliefs about algorithms shape (offline) success in online dating: A two-wave longitudinal investigation. Communication Research, 2021; 48(7):931–952; doi: 10.1177/0093650219896936

. Exploring the impact of a ‘confining’ imaginary of user-recommendation systems on platform usage and relationship development among dating app users. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2023; 43(6):1164–1177; doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2023.2201353

Coduto

, Lee-Won

, Baek

. Swiping for trouble: Problematic dating application use among psychosocially distraught individuals and the paths to negative outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2020; 37(1):212–232; doi: 10.1177/0265407519861153

, Zhan

E.(S.)

. Algorithm awareness in online dating: Associations with mate-searching difficulty and future expectancies among U.S. online daters. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2024; 0(0):1–16; doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2023.2299297

10.

Cacioppo

, Cacioppo

, Gonzaga

, et al. Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2013; 110(25):10135–10140; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222447110

11.

Sharabi

, Dorrance-Hall

. The online dating effect: Where a couple meets predicts the quality of their marriage. Computers in Human Behavior, 2024; 150:107973; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107973

12.

Narr

. Imagining algorithms to believe in: Comparing OkCupid and Tinder users’ perceptions of algorithms to uncover alternatives to algorithmic exploitation on dating apps. International Journal of Communication, 2022; 16:5338–5357.

13.

Anderson

, Vogels

. The virtues and downsides of online dating. 2020. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/06/the-virtues-and-downsides-of-online-dating/

14.

Wildermuth

. The effects of stigmatizing discourse on the quality of on-line relationships. Cyberpsychol Behav, 2004; 7(1):73–84; doi: 10.1089/109493104322820147

15.

Riger

. Perceptions of stigma in online dating narratives: Implications for marriage and family therapists [Doctoral Dissertation]. Virginia Tech: Blacksburg (VA); 2017.

16.

Kalmijn

. Shared friendship networks and the life course: An analysis of survey data on married and cohabiting couples. Social Networks, 2003; 25(3):231–249; doi: 10.1016/S0378-8733(03)00010-8

17.

Dainton

, Aylor

. Routine and strategic maintenance efforts: Behavioral patterns, variations associated with relational length, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 2002; 69(1):52–66; doi: 10.1080/03637750216533

18.

McEwan

. Modality switching to modality weaving: Updating theoretical perspectives for expanding media affordances. Annals of the International Communication Association, 2021; 45(1):1–19; doi: 10.1080/23808985.2021.1880958

19.

Huang

H-Y

. Examining the beneficial effects of individual’s self-disclosure on the social network site. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 57:122–132; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.030

20.

Zhang

. The stress-buffering effect of self-disclosure on Facebook: An examination of stressful life events, social support, and mental health among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017; 75:527–537; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.043

21.

Pew Research Center. American trends panel wave 56. 2020. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/dataset/american-trends-panel-wave-56/

22.

Hayes

. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. 2nd edition. methodology in the social sciences. Guilford Press: New York; 2018.

23.

Holbert

, Park

. Conceptualizing, organizing, and positing moderation in communication research. Communication Theory, 2020; 30(3):227–246; doi: 10.1093/ct/qtz006

24.

Timmermans

, Alexopoulos

. Anxiously searching for love (among other things): Attachment orientation and mobile dating application users’ motives and outcomes. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2020; 23(7):447–452; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2019.0542

25.

Arriaga

, Kumashiro

. Walking a security tightrope: Relationship-induced changes in attachment security. Curr Opin Psychol, 2019; 25:121–126; doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.016

26.

Hobbs

, Owen

, Gerber

. Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital transformation of intimacy. Journal of Sociology, 2017; 53(2):271–284; doi: 10.1177/1440783316662718