Methodology

Questionnaire Design
The first step in creating the dating apps questionnaire was to think about what
information was needed from the sample and which questions would best bring that data. The
research group determined their research objective to be the measurement student usage of
dating apps and understand how social media has changed dating and courting. They made a list
of interesting questions to ask on the survey and then determined which of those questions best
fit their research goals, and questions that werent relevant were thrown out. The research group
then created a draft of the questionnaire and prepared to pretest it.
Each group member participated in a pretest of the survey by giving the survey to one
person and having the responder give comments and critiques on it. The pre-testers voiced
concerns about the order of questions, definitions of terms, and the relevance of open-ended
questions. Taking their opinions into account, the research group edited the survey and came up
with the final draft that they handed out to classes.
The dating apps questionnaire encompassed several different kinds of scales and
questions. The questionnaire started off with simple, interesting questions first and then moved
into more specific questions. A semantic differential scale was used to determine peoples
opinions on how they regarded dating apps. A Likert scale was used to measure whether students
agreed with our given statements regarding attitudes toward dating apps. We placed closedended, demographic questions at the end of the survey, rather than at the beginning, in order to
start with more interesting questions. Two open ended questions were placed at the end of the
questionnaire to explore responders feelings and attitudes toward dating and social media in
their own words.
Along with the questionnaire, the group handed out a cover sheet that explained their
research objectives and the minimal risk to participants. Those who agreed to take the surveys
signed the document and allowed the group to collect their information.
Sampling/Questionnaire Distribution
Approximately 1,600 students attend Loras College, giving the research group the sample
frame to draw their sample from. The groups target population was students at Loras between
the ages of 18 and 24, since those are the typical ages of undergraduate students and is the
majority age group at Loras College. Secondary research showed that the typical Tinder users are
aged 18-24, according to Statista. Another graph from Statista also showed that dating app usage
was higher in adults aged 25-34 and lower in young adults aged 18-24, which tied into the
groups hypothesis that dating apps are not popular at Loras. The group determined they wanted
to sample at least 200 of that population in order to accurately depict the attitudes towards dating
apps at Loras. Taking a census of the Loras College population would have been too timeconsuming, thus making a sample their most realistic collection method.
In order to sample the College, the research group decided to randomly choose from the
class database which classes to hand out their questionnaire to. To determine which classes to
sample, they decided to use a probability samplespecifically a systematic random sampleso
that each class at Loras had a chance of being chosen to take the survey. Starting at the 331st class
listed on the database Excel sheet and choosing every 27th class, the research group made a list
of classes to survey and used them as their beginning sample.
Using this systematic random sample, each member of the group chose a class from the
list and emailed the teacher to inquire whether they could pass out the survey to their class. If a

teacher said no or didnt respond in the appropriate amount of time (two days), that group
member moved on and chose a different class from the list. Each group member was responsible
for passing out the survey to at least one class so that the group could meet their goal of 200
survey responses in order to have an accurate sample. Altogether, the research group brought in
158 completed surveys and fell short of their goal.
Data Collection/Entry
Once each group member had handed out surveys to a class, the next step was to prepare
the data for quantitative analysis. The research group used SPSS to collect the data, assigning a
different code to each question, and then all group members entered their own data into the
system, where it was then analyzed. From there, the group created charts, graphs, and
infographics to present their quantitative findings.
Other Qualitative Research
In addition to handing out their questionnaire, the research group also attained qualitative
research in the forms of focus groups and one-on-one interviews. These other forms of
qualitative research allowed the group to ask participants probing questions in order to collect
stories, anecdotes, and other data.
The group held two focus groupsone comprised of males and one comprised of
females. Each focus group consisted of eight people who responded, showed up, and agreed to
participate in the focus group, though 12 emails were sent per group. The focus groups were held
at a male and female group members house, respectively. This was in order to have a convenient
location and comfortable, homely setting for the participants. The groups were also served food
and drink. Both groups used the same format to design the structure, though the nature of the
discussion led to a loose structure. Each focus group session lasted 45 minutes to an hour.
Each group member was also responsible for conducting two one-on-one interviews
one with a male and one with a female. The research group pre-determined a list of questions to
ask interviewees with the understanding that the conversation will naturally lead to more
questionstherefore, not everyones one-on-one interviews would be the exact same. The
purpose of the interviews was to gather qualitative data that was more in-depth than what was on
the survey, as interviewees could share stories and anecdotes related to the subject and their
objectives.
For the one-on-one interviews, the group did not use a random sample or a probability
method like they did for the questionnaire. Instead, they used the nonprobability method of the
convenience sample, and each group member selected a male and a female to interview at their
own convenience. Again, the group was able to ask probing questions to collect even more
qualitative data.

Limitations
The group ran into a few limitations throughout their project in methodology,
questionnaire design, and survey response. These limitations were not major but would have
made answering hypotheses and meeting objectives easier had they not been there.
The group ran into some surveys that had to be thrown out for various reasons. If a
survey was taken by a student whose age didnt fall in the 18 to 22 age range, we did not count
their survey. Some students also took the survey more than once. In this case, we only counted

one of their responses. In some responses, answers were jokes or didnt fit what the questions
was asking. In question 4 on the questionnaire (refer to the questionnaire), some respondents
misinterpreted the question and assumed it meant a platonic relationship rather than a romantic
one.
Another limitation included the potential to ask different questions on the survey. Once
the group began analyzing their quantitative results, the research group realized that their
objectives and hypotheses could be more fully met by different questions on the survey. For
example, the group should have asked survey responders, Have you ever used a dating app?
rather than simply asking if theyve ever used any of the apps on a given list (which included
social media sites in addition to dating apps). This information would have been helpful in better
measuring dating app usage, in addition to measuring dating app awareness. Another question
they could have asked was why responders dont use dating apps in an open-ended form. Asking
responders to think about why dating apps arent being used could have brought in further
information.
While the research group wanted to aim for specific dating apps, sometimes it was
unclear whether they were asking about apps meant purely for dating versus apps not created for
the sole purpose of dating. The group should have differentiated between dating apps and other
social media sites that people could use for romantic purposes. This was shown in the final
question of the survey (refer to questionnaire) where responders could name the app they use the
most for romantic purposes. Many answered with a social media app or texting, which are not
included as dating apps. The research group should have specifically asked for apps used solely
for romantic purposes and dating rather than social media apps and texting.