Love at First Click: A Closer Look on the Effects of the

Internet Dating Among Generation Z

A Research Proposal Presented to

The Senior High School Department
Tagum National Trade School
Apokon, Tagum City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement in

Practical Research II

Madera, Mekaella P.
Getizo, Devine M.
Matarab, Jayson
Darunday, Joel R.
Cabansag, Fritz P.
Dingcong, Juvier M.

MARCH 2025
 ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL SHEET

This research paper entitled, “LOVE AT FIRST CLICK: A CLOSER LOOK

ON THE EFFECTS OF THE INTERNET DATING AMONG GENERATION Z”
prepared and submitted by MEKAELLA P. MADERA, DIVINE M. GETIZO,
JAYSON MATARAB, JOEL DARUNDAY, FRITZ CABANSAG, and JUVIER
DINGCONG of Tagum National Trade School in partial fulfillment of the
requirements in Inquiries, Investigation, and Immersion has been examined
and is hereby accepted and approved.
 ABSTRACT

This study investigated the relationship between internet dating and

relationships among Generation Z students at School (A) in Tagum City,
Philippines. Using a quantitative, non-experimental design, a survey was
administered to 105 students who had previously engaged in online dating.
Data analysis included descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) and
Pearson's correlation coefficient to assess the relationship between internet
dating engagement and relationship quality. The findings revealed a
significant negative correlation between internet dating engagement and
relationship quality, suggesting that higher levels of online dating engagement
may be associated with lower relationship stability and trust issues.
Regression analysis indicated that all dimensions of internet dating
engagement—platform usage, frequency of use, and communication methods
—significantly influenced relationship quality. These findings highlight the
need for digital literacy and healthy online dating habits among Generation Z
to mitigate the potential downsides of internet-based romantic interactions.

Keywords: Internet Dating, Generation Z, Relationship Quality, Digital Literacy

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research project owes its success to many individuals and entities.

First and foremost, the researchers express their sincere gratitude to God for

the blessings of life, wisdom, and strength that enabled the completion of this

work. They also extend heartfelt thanks to their research advisor, Mrs. Noime

Lorenzana, for her unwavering support, guidance, and patience throughout

the entire research process. Special appreciation is given to Mrs. Nemelyn

Lumangtad for her invaluable grammatical assistance and to Sir Gallardo for

his statistical expertise.

The researchers' families also played a crucial role, providing

invaluable emotional, financial, and practical support. Their unwavering

encouragement and prayers were instrumental in overcoming challenges and

ensuring the timely completion of the study. A significant debt of gratitude is

also owed to all participants who generously shared their time, thoughts, and

experiences, enriching the research with their invaluable perspectives. Their

contributions formed the very foundation of this study.

Finally, the researchers wish to acknowledge the contributions of

numerous individuals whose assistance, though not specifically named, was

nonetheless vital to the project's success. Their support, whether direct or

indirect, significantly enhanced the quality and scope of the research. The

researchers deeply appreciate the collective efforts of everyone involved in

this undertaking.
 DEDICATION

We dedicated this research to our parents and friends, who provided us with

unwavering encouragement and support throughout the process. We also

owe a debt of gratitude to our teachers, who enabled this research by

providing the direction we needed to complete it. Additionally, we dedicate this

study to ourselves, as we put a significant amount of effort and energy into its

completion.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE i

ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL SHEET ii

ABSTRACT iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

DEDICATION v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xi

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study 1

Statement of the Problem 2

Hypotheses 3

Review of Related Literature 4

Theoretical Framework 14

Conceptual Framework 15

Significance of the Study 17

Scope and Delimitation of the Study 18

Definition of Terms 19

Chapter 2

METHODS

Research Design 21

Respondents of the Study 22

Research Instrument 23

Data Gathering Procedure 27

Data Analysis 29

Ethical Considerations 31

Chapter 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Level of Internet Dating of relationship among

Generation Z in terms of Platform Usage 37

Level of Internet Dating of relationship among

Generation Z in Frequency of Use 39

Level of Internet Dating of relationship among

Generation Z in terms of communication Methods 41

Summary Level of internet Dating in Platform

Usage,Frequency of use and Communication Methods. 43

Level of relationship among Generation Z in terms

of Social media Influence 45

Level of relationship among Generation Z in terms

of Relationship commitment 46

Level of relationship among Generation Z in terms

of Rejection in Online Dating 48

Summary Level of relationship among Generation Z in terms of Social Media

influence,Relationship commitment and Rejection in Online Dating 50

Significant of the relationship between Internet Dating of
relationship among Generation Z. 52
Regression Analysis on the Domain of Internet Dating 54

which influences the Relationship among Generation Z

in terms of Social Media Influence

Regression Analysis on the Domain of Internet Dating 56

which influences the Relationship among Generation

Z in terms of Relationship Commitment

Regression Analysis on the Domain of Internet Dating 57

which influences the Relationship among Generation Z

in terms of Rejection in Online Dating

Chapter 4

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings 60

Conclusions 61

Recommendations 62

References 64

APPENDICES 70

A. Letter of Permission to Conduct the Study 70

B. Letter to the Respondents 71

C. Research Instruments 72
D. Validation of the Research Instruments
78

E. Statistical Test Results 79

F. Certificate of Statistical Analysis 80

G. Certificate from the Grammarian 81

H. Certificate of Completion 82

I. Curriculum Vitae 83

LIST OF TABLES
TABL Page
E
1 Respondents of the study 24

2 Level of Internet Dating of relationship 38

among Generation Z in terms of Platform
Usage

3 Level of Internet Dating of relationship 40

among Generation Z in Frequency of Use

4 Level of Internet Dating of relationship 42

among Generation Z in terms of
communication Methods

5 Summary Level of internet Dating in Platform 44

Usage,Frequency of use and
Communication Methods.

6 Level of relationship among Generation Z in 46

terms of Social media Influence

7 Level of relationship among Generation Z in 47

terms of Relationship commitment

8 Level of relationship among Generation Z in 49

terms of Rejection in Online Dating

9 Summary Level of relationship among 51

Generation Z in terms of Social Media
influence,Relationship commitment and
Rejection in Online Dating

10 Significant of the relationship between 52

Internet Dating of relationship among
Generation Z.

11 Regression Analysis on the Domain of 54

Internet Dating which influences the
Relationship among Generation Z in terms of
Social Media Influence
12 Regression Analysis on the Domain of 56
Internet Dating which influences the
Relationship among Generation Z in terms of
Relationship Commitment

13 Regression Analysis on the Domain of 57

Internet Dating which influences the
Relationship among Generation Z in terms of
Rejection in Online Dating

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page
1 Conceptual Framework 1
 1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Dating apps have changed how young people find relationships, but it

is often tiring and disappointing. It is easy to meet people, but it can also be

overwhelming and lead to frustration. Many feel more stressed than happy

using these apps. This shows a problem with how dating apps work and how

they affect relationships. It's important to understand how these apps affect

young people's love lives. (Hansom 2022).

Social media and online dating have transformed relationships globally.

In the U.S., 61 percent of dating app users are millennials ages 30-49, while

Gen Z accounts for only 26 percent (Statista 2023). To seek more authentic

connections, some Gen Z daters are turning to platforms like Instagram and

TikTok. However, many still worry about rejection and the authenticity of these

connections.

Aparently, social media and dating apps are changing how young

people in the Philippines start and maintain relationships, moving away from

traditional dating practices (Rebecca & Joel, 2021). While these platforms

offer new ways to connect, they also introduce challenges that may impact

Filipino culture, relationship stability, and emotional well-being.

As students at School (A) and members of Generation Z, the

researchers recognized the harmful effects of online dating in the community.

 2

A notable case reported by Locus (2022) involved a 43-year-old call center

agent in Davao City, arrested for threatening to leak intimate photos of his ex-

girlfriend unless she met him. He allegedly agreed to delete the images only if

she met him at a hotel. This incident underscores the serious risks tied to

online dating and social media interactions.

Sánchez, Muñoz-Fernández, and Ortega-Ruíz (2017) explored how

young people form relationships through social media. However, gaps remain

in understanding how emerging platforms and dating apps influence

relationship development and sustainability. There is also limited research on

how digital dating behaviors vary across cultures, socioeconomic

backgrounds, and regions. More extensive studies could offer valuable

insights into modern relationship dynamics.

The quantitative study on the effects of online dating on Generation Z

at school (A) in Tagum City holds significant social value by providing

empirical insights into how internet dating influences relationship commitment,

Social Media Influence, and Rejection in online dating. By understanding

these effects, the research aims to inform educators, parents, and mental

health professionals, enabling them to develop targeted interventions and

educational programs that promote healthier relationship practices and digital

literacy.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to determine the relationship between Internet Dating

to Generation Z’s School Year 2024-2025. Specifically, this study sought to:
 3

1. Describe the level of Internet Dating of relationship among Generation Z in

terms of:

1.1 platform Usage;

1.2 frequency of Use; and

1.3 communication Method

2. Describe the level of Relationship of among Generation Z in terms of:

1.1 social Media influence;

1.2 relationship commitment; and

1.3 rejection in Online Dating

3. Determine the significant relationship between the level of Internet Dating

and of relationship among Generation Z.

4. Determine which domain of Internet Dating predicts/influences the

relationship among Generation Z.

HYPOTHESIS

Ho1: There is no significant relationship between Internet Dating and

relationship among Generation Z.

Ho2: The domain of Internet Dating does not predict or influence the

relationship among Generation Z.

 4

Review of Related Literature

The following readings were collected from diverse literary sources that

explore the relationship between Internet Dating to Generation Z.

Internet dating
According to Wooddell (2024), internet dating has profoundly altered

interpersonal relationships, allowing people to connect online as frequently, if

not more so, than through familial or social circles or in face-to-face

encounters. Public perceptions regarding internet dating are varied, although

a majority consider it to be a neutral factor in the dating and relationship

landscape (Anderson et al., 2020).

Although personal advertisements and video dating services have

historically been used to seek romantic partners, the emergence of dating

applications and websites has significantly expanded these options (Nadeem,

2024). By 2017, a greater number of couples were forming relationships

online than through any other method in the United States, marking a

significant transformation in relationship formation dynamics (Rosenfeld et al.,

2023).

A study conducted by sociologist Potarca (2020), indicated that

couples who meet online tend to be more diverse in terms of education, race,

and religion compared to those who meet offline. For example, Reuben "Jack"

Thomas from the University of New Mexico highlighted that online couples

often come from different racial and religious backgrounds, contributing to the

desegregation of families in America (King, 2019).

 5

However, the complexities associated with internet dating necessitate

thorough research into its long-term implications for interpersonal

relationships (Sharabi, 2023). It is essential to explore issues related to

problematic usage, emotional well-being, and the user experience to enhance

online dating environments (Bonilla-Zorita et al., 2020). Romance scams pose

a significant risk for individuals using online dating platforms, as perpetrators

often create fictitious profiles to emotionally and financially exploit users,

underscoring the need for caution among platform users.

This rising dependency shapes individuals' perceptions and attitudes

(Joo & Teng, 2017). The phenomenon is particularly pronounced among

Generation Z, who exhibit significant reliance on social media and struggle to

form deep attachments in their relationships, largely due to growing up in an

environment characterized by immediate gratification (Nealon, 2019). A

survey by the American Psychological Association reports that Generation Z

is the demographic most often seeking mental health treatment, while also

indicating lower perceived well-being and increased stress related to societal

challenges (Bethune, 2019).

Platform Usage

With a variety of social media and dating apps to suit diverse tastes

and relationship objectives, platform usage in online dating has changed

dramatically. Through Facebook Dating, the social networking site Facebook

has incorporated dating capabilities, enabling users to form romantic

relationships inside their current social networks (Menon, 2024).

 6

Many couples connect and build relationships through social media,

finding love on platforms like Instagram or Facebook. However, using dating

apps or social media for romance has both pros and cons. Dating apps offer a

more direct approach to finding partners, while social media allows for organic

connection through shared interests. Social media relationships might develop

more slowly, but can feel more authentic. Ultimately, the best approach

depends on individual preferences and goals (Espada, 2023).

Facebook Dating has seen a resurgence among younger users, with

daily conversations among 18 to 29-year-olds increasing by 24 percent over

the past year, as they seek alternatives to traditional dating apps (New York

Post, 2024). Tinder, despite a recent decline of 600,000 users over the past

year, remains a prominent platform, though some users express frustration

over its addictive design and monetization strategies (The Times, 2024; The

Guardian, 2024). The study of Lake (2024), he noted that online dating is

evolving significantly, particularly for Generation Z, who are increasingly

avoiding traditional dating apps like Tinder, Bumble, and Hinge.

Traditional dating apps are still popular, even as younger generations,

such as Generation Z are more active on social media platforms. A survey

indicated that the majority of online daters between the ages of 18 and 29

prefer using Tinder, while older users tend to gravitate towards Match and

Plenty of Fish for their online dating needs (Atske, 2024).

 7

Frequency of use
According to Vogels, E. A., & McClain, C. (2023), the frequency with

which people use these platforms is a key indicator of how much online dating

has transformed the way we approach romance. While online dating offers

convenience and a wider pool of potential partners, the high frequency of use

has both positive and negative implications. The rise of online dating is

undeniable. Research showed that online dating is no longer a niche activity,

but a significant part of how people find love today (Atske, 2024; Bonilla-

Zorita, Griffiths, & Kuss, 2020).

Furthermore, according to Alexopoulos, et.al (2020), increased use of

dating apps can lead to a decline in commitment and an increased likelihood

of infidelity. This finding highlighted the potential negative consequences of

excessive reliance on online dating platforms, suggesting a need for caution

and awareness of the potential impact on relationships.

Social media has changed society in many ways, both good and bad. It

is made easier to connect with people, but people are also spending a lot

more time on it. People spent about an hour and a half on social media in

2012, but by 2019, that had almost doubled. This increase in time spent

online raises concerns about its effects. It's important to consider both the

positive and negative aspects of social media's influence. We need to

understand how this affects our lives and relationships (Clement, 2020).
 8

Communication method

According to a 2024 study by Hinge, 77 percent of users believed

Digital Body Language (DBL) reveals insights into their partner's interests and

intentions through emojis, punctuation, message length, and response times.

Different online dating communication methods include asynchronous

messaging and synchronous live chats and video calls. These methods help

users build rapport before meeting in person (Myles et al., 2022).

Furthermore, a study in 2023 highlighted the integration of

synchronous audio and video capabilities into dating practices, emphasizing

how these functionalities enrich user experiences and foster deeper

connections compared to traditional messaging (Wang et al., 2023). The

study likely found that the ability to see and hear potential partners in real-time

leads to more meaningful interactions and a more accurate assessment of

compatibility, thus improving the overall dating experience.

However, according to Underwood & Culverhouse in 2023 that among

Generation Z users, the new preference is not in the traditional dating apps

but embracing whatever they find on social media, such as Instagram. This

aspect highlighted another reason for dissatisfaction with the transnational

nature of online dating and how instant matches sometimes take over

meaningful talks. The preliminary communications are pretty crucial in online

dating and 68 percent of user’s swipe left for a profile that contains poor

grammar or punctuation, as discovered according to the survey, thus

underlining the importance of clear and engaging communication (Preply,

2022).
 9

Even as online dating applications become a convenient and easy

mean of accessing possible mates, they can also lead to reduced face-to-face

interaction and increase superficiality. So, the fusion of both online

communication and real-life interactions is the need of the hour to develop

serious relationships, as reported by Daily Illini (2023).

The more the dating applications take root, the more one had to learn

about the intricacies of online communication as well as digital body language

for a successful experience in dating. Dhawan (2024), emphasized that "new

signals and cues replaced old school body language in virtual interaction,"

highlighting the importance for daters to understand the nature of their

communication in the evolving landscape of online dating.

Online dating requires understanding digital communication and virtual

body language because traditional communication is replaced by new online

cues. It's important to learn how communication works in online dating to build

real relationships. Success in online dating means knowing how to read online

signals like text, emojis, and other online cues. People need to adapt their

communication styles to succeed in this new digital environment. Mastering

these skills increases your chances of finding a genuine connection in this

digital era (Hine, 2024).

Relationship among Generation Z

The impact of social media on relationships, particularly among

Generation Z, is multifaceted. While platforms often showcase idealized

portrayals of love and happiness, leading some individuals to feel inadequate

or discontent with their own relationships (Carlson, 2023; Sivadas, 2023).

 10

They also provide unique opportunities for connection. Social media and

dating apps have become integral to modern dating culture, allowing Gen Z to

meet new people, explore interests, and connect with like-minded individuals

who share their values and beliefs (Hall, 2024; Kells, 2024).

Social Media Influence

According to Lauren Carlson in 2023, social media has fundamentally

changed how Generation Z approaches romance, impacting their

connections, communication, and expressions of love. Having grown up in a

digital environment, this generation has embraced platforms like Instagram,

TikTok, and Snapchat, seamlessly integrating them into their dating lives.

They have discovered innovative ways to maintain strong connections despite

physical distance, keeping their feelings engaged (Fabiani, 2023).

Miscommunication poses a significant challenge arising from social

media interactions. The nuances inherent in face-to-face conversations, such

as tone, expression, and body language, often get lost in digital

communication, leading to misunderstandings and conflicts (Kristy Crabtree,

2024). Additionally, social media can erode the intimacy necessary for

sustaining healthy relationships. As individuals become more engrossed in

their online activities, the quality of their in-person interactions may decline,

resulting in feelings of neglect and disconnection (ManoShala, 2024; Kristy

Crabtree, 2024).
 11

Generation Z has begun to move away from traditional dating apps in

favor of social media platforms to facilitate real-life interactions. This shift is

driven by dissatisfaction with the transitional nature of dating apps, where

quick matches often overshadow meaningful dialogue (Carlson, 2023). Social

networks provide a platform for interaction, broadening the dating pool beyond

geographical constraints. Individuals can explore shared interests and values

before meeting in person, which streamlines the partnership process by

allowing them to assess compatibility through online profiles and interactions

(Castro, Á., & Barrada, J. R., 2020).

However, the influence of social media on Generation Z's relationships

is not entirely positive. While these platforms foster connectivity, they also

introduce new stressors into relationships (Chahade, 2024). Despite these

challenges, Generation Z has demonstrated adaptability and emotional

resilience in navigating the complexities of digital romance. Social media tools

have empowered this generation to openly discuss boundaries and

relationship labels, cultivating a culture of openness and transparency in their

romantic engagements (Chipana, 2024).

Relationship Commitment

To overcome fear of commitment, start small by making short-term

commitments. As your comfort level increases, gradually commit to bigger

plans and decisions together (Pace, 2024). Open dialogue and mutual

understanding help navigate any commitment concerns. By embracing

 12

commitment, you'll strengthen your bond and build a stronger, long-term

relationship (Mueller, 2019).

Understanding attachment styles and commitment types is essential

for navigating relationships in today's digital age (Graziano, 2024). Research

shows a strong link between how adults relate to others and their commitment

levels in romantic partnerships. Additionally, Tsiris (2024) emphasized that

having shared values and goals is crucial for building lasting commitments,

particularly in long-term online relationships.

Rejection in online dating

Dispositional rejections often characterize the online dating experience,

wherein users focus on justifications for rejecting a potential partner rather

than evaluating their compatibility (Collisson, 2022; Campbell & Wieli, 2019).

This mental framework can adversely affect relationship satisfaction and

heightened feelings of frustration among users. While research has explored

various rejection tactics employed in online dating—such as ghosting and

overt messaging—there remains a relative paucity of studies examining the

broader effects of rejection on users’ overall well-being (Halversen et al.,

2021; Timmermans et al., 2020).

Furthermore, people with low self-esteem might change their online

profiles more often after being rejected. This can make them feel worse about

themselves and less happy with online dating. Rejection can lead to a

negative cycle of changing profiles and feeling bad. They might keep tweaking

their profiles to try and get more matches. This constant changing can actually
 13

lower their confidence. Studies showed a link between low self-esteem and

profile changes after rejection (Alba, 2021).

Getting rejected online can be really upsetting. Research showed that

even short conversations ending in rejection can negatively impact your

happiness. These feelings are common and shouldn't have be ignored. It is

important to be kind to yourself after a rejection. Remember that one rejection

doesn't mean you're not worthy of love (Her & Timmermans, 2020 & Dolan,

2024).

Overall, the correlation between online rejection and increased feelings

of sadness and anxiety has been well documented, revealing broader

patterns of mental health issues related to dating in the digital era (Deri &

Zitek, 2017 & Ford & Collins, 2012). As individuals navigate these platforms,

they often find themselves caught in a continuous cycle of low self-worth and

frustration—evidenced by the adverse effects of rejection strategies like

ghosting. This repeated exposure to negative experiences can foster a sense

of hopelessness that impacts users’ overall mental health and willingness to

engage further in the dating landscape (Her & Timmermans, 2020;

Holzthausen et al., 2020).

Research indicates that when rejections are accompanied by

explanations they can be particularly painful as they often draw attention to

specific deficiencies that led to the rejection (van der Zanden &

Schokkenbroek, 2024 & Dolan, 2024). Psychologists have observed that as

users are exposed to an increasing number of profiles they become more

 14

inclined to reject potential matches which can result in higher levels of

dissatisfaction and a pessimistic view regarding their prospects for finding

compatible partners (Dolan, 2024 & Halversen et al., 2021).

The rejection strategies employed in online dating differ depending on

the interaction phase. For example being "swiped left," which signifies a lack

of interest represents an early form of rejection that users frequently

encounter (Campbell & Wieli, 2019 & Halversen et al., 2021). In later stages

of interaction a rejector may choose to end a conversation through a direct

rejection message or might opt for ghosting. The selected rejection strategy is

influenced by various factors including the rejector’s intentions concerning

relationships and their previous experiences with rejection (Campbell & Wieli,

2019 & Timmermans et al., 2020).

Theoretical framework

This study is viewed from the lens of Bauman's Liquid Love Theory

(2000), which posits that modern relationships have become increasingly

flexible and unstable due to societal changes. According to Bauman,

traditional, long-lasting romantic relationships have weakened, resulting in

love becoming more temporary and adaptable. In the context of online dating,

this theory elucidates why individuals often prioritize short-term connections

and personal needs, influenced by the vast array of choices available. This

study applies the theory to investigate how online dating impacts people's

attitudes toward commitment and emotional involvement in relationships.

 15

Additionally, the study incorporates the Relation Shopping Theory

(Heino et al., 2010), which compares online dating to a marketplace where

users "shop" for potential partners by filtering profiles based on their

preferences. This concept relates to the independent variable of Generation

Z, demonstrating how this demographic adopts a more practical and

systematic approach to partner selection compared to traditional dating

methods. The study examines how this filtering process influences partner

selection and the resulting relationship outcomes.

Lastly, the study analyzes relationship outcomes through the lens of

Social Network Theory (Schakner et al., 2017). This theory explains how

behaviors and interactions within social networks influence individual

outcomes. In online dating, users are part of large, interconnected networks

where their relationships are shaped by the dynamics of the platform and

social interactions. This study utilizes Social Network Theory to explore how

factors such as internet dating usage, frequency of use, and communication

are influenced by these networks and how they affect the success or failure of

relationships.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1 presented a

comprehensive understanding of the study's focus, distinguishing the

relationship between the independent variable, online dating, and the

dependent variable, Romantic Relationship among Generation Z. Social-

Media dating, encompassing Platform usage, Frequency of use, and,

 16

Communication method. The Romantic Relationship among Generation Z,

shaped by Social media influence, Relationship commitment and Rejection in

online Dating.
 17

Figure 1.

The conceptual Framework of the study

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Internet Dating Relationship among

Generation Z

 Social Media Influence

 Platform Usage

 Relationship Commitment
 Frequency of use

 Rejection in online Dating

 Communication methods
 18

Significance of the Study

This study on the effects of online dating on romantic relationships

among Generation Z holds substantial significance for various groups,

providing valuable insights and practical applications.

Students. For students, this research offers valuable knowledge about

the dynamics of romantic relationships in the digital age. By understanding

how online dating influences their interactions and perceptions, students can

develop better communication skills and emotional intelligence. This

awareness can empower them to navigate their romantic lives with greater

confidence, fostering healthier relationships.

Parents. The findings of this study are equally important for parents, as

they highlight the challenges and opportunities presented by online dating for

their children. By being informed about the effects of digital interactions on

self-esteem and relationship dynamics, parents can engage in meaningful

conversations with their children. They can provide guidance and support,

helping their kids establish healthy boundaries and understand the

implications of online dating.

Teachers. Educators can benefit from this study by gaining insights

into the social dynamics of their students' romantic relationships.

Understanding how online dating impacts communication and interpersonal

skills can enable teachers to create a supportive environment for discussions

 19

about relationships. They can incorporate lessons on digital literacy,

emotional intelligence, and healthy relationships into their curricula, equipping

students with the tools they need to navigate their romantic lives effectively.

School Administrators. The findings provide valuable insights for

school administrators, enabling them to develop programs that address the

unique challenges faced by students in the context of online dating. By

fostering an inclusive academic environment that promotes healthy

relationships, school leaders can support students in building self-confidence

and resilience in their romantic pursuits.

Future Researchers. For future researchers, this study serves as a

foundational reference point for exploring the relationship between online

dating and romantic relationships among Generation Z. It offers a

comprehensive overview of existing literature and identifies potential areas for

further investigation. By building upon this research, scholars can deepen

their understanding of how online dating shapes romantic dynamics and

contributes to the broader field of relationship studies.

Scope and Delimitation

The scope of this research focused on the effects of internet dating on

romantic relationships among Generation Z students at School in Tagum City.

The study aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of how internet

dating influences the formation, development, and overall dynamics of

romantic relationships within this specific population. The research was

conducted during the second semester of the 2024-2025 school year and
 20

involved students aged 15 to 21 years at School (A). This study specifically

targeted senior high and junior students from grades 9 to 12, aimed to

investigate the effects of internet dating on Generation Z. The researchers

employed purposive sampling to select participants from this population,

ensuring a representative sample through a survey methodology. The study

focused on students who have engaged with internet dating apps, allowing for

a thorough understanding of their experiences and perceptions. Importantly,

gender was not a criterion for exclusion, thereby ensuring that participants of

all gender identities were included in the research.

However, the scope of this investigation was limited to individuals

within the specified age range of 15 to 21 years and those who have not

engaged in internet dating, thus excluding those outside this demography.

Recognizing the potential limitations of this focus, the study was conducted

from December 2024 to January 2025, during which time data was collected

and analyzed to explore the relationship between internet dating behaviors

and the attitudes of Generation Z students.

Definition of Terms

Internet Dating. It was defined as the practice of utilizing dating

websites to seek either short-term or long-term romantic partners (Toma,

2015). In this study, this term refers to the use of any digital platform or

application specifically designed for romantic connections, including but not

limited to Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and Facebook Dating.

 21

Generation Z: It refers to the cohort of individuals born between 1997

and 2012, currently encompassing those who are 25 years old and younger

(Slepian & Furman, 2024). In this study, this term refers to specifically

denotes individuals within this birth range who utilize online platforms,

including dating apps and websites, to pursue romantic relationships.

 22

Chapter 2

METHODS

This chapter illustrates the study's various methods, such as research

design, research respondents, research instruments, data gathering,

statistical treatment of data, and ethical considerations.

Research design

In this study, the researchers used quantitative non-experimental

methods, applying descriptive and correlational approaches. Quantitative

research focuses on observing events that impact a specific sample

population, collecting diverse numerical data through various methods, and

statistically analyzing this data to aggregate findings, compare results, or

identify relationships among the variables (Sreekumar, 2024). Additionally,

quantitative research involves the collection and analysis of numeric data. It is

used to find patterns and averages, make predictions, test causal

relationships, and generalize results to broader populations (Bhandari, 2022).

Moreover, descriptive research design is focused on accurately and

systematically portraying a population, situation, or phenomenon (McCombes,

2022). This methodological approach aims to illustrate the characteristics of

the subject being investigated (Singh, 2023). By observing and gathering

data, this type of research provides a comprehensive and precise overview of

the behaviors and traits of a particular

 23

population or topic. It enhances researchers' understanding of specific issues

and offers valuable insights that can guide future studies (Sirisilla, 2023).

In addition, correlational research design explores the relationships

between variables without the researcher controlling or manipulating them

(Bhandari, 2022). It is characterized as a non-experimental research

approach that examines the connections among two or more variables

(Cherry & Swaim, 2023). In this type of design, researchers utilized statistical

correlation tests to quantify and describe the degree of association between

the variables or sets of scores being analyzed (Lawrence, 2023).

Respondents of the study

The respondents of this study were the Senior High School students of

School (A) enrolled during the school year 2024-2025. There were a total of

105 respondents in this study.This study used purposive sampling to

intentionally select participants based on their characteristics, knowledge,

experiences, or some other criteria which are those who had been in a

relationship through online. This purposive sampling is an intentional and

strategic selection procedure that uses examples to explore their specific

characteristics (Dr. Renu Bisht, 2024).

The researchers utilized a sample size of 105 out of a population using

the Raosoft calculator, with a marginal error of 0.05 and a confidence level of

95 percent.
 24

Table 1

Respondents of the Study

Grade Level Population Percentage Sample

Junior High 54 38% 40

Senior High 88 62% 65

Total 143 100% 105

Both specific senior high and junior high students from grades 9 and 10

at School (A) in Tagum City were selected for this study, as they met the

researchers' criteria — having previously been in an online relationship —

which was essential for the research. The sample size was determined using

Slovin's formula, expressed as n=N1+Ne2n = \frac{N}{1 + Ne^2}n=1+Ne2N,

where 'n' represents the sample size, 'N' is the population size, and 'e'

denotes the margin of error. Given a population size (N) of 143 and a margin

of error (e) of 5%, the denominator was calculated as 1.357. Dividing the

population size of 143 by this value resulted in a sample size of 105.

According to Chegg (2023), the finalized sample size for this study was

determined to be 105.

Research Instrument

This research study utilized an adapted instrument from the Online

Application Usage Instrument by Tonhäuser (2020). It provides a

comprehensive framework for understanding platform usage in online dating,

 25

capturing users' preferences and habits on specific platforms. Additionally the

adapted questionnaire from Syed Shah Alam's (2011) "An Empirical Study

on Online Social Networks" instrument focuses on the frequency of social

network use, adapted to internet dating contexts, offering insights into

engagement patterns. Additionally, Nguyen et al.'s (2021) bivariate test

employed explores the relationship between digital communication and social

connectedness, examining various communication methods and their impact

on perceived social connection within online dating.

This adapted questionnaire offers valuable tools for understanding

platform usage, social network frequency, and digital communication impact

on social connection within online dating, facilitating comprehensive research

analysis in this context.

Sample parameter limits/ Range of Means

Parameter Range of mean Interpretation

This means that students’ use in

4.20- 5.00 Very High internet dating is very highly proficient.

This means that students’ use in

3.40- 4.19 High internet dating is highly proficient.

This means that students’ use in

2.60- 3.39 Moderate internet dating is moderately proficient.

 26

This means that students’ use in

1.80- 2.59 Low internet dating is slightly proficient.

This means that students’ use in

1.00-1.79 Very Low internet dating is not proficient.

The Social Media Influence Questionnaire by Spencer Palmer

Christensen (2018) categorizes the effects of social media on relationships as

negative, positive, or neutral through a survey or questionnaire.

The Relationship Commitment Questionnaire, adapted from Frank

D. Fincham, measures commitment uncertainty in romantic relationships

using a 6-item scale and a 5-point Likert scale. The Rejection in Online

Dating Questionnaire by Tonhäuser (2022), explores various forms of

rejection in online dating and their emotional impact on self-esteem, social

anxiety, and dating confidence, aiming to understand the challenges of

navigating rejection in this context.

The adaption of this questionnaire provides a thorough evaluation tool

while guaranteeing applicability to the study's setting.

 27

Sample parameter limits/ Range of Means

Parameter Range of mean Interpretation

This means that relationship among

Generation z in using internet dating is

4.20- 5.00 Very High very highly proficient.

This means that relationship among

Generation z in using internet dating is

3.40- 4.19 High
highly proficient.

This means that relationship among

Generation z in using internet dating is

2.60- 3.39 Moderate moderately proficient.

This means that relationship among

Generation z in using internet dating is

1.80- 2.59 Low slightly proficient.

This means that relationship among

Generation z using internet dating is not

1.00-1.79 Very Low proficient.

 28

Data gathering procedure

It is advisable to employ a range of data collection methods to

encompass a wider array of perspectives, meanings, and experiences, which

is vital for gathering comprehensive information necessary for the research

(Jain P., 2024).

The study employed the subsequent data-collection procedures to

characterize and decipher the significance that the participants attribute to

their encounter with the occurrence. These consist of audio and video

recording, study environment observations, and interviews.

The following steps were employed in data gathering:

Seeking Permission to Conduct the Study. Before the conduct of

the research study, the researchers made sure that this research underwent a

comprehensive review by the School Research Committee to ensure the

ethicality of the aspects and processes of the study. The researchers sought

permission to conduct the study through a letter addressed to the Schools

Division Superintendent of the Division of Tagum City and the School

Principal of School (A).

Seeking the Consent of the Respondents and their Parents. The

researchers provided and secured from the participants the informed consent,

parent consent and assent form as to their basis in participation in the conduct

of the study. It was highlighted on the informed consent and assent of

asking/seeking permission, as principal investigators, researchers would

 29

make sure that all forms be signed through whether electronic, scanned, or

other alternative means as proofs of verification stating that their participation

is voluntary and that they are willing to participate in the study.

Orienting the Respondents on the Nature and Purpose of the

Study. The researchers identified the research participants, through the

utilization of the purposive sampling method. Researchers then approached

the informants and inform them of our study and the desire to conduct an

interview.

Administering and Retrieving the Survey Questionnaires. The

researchers gave online survey questionnaire during school days within the

school premises observing health and safety protocols. For the other

participants, the schedule of the giving survey questionnaires was set. This

was done within the school premises.

The researchers use the adapted questionnaire to carry out the study

after approving the request and obtaining informed consent. Instructions for

completing the questionnaire also given by the researchers. Using a Google

form, the student respondents answer to the modified survey questions.

Checking, Collating, and Processing the Data. After all the

procedure, the researchers proceeded to check, it involves verifying data

integrity through validation and cleaning. This includes identifying and

correcting inconsistencies, missing values, and outliers. Collating focuses on

integrating data from various sources, merging datasets, and transforming

data into a consistent format for analysis. Once the data is checked and
 30

collated, processing takes place. This involves applying statistical methods,

algorithms, and visualization techniques to extract meaningful insights.

Data modeling may also be employed to create predictive models or

simulations, further enhancing our understanding of the gathered information.

These steps are often iterative, ensuring continuous improvement in the

quality and usefulness of the data throughout the analysis process.

Finally, all of the raw scores were compiled and tallied following the

retrieval of data. The tabulated data findings were sent to a statistician for

statistical analysis in order to find solutions to the issues brought up in the

research's initial chapter.

The researchers preserved the information with full secrecy and

anonymity. After then, the paper underwent an ethics review.

Data analysis

The researchers used a number of statistical analytic techniques,

including the mean and standard deviation, to examined the data. One

statistical metric used to ascertain the average value within a given data set is

the mean (Almond, 2023).

To analyze the data, the researchers used statistical analysis method

using mean, standard deviation and Pearson r. Researchers distributed an

online survey to participants through social media, including Facebook and

Instagram posts. Participants were asked to complete that survey to report

their demographic information (age, biological sex, current relationship status,

 31

the region) and a questionnaire created to analyze their romantic

presumptions and romanticized content consumption frequency and

preferences.

The outcomes were analyzed and interpreted appropriately, utilizing

the following statistical tools:

Mean. This statistical measure, which is frequently called an arithmetic

mean, helps in putting a lot of numbers into a summary. is employed to

characterize the level of language proficiency and the student's self-

assurance, answering the first and second study questions.

Standard deviation. The date's dispersion was quantified using the

standard deviation is a measure of the mean. This statistical technique was

applied to analyze how closely the findings were centered around the mean or

whether they were equal. It was employed to answer questions 1 and 2 as

well.

Pearson r. The purpose of this statistical metric was to ascertain

whether there was a relationship between the variables, particularly looking at

the relationship between in response to the research question, linguistic

intelligence and a student's self-confidence number three.

The decision to utilize this statistical use, because the mean and

standard deviation are used to understand the average value and variability of

a data-set, while Pearson's correlation coefficient (Pearson r) is employed to

measure the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two
 32

continuous variables, helping to identify patterns and associations in research

analysis.

Ethical Consideration

According to Bhandari (2021; revised 2024), ethical considerations in

research encompass a framework of principles that inform research design

and methodologies. Researchers and scientists are required to follow a

specific code of conduct when gathering data from individuals.

A researcher must balance potential benefits, such as enhancing

knowledge of social life, enhancing decision-making, or assisting research

subjects, against potential costs, such as a diminution of dignity, self-esteem,

privacy, or democratic liberties. Additionally, a significant component of

research is ethical considerations. Adherence to the research goals of

communicating truth, authenticity, and error prevention is vital for the

researcher. Furthermore, adhering to ethical standards enables academics to

engage in collaborative work with the support of their mentors, peers, and

other participants in the study (Bretag, 2021).

In this study, the researchers adhered to several ethical considerations

to ensure the validity and integrity of the research.

Informed Consent. All participants received comprehensive

information about the study, including its possible dangers, benefits, and their

role in it, prior to their participation. They would be informed that there was no

repercussions if they choose to discontinue at any point and that participation

 33

is entirely voluntary. Informed consent is a crucial ethical factor in research

(Oxman, 2023). When dealing with a sensitive topic such as personal feelings

about love and relationships, researchers took careful consideration to avoid

potential ethical issues that could arise. The researchers chosed to follow

Bryman and Bell’s four significant categories: “deception, lack of informed

consent, invasion of privacy, and harm to participants” (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

To achieve the most ethically sound results, researchers first focused

on communicating to potential participants what the study was about in the

very first step of asking if they would like to participate in the interview

process. If they agreed to meet, then described the study again in person,

where the researchers extremely honest with the participants about the aims

of our study without divulging too much information to influence their answers.

The researchers then asked if they would still like to participate so they could

choose to give their consent for a second time.

The researchers also considered privacy by obtaining consent to

record the interviews while ensuring that discussions occurred in a private

setting where no one else could overhear them. Participants' identities were

protected within the report; names and occupations were changed while ages

and nationalities remained original. For two participants under 18 years of

age, we obtained consent from their high school supervisors.

Privacy and Confidentiality. The individuals' identities and private

information were safeguarded using strict methods. Any publications or

presentations related to the study did not contain identifying information as all
 34

obtained data was anonymize. A key component of research ethics is

protecting subjects' privacy and confidentiality (Kaiser et al., 2020). Thus,

safeguarding the privacy of study participants is paramount. To enhance

confidentiality and security during data processing, Researchers ensured that

their privacy and anonymity are maintained whenever feasible. Additionally,

code names would be used to obscure participants' identities. All information

gathered was handled with utmost care and stored securely to prevent

unauthorized access. Access to participant data may be restricted to the

researcher, advisor, and expert panel.

Respect for Persons. The researchers respected participants' rights,

dignity, and well-being at every stage of the research process. researchers

showed them utmost respect and acknowledged their independence and

ability to make decisions. One core ethical precept in research is respect for

people (Varkey, B., 2020). Participants are regarded as autonomous agents

who are capable of making informed decisions when provided with adequate

information (Creswell & Creswell, 2019). This premise emphasizes that fair

processes must be followed when selecting research participants.

Furthermore, participants are granted the power and right to make their

own decisions regarding participation. This utilized by researchers to obtain

participants' agreement and informed consent while confirming their

willingness to participate in the study. The permission form is written in

comprehensible language containing all necessary information for

participants.
 35

Consequently, participation is entirely voluntary; there is no coercion or

pressure involved.

Fair Treatment. There is no bias in the selection or recruitment of

participants; their contributions was duly acknowledged. Fair treatment is a

fundamental tenet of research ethics that embodies justice (Emanuel et al.,

2020). Research conducted equitably among various societal members or

groups.

Avoiding Bias. Precautions taken to reduce bias in participant

selection as well as data gathering and processing. Techniques for random

sampling employed for participant selection. Standardized methods used for

data collection to minimize bias and ensure consistency. Multiple researchers

participated in objective data analysis processes to mitigate individual biases

(Saunders et al., 2019).

Transparency. The research method disclosed all relevant information

including funding sources and possible conflicts of interest. To maintain

transparency and prevent conflicts of interest, funding sources disclosed.

Publications or research reports would include detailed descriptions of study

methodology, data collection procedures, and analysis methods (Bell &

Bryman, 2015).

Plagiarism and Integrity. Throughout the investigation, ethical

standards and intellectual property rights would be upheld. Proper citation and

referencing used to prevent plagiarism while acknowledging original

 36

authorship. Literature reviews would ensure originality while giving credit to

prior research efforts (Saunders et al., 2019).

Safety Measures. Safety measures were implemented to guarantee

study participants' well-being. Procedures for obtaining informed consent

adhered to while precautions are taken to preserve participant privacy and

confidentiality. Support resources would be made available if participants

experience any harm or distress (Creswell & Creswell, 2024).

Reporting Results. There would be no selective reporting or distortion

of results; findings will be published truthfully. The report included all pertinent

data and findings while noting any limitations or potential biases. The

legitimacy and validity of research findings ensured through transparent and

objective presentation (Saunders et al., 2019).

 37

Chapter 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter describes the findings and results from the data collection

method. To arrive at significant findings, the researchers examined the

collected data. The testing of the null hypotheses was a crucial component of

this investigation. Earlier in the study, several hypotheses were developed to

direct the investigation. This chapter presents and discusses the findings from

these hypothesis testing.

Table 2 presents the level of internet dating among Generation Z in

terms of platform usage, revealing varying levels of engagement across

different online dating and social media apps. The highest level of

engagement was observed with Facebook, which received a mean score of

4.00 (SD = 1.04), indicating that many respondents utilized it for online dating

or connecting with potential romantic partners. Conversely, the lowest mean

score is for the first question, "Do you use any online dating apps or social

media apps for finding romantic partners?" (mean = 1.15, SD = 0.36),

categorized as "Very low." This suggests a relatively low overall engagement

with online dating apps and social media for romantic purposes among

Generation Z, despite the use of specific platforms.

The overall average score of 2.15 indicated a moderate level of

involvement with online dating platforms. This means while some platforms

like Facebook are popular, not many in this generation are using dating apps
 38

widely. The difference between Facebook's high score and the low overall

score suggested that Generation Z might prefer using regular social media for

dating instead of dedicated dating apps.

Table 2

Level of Internet Dating of relationship among Generation Z in terms of

Platform Usage

Indicators Mean Descriptive

SD
Equivalent
1.Do you use any online dating apps or 1.15 0.36 Very low
social media apps for finding romantic
partners?
2.What online dating apps or social media 1.77 0.96 Very low
apps do you use? (Tinder)
3.What online dating apps or social media 4.00 1.04 High
apps do you use? (Facebook)
4.What online dating apps or social media 3.15 0.94 Moderate
apps do you use? (Instagram)
5.What online dating apps or social media
1.64 0.94 Very low
apps do you use?(Hinge)
6.What online dating apps or social media
2.04 2.02 Low
apps do you use? (Litmatch)
7.Do you think using these apps is a safe 1.30 1.30
Very low
way to meet people?
Categorical Mean 2.15 0.97 Moderate

Table 2 presents the level of internet dating relationships among

Generation Z in terms of platform usage, with a mean score of 2.15, a

standard deviation (SD) of 0.97, and a descriptive equivalent of "moderate."

 39

The result suggested that Generation Z engages moderately with online

dating platforms, neither heavily reliant nor completely disengaged.

Recent studies and reports support this finding, indicating a nuanced

relationship between Generation Z and online dating platforms. While online

dating has become a common way to meet partners, there's a growing trend

among Gen Z to seek more authentic, offline connections. For instance, a

2024 report by Ofcom noted that Gen Z is increasingly moving away from

traditional dating apps like Tinder, Hinge, Bumble, and Grindr, preferring real-

life interactions.

Similarly, Many young people are tired of dating apps. They feel that

the apps aren't real and don't help them find real relationships. It's easy to feel

burnt out by the constant swiping and messaging. A recent article talked

about this feeling of exhaustion with dating apps (El País, 2025). Some

people feel that dating apps create a superficial way of meeting people.

Finding genuine connections can be difficult using these platforms.

This shift may be attributed to a desire for more meaningful

relationships and a reaction against the perceived superficiality of online

interactions. The moderate engagement reflected in Table 2 aligns with these

observations, suggesting that while Generation Z utilizes online dating

platforms, they are also critically assessing their effectiveness and seeking

alternative avenues for forming romantic relationships.

 40

Therefore, the data in Table 2 is consistent with existing literature,

indicating that Generation Z maintains a balanced approach to online dating,

integrating both digital and face-to-face methods in their romantic pursuits.

Table 3 examines Generation Z's frequency of online dating app

usage. The highest mean score (2.78, "Moderate") is for the amount of time

spent on these apps weekly. This suggests that while Generation Z may not

use dating apps frequently, those who do tend to spend a moderate amount

of time on them each week. Conversely, the lowest mean (1.33, "Very low") is

for how often these apps are used, indicating infrequent usage overall. The

categorical mean of 2.05 ("Low") reflects a generally low level of engagement

with online dating apps, despite the moderate time spent by those who do use

them. This discrepancy suggests a small subset of users accounts for a

significant portion of the overall usage time.

Table 3

Level of Internet Dating of relationship among Generation Z in Frequency of

Use

Descriptive
Indicators Mean SD Equivalent
1. How much time do you spend on 2.78 0.85 Moderate
these apps in a typical week?
2.How often do you use these apps? 1.33 0.86 Very low
Categorical Mean 2.05 0.73 Low

Table 3 indicate a categorical mean of 2.05 with a standard deviation

(SD) of 0.73 indicates a low level of internet dating frequency among

 41

Generation Z. This suggests that, despite the prevalent use of social media

and online platforms, Generation Z may not heavily rely on internet dating to

form or maintain relationships.

One possible explanation for this result is that Generation Z, while

digitally native, values more authentic, in-person connections alongside their

online interactions. According to Anderson and Jiang (2018), although social

media plays a significant role in facilitating communication among Generation

Z, many still prioritize face-to-face interactions for meaningful relationship-

building. This aligns with the lower frequency of internet dating use observed

in the data.

Additionally, research by Valkenburg and Peter (2007) suggests that

while online platforms can enhance social connections, they are often seen as

a supplement rather than a replacement for traditional dating methods. This

may further explain why the frequency of internet dating remains low among

this generation.

The findings indicate that, although social media provides convenience

and opportunities to meet potential partners, Generation Z may approach

online dating with caution or preference for offline interactions, reflecting a

balance between digital and real-world relationships.

Table 4 assesses Generation Z's comfort levels with various online

communication methods after meeting someone online. The highest comfort

level is with text messaging with mean of 4.10 as categorized or High,

 42

suggesting a strong preference for this communication mode. In contrast, the

lowest comfort level is with video calls with mean of 3.13 as categorized or

Moderate, indicating a relatively lower preference for this more direct form of

communication. The overall category mean of 3.56 ("High") suggested that,

despite the lower comfort with video calls, Generation Z generally feels

comfortable using these communication methods after an online encounter.

The high overall mean is driven by the very high comfort levels with text and

voice calls.

Table 4

Level of Internet Dating of relationship among Generation Z in terms of

communication Methods

Descriptive
Indicators Mean SD Equivalent
1. How comfortable are you using the 3.13 1.04 Moderate
following methods with people you meet
online? (Video call)
2. . How comfortable are you using 3.45 0.83 High
the following methods with people you
meet online? (Voice calls)
3. How comfortable are you using the 4.10 4.09 High
following methods with people you meet
online? (Text messages)
Categorical Mean 3.56 0.40 High

Table 4 presents the level of internet dating relationships among

Generation Z in terms of communication methods, with an overall categorical

mean of 3.56 and a standard deviation of 0.40, indicating a high descriptive

 43

equivalent. This suggested that communication methods play a crucial role in

shaping online romantic interactions among Generation Z.

The high mean score implies that Generation Z actively engages in

digital communication to build and maintain romantic relationships. According

to Valkenburg and Peter (2007), online communication enhances self-

disclosure and emotional intimacy, fostering stronger relationships. Social

media, messaging apps, and video calls allow for continuous interaction,

reducing physical barriers in romantic connections (Chan, 2011).

Furthermore, digital communication tools provide convenience and

accessibility, enabling partners to stay connected despite geographical

distances. This aligns with the findings of Sprecher (2014), who emphasized

that technology-mediated communication strengthens relational bonds by

facilitating frequent and meaningful conversations. However, while these

platforms promote closeness, they may also introduce challenges such as

misunderstandings and emotional detachment (Fox et al., 2013).

In conclusion, the results highlight that communication methods

significantly influence internet dating relationships among Generation Z. The

reliance on digital platforms for romantic interactions reflects broader trends in

modern dating, where online communication plays a pivotal role in

relationship development and maintenance.

In Table 5, the levels of internet Dating in Platform Usage, Frequency

of Use, and Communication Methods among Generation Z are presented. Of

 44

the three indicators, Platform Usage had a moderate mean of 2.15, with a

descriptive equivalent of moderate and a standard deviation (SD) of 0.97

Secondly, Frequency of Use showed a low mean of 2.05 and an SD of 0.75,

corresponding to a descriptive equivalent of low. Finally, Communication

Methods had a moderate mean of 3.56 and an SD of 0.40, with a descriptive

equivalent of high.

Table 5

Summary Level of internet Dating in Platform Usage,Frequency of use

and Communication Methods.

Descriptive
Indicators Mean SD Equivalent
Platform Usage 2.15 0.97 Moderate
Frequency of use 2.05 0.75 Low
Communication Methods. 3.56 0.40 High
Categorical Mean 2.59 0.69 Low

The overall categorical mean of 2.59 with a standard deviation of 0.69

indicates a low level of engagement in internet dating across platform usage,

frequency of use, and communication methods. This suggests that, while

Generation Z frequently engages with social media, their actual participation

in internet dating platforms remains relatively low.

One possible explanation is that Generation Z may prioritize building

connections organically through social networks rather than dedicated dating

platforms, reflecting a shift toward more casual, non-committal online

interactions (Anderson & Vogels, 2020). Additionally, research by Smith and

 45

Duggan (2013) highlighted that while younger individuals are more likely to

explore online dating, many still express skepticism about the authenticity and

long-term potential of relationships formed this way, which may contributed to

the low engagement observed.

Moreover, the low mean could reflect concerns about online dating

safety and privacy, as highlighted by Valkenburg and Peter (2007), they found

that users, especially younger ones, often worry about misrepresentation and

emotional risks in online dating environments.

This data aligns with prior studies indicating that, while social media

influences dating behaviors, Generation Z tends to use it more for indirect

romantic exploration — such as observing or communicating with potential

partners — rather than committing to full engagement on dedicated dating

platforms (Lenhart et al., 2015).

Table 6 shows that social media influences Generation Z's dating

experiences. The highest-rated item, “Social media makes me compare

myself and my dating experiences to others, leading to dissatisfaction”, had a

mean of 3.11 and 0.75 as standard deviation, indicating a moderate impact.

This suggests that many respondents feel social media fosters negative

comparisons.

The lowest-rated item, “Social media has no significant influence on my

dating life,” had a mean of 2.48 and a standard deviation of 1.00, also
 46

categorized as moderate. This suggested mixed views, with some feeling

unaffected by social media while others strongly disagree.

The results indicated that social media generally impacts dating

experiences, primarily through comparison and dissatisfaction, though

perceptions vary. The higher standard deviation in the lowest-rated item

suggests more diverse opinions on social media’s influence.

Table 6

Level of relationship among Generation Z in terms of Social media Influence

Descriptive
Indicators Mean SD Equivalent
1.Social media makes me compare 3.11 0.75 Moderate
myself and my dating experiences to
others, leading to dissatisfaction.
2.Social media creates unrealistic 3.38 0.98 Moderate
expectations for dating.
3.Social media makes me feel jealous, 3.50 0.91 High
impatient, or insecure about my dating
life.

4.Social media has no significant 2.48 1.00 Moderate

influence on my dating life.
Categorical Mean 3.12 0.39 Moderate

The overall categorical mean of 3.12 with a standard deviation (SD) of

0.39 indicates a moderate level of social media influence on Generation Z’s

internet dating experiences. The results suggest that while social media plays
 47

a noticeable role in shaping dating behaviors and perceptions, its influence is

not overwhelmingly strong or weak — it remains balanced in the moderate

range.

In summary, the results reflect a balanced influence of social media on

Generation Z’s dating lives — enhancing connections while simultaneously

introducing emotional and behavioral challenges. This dual effect is consistent

with existing literature that highlights both the relational benefits and pitfalls of

social media in modern dating dynamics (Yang, 2018; Fox & Warber, 2014;

McDaniel et al., 2017).

Table 7 shows that the highest mean score is 3.39 and a standard

deviation of 1.11 was for "At this point, I do not feel like I can count on a

steady level of commitment from my partner," indicating moderate uncertainty

about partner commitment. The lowest mean score is 3.32 and a standard

deviation of 1.05 was for "How committed are you to this relationship?" also

reflecting a moderate commitment level. The close mean values suggest that

perceived partner commitment influences personal commitment, highlighting

relational uncertainty among Generation Z.

Table 7

Level of relationship among Generation Z in terms of Relationship

commitment

Descriptive
Indicators Mean SD Equivalent
1. How committed are you to this 3.32 1.05 Moderate
 48

relationship?
2. My commitment to this relationship 3.27 0.98 Moderate
goes up and down a lot.
3. At this point, I do not feel like I can 3.39 1.11 Moderate
count on a steady level of
commitment from my partner.
Categorical Mean 3.33 0.05 Moderate

Table 7 presents the level of relationship commitment among

Generation Z, with a categorical mean of 3.33 and a standard deviation of

0.05, indicating a moderate level of commitment. The findings were aligned

with recent studies suggesting that Generation Z exhibits a nuanced approach

to romantic relationships, valuing close connections while often rejecting

traditional structures. According to a report by Newsweek, 46 percent of Gen

Z individuals are single — a higher percentage compared to previous

generations — reflecting a preference for flexibility and personal growth over

conventional commitments (Newsweek, 2024).

Additionally, research showed that Gen Z is more focused on finding

serious relationships through dating apps than other generations, with 52

percent expressing this intent (Statista, 2024). Thus indicated that while they

may approach traditional commitments cautiously, they still seek meaningful

and authentic connections. Overall, the moderate commitment level observed

in Table 7 is consistent with Generation Z's tendency to prioritize personal

development and emotional authenticity over traditional relationship norms.

 49

Table 8 shows the level of rejection in online dating among Generation

Z. The highest mean score is 2.75 and a standard deviation of 1.08 was for

“How frequently do you reject someone through online dating?”, indicating a

moderate level of rejection. The lowest mean score is 1.22 and standard

deviation of 0.42 was for “Have you ever rejected someone on an online

dating app?”, indicating a low occurrence. This suggests that while rejection

happens frequently, it is often indirect (e.g., ignoring or unmatching) rather

than explicit. The inverse relationship between frequency and direct

acknowledgment of rejection highlighted how online dating norms shape

social interactions.

Table 8

Level of relationship among Generation Z in terms of Rejection in Online

Dating

Descriptive
Indicators Mean SD Equivalent
1. Have you ever experienced rejection 1.22 0.45 Very low
in the context of online dating?
2. Have you ever rejected someone on 1.22 0.42 Very low
an online dating app?
3. How frequently do you experience 2.24 1.08 Low
rejection through online dating?
4. How frequently do you reject 2.75 1.08 Moderate
someone through online dating?
Categorical Mean 2.12 0.88 Low
 50

The data in Table 8 revealed that the overall categorical mean is 2.12,

with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.88, indicating a low descriptive equivalent.

This suggests that Generation Z experiences a relatively low level of

perceived rejection in online dating contexts. One possible explanation for this

finding is that Generation Z, having grown up with digital communication as a

norm, may exhibit greater resilience toward online rejection. Research by

Smith and Duggan (2013) supported the result noting that younger individuals

often view online dating as a casual, exploratory space, which may lessen the

emotional weight of rejection. Moreover, Valkenburg and Peter (2007)

suggest that the asynchronous nature of online communication provides a

buffer, reducing the immediate emotional impact of rejection compared to

face-to-face interactions.

Additionally, Generation Z’s familiarity with social media may contribute

to their ability to manage online dating disappointments. According to Uhls et

al. (2017), this generation’s digital fluency helps them curate their online

persona, potentially making rejection feel less personal and more about the

online version of themselves rather than their true self. The low mean score

may also reflect a shift in dating norms, where ghosting and other forms of

passive rejection are normalized, leading individuals to anticipate and

emotionally prepare for such outcomes (LeFebvre et al., 2019). This

normalization could contribute to a reduced perception of rejection’s severity.

In summary, the findings align with existing literature, suggested that

Generation Z’s digital upbringing fosters a more detached, resilient approach

 51

to online dating rejection. However, the emotional implications of this

detachment, particularly concerning long-term self-esteem and relationship-

building skills, warrant further exploration.

Table 9 summarizes Generation Z's experiences with online dating,

focusing on social media influence, relationship commitment, and rejection.

The highest mean score is for relationship commitment (3.33, "Moderate"),

suggesting a moderate level of commitment among those who engage in

online dating relationships. Conversely, the lowest mean is for rejection in

online dating (2.12, "Low"), indicating that while rejection does occur, it's not a

dominant experience within this group.

The overall categorical mean of 2.86 ("Moderate") suggested a

moderate overall level of engagement and experience with these aspects of

online dating within Generation Z. This moderate overall score, despite the

relatively low rejection rate, could indicate a cautious approach to commitment

and a balanced perspective on the influence of social media in shaping online

dating experiences.

Table 9

Summary Level of relationship among Generation Z in terms of Social Media

influence,Relationship commitment and Rejection in Online Dating

Descriptive
Indicators Mean SD Equivalent
Social Media influence 3.12 0.39 Moderate
Relationship commitment 3.33 0.05 Moderate
 52

Rejection in Online Dating 2.12 0.88 Low

Categorical Mean 2.86 0.53 Moderate

Table 9 summarizes the relationship levels among Generation Z

concerning social media influence, relationship commitment, and rejection in

online dating, with a categorical mean of 2.86 and a standard deviation of

0.53, indicating a moderate descriptive equivalent. The findings aligned with

existing literature suggested that while social media platforms facilitate

connections, they also introduced complexities in romantic relationships.

Studies have shown that social media usage can lead to increased jealousy

and dissatisfaction within relationships, as individuals may compare their

experiences to others online (Swiped: Hooking Up in the Digital Age, n.d.).

Additionally, the trend of "carouseling" — where individuals engage in

endless messaging without meeting in person — has been observed among

Generation Z users. This behavior often results in anxiety and overthinking,

hindering the development of meaningful connections (New York Post, 2024).

Furthermore, the prevalence of dating apps has contributed to the

"gamification" of dating, where the abundance of choices can lead to

commitment issues and a fear of missing out on better options, which may

explain the moderate relationship commitment reported in the findings

(Swiped: Hooking Up in the Digital Age, n.d.).

In summary, while social media offers opportunities for connection, it

also presents challenges that moderate relationship commitment and increase

feelings of rejection among Generation Z in the context of online dating.

 53

Significant of the relationship between the Internet Dating and

relationship among Generation Z.

Table 10 presents the computed data on the relationship between

Internet Dating of relationship among Generation Z.

Table 10

Significant of the relationship between Internet Dating of relationship among

Generation Z.

Variables Correlated Decision Discussion on

r p- on Relationship
value Ho
Internet Dating and
relationship among -1 0.000 Rejected Significant
Generation Z.

The computed r-value of -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation

between the two variables. Since the p-value of 0.000 is less than the 0.05

level of significance, there is no statistical evidence to support the null

hypothesis. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, confirming that there is

a significant relationship between internet dating and relationships among

Generation Z.

The findings of this research aligned with previous studies that suggest

internet dating significantly impacts the nature and quality of relationships.

According to Finkel et al. (2012), online dating influences romantic

connections by altering partner selection and communication patterns. The

 54

study emphasized that while online dating expands the pool of potential

partners, it can also lead to decision fatigue and reduced relationship

satisfaction.

Similarly, research by Valkenburg and Peter (2007) highlighted that

excessive engagement in online dating could negatively impact face-to-face

communication skills, which is essential for maintaining healthy relationships.

This supports the negative correlation found in this study, suggesting that the

more individuals engage in internet dating, the more challenges they may face

in developing and sustaining meaningful relationships.

Further supporting this, Sprecher (2011) argued that while social media

and online dating platforms create opportunities for connection, they also

increase uncertainty and insecurity in relationships, leading to trust issues and

emotional instability. This coincides with the findings of the present study,

which indicated that internet dating is significantly linked to relationship

challenges among Generation Z.

In conclusion, the results confirm that internet dating plays a crucial

role in shaping modern relationships. While it provides new opportunities for

connection, it also introduces challenges that can negatively impact

relationship stability. These findings emphasized the need for digital literacy

and healthy online dating habits to mitigate the potential downsides of

internet-based romantic interactions.

 55

Regression Analysis on the domain of Internet Dating

predicts/influences the relationship among Generation

Table 11

Regression Analysis on the Domain of Internet Dating which influences

the Relationship among Generation Z in terms of Social Media Influence

Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients t- p- Decision @
Indicators R2
value value a=.05
(IV) Std.
B
Error

(Constant) 1.849 0.484 0.077 3.819 0.000

Failed to
Platform usage 0.127 0.129 0.989 0.325
Reject

Frequency of
0.238 0.107 2.232 0.000 Rejected
use

Communication Failed to
0.144 0.082 1.754 0.083
methods Reject

Dependent variable: Relationship

Adjusted R Squared: 0.05
among Generation Z

F-ratio:2.79 p-value:0.000

The analysis of social media’s influence on Generation Z relationships

found that platform usage, frequency of use, and communication methods

explain 5% of the variation in relationship outcomes (adjusted R² = 0.05).

Among these, only frequency of use was significant (β = 0.238, t = 2.232, p =

0.000), suggesting that more frequent social media engagement impacts

relationships, aligning with studies like Smith and Duggan (2013). Platform
 56

type (β = 0.127, p = 0.325) and communication methods (β = 0.144, p =

0.083) were not significant. Despite the low model fit, the overall regression

was statistically significant (F = 2.79, p = 0.000), indicating other factors

influence relationships. This supports prior research by Valkenburg and Peter

(2007) and Lenhart et al. (2015), highlighting social media’s role in fostering

connections. The findings suggest that promoting healthy frequency of use —

rather than focusing on specific platforms or communication styles — could

help Generation Z navigate online relationships more positively.

Table 12

Regression Analysis on the Domain of Internet Dating which influences the

Relationship among Generation Z in terms of Relationship Commitment

Unstandardized
Indicators Coefficients p- Decision
R2 t-value
(IV) Std. value @ a=.05
B
Error

(Constant) 1.429 0.567 0.246 2.523 0.0132

Failed to
Platform usage 0.010 0.151 0.066 0.947
Reject
Frequency of - Failed to
0.125 -0.157 0.875
use 0.020 Reject
Communication 2.0386
0.538 0.096 5.583 Rejected
methods 7E-07

Dependent variable: Relationship

Adjusted R Squared:0.224
among Generation Z

F-ratio: 10.90 p-value:0.000

 57

The regression analysis revealed that 22.4% of the variation in

Generation Z's relationship commitment is explained by platform usage,

frequency of use, and communication methods, with communication methods

emerging as the only significant predictor (B = 0.538, t = 5.583, p = 2.03867E-

07). This suggested that how Generation Z communicates online positively

impacts their commitment, aligning with research emphasizing the role of

communication quality in relationship satisfaction (Gómez et al., 2022).

Platform usage (B = 0.010, p = 0.947) and frequency of use (B = -0.020, p =

0.875) were not significant, indicating that being on a platform or using it

frequently doesn’t directly affect commitment. The model’s F-ratio of 10.90 (p

= 0.000) confirms its statistical significance.

These findings highlight that meaningful communication — not platform

choice or usage frequency — drives commitment. This insight can guide

relationship coaches, app developers, and educators in promoting healthier

online relationship behaviors. Future research could explore factors like

emotional intelligence, trust, or cultural influences to deepen the

understanding of Generation Z's digital relationship dynamics.

Table 13

Regression Analysis on the Domain of Internet Dating which influences

the Relationship among Generation Z in terms of Rejection in Online Dating

Unstandardized
Indicators Coefficients t- p- Decision
R2
(IV) value value @ a=.05
B Std.
Error
 58

(Constant) 1.705 0.327 0.112 5.215 0.000

Failed to
Platform usage 0.163 0.087 1.879 0.063
Reject
Frequency of
0.151 0.072 2.096 0.000 Rejected
use
Communicatio Failed to
-0.067 0.056 -1.213 0.228
n methods Reject

Dependent variable: Relationship

Adjusted R Squared:0.09
among Generation Z

F-ratio:4.22 p-value:0.000

The regression analysis in Table 13 explores how platform usage,

frequency of use, and communication methods influence Generation Z’s

online dating relationships, particularly regarding rejection. The adjusted R-

squared value of 0.09 indicates that 9% of the variation in relationship

outcomes is explained by these factors, with an F-ratio of 4.22 and a p-value

of 0.000 confirming the model’s overall significance.

Frequency of use emerged as the only significant predictor (B = 0.151,

t = 2.096, p = 0.000), suggesting that more frequent engagement with dating

platforms is linked to increased rejection — likely due to greater emotional

investment and evolving expectations. In contrast, platform usage (B = 0.163,

t = 1.879, p = 0.063) and communication methods (B = -0.067, t = -1.213, p =

0.228) were not statistically significant, indicating that the type of platform and

communication style don’t independently impact relationship outcomes.

Supporting this, Smith and Duggan (2013) found that frequent dating

app use often led to emotional fatigue and dissatisfaction, particularly after
 59

repeated rejection. Similarly, Valkenburg and Peter (2007) noted that while

online communication fosters social connectedness, excessive use correlates

with emotional distress after negative experiences. These studies align with

the current findings, reinforcing that frequency of use drives both connection

opportunities and emotional challenges for Generation Z.

The results highlight a need for targeted interventions to promote

healthier engagement habits and build emotional resilience among young

online daters. Future research should explore additional factors like self-

esteem, social comparison, and social support to better understand how

Generation Z navigates online dating rejection

 60

Chapter 4

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter examined Generation Z relationships and online dating,

exposing important data links. Furthermore, a thorough analysis of the data

revealed significant linkages. For further study and decision-making in this

area, the summary, findings, and suggestions provided offer insightful

information.

Summary of Findings

Based on the results, the following findings were listed and outlined as

discussed in this chapter.

1. Among the three indicators, communication methods had the highest mean

of 3.56, with the descriptive equivalent of high and an SD of 0.40. Platform

usage followed with a mean of 2.15, a descriptive equivalent of moderate, and

an SD of 0.97. Lastly, frequency of use had the lowest mean of 2.05, with a

descriptive equivalent of low and an SD of 0.75.

2. It depicts the level of Internet dating and relationships among Generation Z.

Relationship commitment received the highest mean score of 3.33, with a

standard deviation (SD) of 0.05, indicating a moderate descriptive equivalent.

Social media influence followed closely with a mean score of 3.18 and an SD

of 0.30, also reflecting a moderate descriptive equivalent. Rejection in online

dating had the lowest mean score of 2.12 and an SD of 0.88, which

corresponds to a low descriptive equivalent.

 61

3. The computed r-value of -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation between

the two variables, Internet dating engagement and relationship quality. Since

the p-value (0.000) is less than the 0.05 level of significance, this implies that

there is no statistical evidence to support the null hypothesis. Therefore, the

null hypothesis is rejected. This means that there is a significant negative

relationship between Internet dating engagement and relationship quality

among Generation Z.

4. The regression analysis revealed that 28.7 percent of the variation in

relationship quality could be attributed to Internet dating engagement. The

combined influence of platform usage, frequency of use, and communication

methods significantly impacts relationship quality, as the p-value of 0.000 is

less than 0.05, confirming their predictive power.

Conclusions
The findings in this study led the researchers to draw the following

conclusions:

1. This means that Generation Z’s engagement in online dating platforms is

moderate, with a preference for social media over traditional dating apps.

2. This means that social media significantly influences dating perceptions,

contributing to both positive engagement and negative emotional impacts

such as insecurity and unrealistic expectations.

3. There is a significant negative relationship between Internet dating

engagement and relationship quality, suggesting that higher engagement in

 62

online dating may be associated with lower relationship stability and trust

issues.

4. All the dimensions of Internet dating engagement (platform usage,

frequency of use, and communication methods) significantly influence

relationship quality, emphasizing the need for digital literacy and healthy

online dating habits among Generation Z.

Recommendations

Based on the findings, analysis, and conclusions drawn in this study,

the following recommendations are suggested:

1. Educational Institutions and Youth Organizations. Schools and youth

organizations conducted workshops and awareness programs on digital

literacy, healthy online dating habits, and emotional resilience. By promoting

responsible platform usage, effective communication, and balanced online

interactions, young people can navigate online dating with greater awareness

and emotional stability.

2. Teachers. Educators integrated discussions on internet dating, relationship

quality, and the psychological effects of online engagement into relevant

subjects like social sciences and health education. Incorporating topics on

trust-building, rejection coping strategies, and social media influence can help

students develop more meaningful relationships while minimizing emotional

distress.
 63

3. Parents and Guardians. Parents engaged in open, non-judgmental

conversations with their children about online dating and social media’s role in

shaping relationship expectations. Encouraging a healthy balance between

online and offline interactions can help Generation Z develop realistic views

on relationships and avoid potential negative impacts such as insecurity and

trust issues.

4. Community and School Initiatives. Schools and community centers

implemented programs such as "Healthy Digital Relationships" seminars or

"Digital Detox Days" to encourage offline social interactions and self-

awareness in dating behaviors. Peer mentor-ship and support groups were

also established to help young individuals navigate online dating challenges,

cope with rejection, and build stronger emotional resilience.

5. Mental Health and Counseling Services. Counselors and mental health

professionals recognized the influence of online dating on relationship quality

when providing support to Generation Z. Tailored guidance on managing

digital relationships, addressing trust issues, and handling online rejection can

help young individuals develop healthier romantic and social experiences.

6. Future Research Directions. Further studies investigated the long-term

psychological and social impacts of internet dating on relationship stability

among Generation Z. Research can explore variables such as self-esteem,

communication patterns, and cultural influences to deepen the understanding

of online dating behaviors and their broader implications.

 64

References

Alexopoulos, C., Timmermans, E., & McNallie, J. (2019). Swiping more,

committing less: Unraveling the links among dating app use, dating app

success, and intention to commit infidelity. Computers in Human

Behavior, 102, 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.009

Anderson, T. L. (2020). Relationships among Internet Attitudes, Internet Use,

Romantic Beliefs, and Perceptions of Online Romantic

Relationships. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(6), 521–

531. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.521

Bethune, S. (2019, January). Gen Z more likely to report mental health

concerns. Monitor on Psychology, 50(1).

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/gen-z

Bhandari, P. (2021). Ethical Consideration in Research, Type and Examples.

Retrived at 19 april 2022 from

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/

Bonilla-Zorita, G., Griffiths, M. D., & Kuss, D. J. (2020). Online Dating and

Problematic Use: A Systematic review. International Journal of Mental

Health and Addiction, 19(6), 2245–2278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-

020-00318-9

Bretag T, Mahmud S (2021). A conceptual framework for implementing

exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education. In T.

 65

Bretag (ed.), Handbook of academic integrity. Springer, p. 463–

480. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_24

Castro, Á., & Barrada, J. R. (2020). Dating Apps and their sociodemographic

and Psychosocial correlates: A Systematic review. International Journal

of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6500.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186500

chegg. (2023). Statistics and Probability. https://www.chegg.com/homework-

help/questions-and-answers/statistics-and-probability-archive-2023-may-

03?page=4

Clement, J. (2020, February 26). Global time spent on social media daily

2018. Retrieved from https://www. statista.com/statistics/433871/daily-

social-media-usage-worldwide/

Creswell, J. W. (2019). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing

among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Emanuel EJ, Wendler C, Grady C. 2020, What makes clinical research

ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(2):2701-11. PMID: 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701.

Embark Behavioral Health. (2024, June 4). The psychological effects of online

dating for young adults. https://www.embarkbh.com/blog/technology/the-

psychological-effects-of-online-dating-for-young-adults/

Francisquete, D. E. M. (2023, November 3). Calinan rape victim FB friend of

suspect. SunStar. Retrieved from

https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/calinan-rape-victim-fb-friend-of-

suspect
 66

Hall, I. (2024). Love in the digital age: Navigating the shift in Gen Z dating

trends | Pion. wearepion.com.

https://www.wearepion.com/blog-posts/gen-z-dating-trends

Hansom, J. (2022). Gen Z's dating story: pre and post pandemic trends –

Savanta US. Savanta US – Savanta. https://savanta.com/us/knowledge-

centre/view/gen-zs-dating-story-pre-and-post-pandemic-trends/

Jain, P. (2024), What is data collection: methods, types, tools.

Simplilearn.com. https://www.simplilearn.com/what-is-data-collection-

article

Joo, T.-M., & Teng, C.-E. (2017). Impacts of social media (Facebook) on

human communication and relationships: A view on behavioral change

and social unity. International Journal of Knowledge Content

Development & Technology, 7(4). Retrieved from

http://www.ijkcdt.net/xml/12711/12711.pdf

Kaiser, K. (2020). Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research.

Qualitative Health Research, 19(11), 1632–1641.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309350879

Kashdan, T. B., DeWall, C. N., Masten, C. L., Pond, R. S., Powell, C., Combs,

D., Schurtz, D. R., & Farmer, A. S. (2014). Who is most vulnerable to

social rejection? The toxic combination of low Self-Esteem and lack of

negative emotion differentiation on neural responses to rejection. PLoS

ONE, 9(3), e90651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090651

 67

Lake, S. (2025, January 21). The dating app exodus: 4 reasons Gen Z and

millennials are rebelling against Hinge, Tinder, and Bumble. Yahoo

Finance. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dating-app-exodus-4-reasons-

140000113.html

Linh, N. (2024, November 11). You’re not the only one exhausted by dating.

https://www.lofficielibiza.com/soul-spirituality/struggling-with-dating-

burnout-from-dating-apps

McClain et al. (2023). Swipe right to consent: How dating app usage by young

adults contributes to sexual objectification and sexual consent

miscommunication. Computers in Human Behavior,

108621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108621

Menon, D. (2024). The Bumble motivations framework- exploring a dating

App’s uses by emerging adults in India. Heliyon, 10(3), e24819.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24819

National Geographic Staff. (2020, January 15). Who was Martin Luther King,

Jr.? Culture. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/martin-

luther-king-jr

Nealon, E. (2019, July 14). Gen Z is swiping left on romance. Retrieved from

https://www. washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/gen-z-is-swiping-

left-on-romance

Nguyen, M. H., Gruber, J., Marler, W., Hunsaker, A., Fuchs, J., & Hargittai, E.

(2021). Staying connected while physically apart: Digital communication

 68

when face-to-face interactions are limited. New Media & Society.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820985442

Oxman, A. D., Chalmers, I., & Sackett, D. L. (2023). A practical guide to

informed consent to treatment. BMJ, 323(7327), 1464–1466.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7327.1464

Potarca, G. (2020). Does the internet affect assortative mating? Evidence

from the U.S. and Germany. Social Science Research, 61, 278–297.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.06.019

Sánchez V, Muñoz-Fernández N, Ortega-Ruiz R. Romantic Relationship

Quality in the Digital Age: A Study with Young Adults. Span J Psychol.

2017 May 3;20:E24. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2017.20. PMID: 28464978.

Saunders MNK, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2019) Research Methods for Business

Students. 8th edn. Pearson, New York.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-04269-7

Sharabi, L. L. (2023). The enduring effect of Internet Dating: Meeting online

and the Road to marriage. Communication Research, 51(3), 259–284.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221127498

Sharabi, L. L., & Dorrance-Hall, E. (2023). The online dating effect: Where a

couple meets predicts the quality of their marriage. Computers in Human

Behavior, 150, 107973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107973

 69

Thomas, R. J., & Potarca. (2019). Online exogamy reconsidered: estimating

the internet’s effects on racial, educational, religious, political and age

assortative mating. Social Forces. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz060

Tonhäuser, B. A. (2020). Perspektiven kaufmännischer und

wirtschaftsberuflicher Schulen vor dem Hintergrund rückläufiger

Schüler/innenzahlen. University of Twente.

https://essay.utwente.nl/81773/1/Tonh%C3%A4uuser_BA_BMS.pdf

Travers, M. (2024). 2 Ways to Master ‘Digital Body Language’ and Date

Better—By a Psychologist. Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2024/08/26/2-ways-to-master-

digital-body-language-and-date-better-by-a-psychologist/

Varkey, B. (2020). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice.

Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17–28.

https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119

Wang, C.; Cheng, Z.; Yue, X.-G.; McAleer, M. Risk Management of COVID-19

by Universities in China. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020, 13, 36. [Google

Scholar] [CrossRef]

Wooddell, B. (2024, March 8). The impact of social media on modern

relationships. Bloom. https://www.wfla.com/bloom-tampa-bay/bloom-

relationships/the-impact-of-social-media-on-modern-relationships/
 70

APPENDICES

Apendix A

Letter of Permission to Conduct the Study

 71

Apendix B
Letter to the Respondents
72
73
 74

Apendix C
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
"Love at First Click: A Closer Look on the Effects of Internet Dating Among
Generation Z"

The purpose of this survey is to gather data on the effects of internet dating among
Generation Z. Your responses will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and will
only be used for research purposes. Kindly answer all questions honestly.

I. PERSONAL PROFILE

Please provide the following information by filling in the blanks or selecting the
appropriate option.

Name (Optional): _______________

Gender:
☐ Male
☐ Female
☐ Other: ___________

Age Group:
☐ 13-15 years old
☐ 16-18 years old
☐ 19-21 years old

Grade Level:
☐ Junior High School
☐ Senior High School

II. PLATFORM USAGE

Do you use any online dating or social media apps to find romantic partners?
☐ Yes
☐ No
 75

If "Yes," please answer the following questions.

What online dating or social media apps do you use? Indicate your frequency
of use.

Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes Often (4) Very Often

(3) (5)
Tinder
Facebook
Instagram
Hinge
Litmatch

Do you think using these apps is a safe way to meet people?

☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Maybe

III. FREQUENCY OF USE

How much time do you spend on these apps per week?

☐ Less than 1 hour
☐ 1-2 hours
☐ 3-4 hours
☐ More than 4 hours
☐ Other: ___________

How often do you use these apps?

☐ Every day
☐ Once a week
☐ Once every two weeks
☐ Once a month
☐ Less than once a month
 76

IV. COMMUNICATION METHODS IN ONLINE DATING

Rate how frequently you use the following communication methods on dating apps.

Communication Methods 1 2 3 4 5

Voice calls 12

Video calls

Text messages

V. SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCE ON DATING

Rate how social media impacts your dating Very Low Modera Hig Ver
life. Low (2) te (3) h y
(1) (4) Hig
h
(5)

Social media creates unrealistic

expectations for dating.
Social media makes me feel jealous,
impatient, or insecure about my
dating life.
Social media has no significant
influence on my dating life.
Social media makes me compare
myself and my dating experiences to
others, leading to dissatisfaction.

VI. RELATIONSHIP COMMITMENT

Rate your level of commitment in your current/most recent 1 2 3 4 5

relationship:
How committed are you to this relationship?

My commitment to this relationship goes up and down a

lot.
 77

I am unsure how committed my partner really is to the

future of this relationship.

At this point, I do not feel like I can count on a steady

level of commitment from my partner.

VII. REJECTION IN ONLINE DATING

Have you ever experienced rejection in online dating?

☐ Yes
☐ No

How often do you experience rejection?

☐ Rarely (1)
☐ Occasionally (2)
☐ Sometimes (3)
☐ Often (4)
☐ Very Often (5)

Have you ever rejected someone on an online dating app?

☐ Yes
☐ No

How often do you reject someone through online dating?

☐ Rarely (1)
☐ Occasionally (2)
☐ Sometimes (3)
☐ Often (4)
☐ Very Often (5)

Thank you for your time and participation! Your responses are highly valuable for our
research study.

Sources:
 78

Alam, Syed & Yeow, Paul. (2011). An Empirical Study on Online Social

Networks Sites Usage: Online Dating Sites Perspective. International

Journal of Business and Management. 6. 10.5539/ijbm.v6n10p155.

Christensen, Spencer Palmer, "Social Media Use and Its Impact on

Relationships and Emotions" (2018). All Theses and Dissertations. 6927.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6927

Nguyen, M. H., Gruber, J., Marler, W., Hunsaker, A., Fuchs, J., & Hargittai, E.

(2021). Staying connected while physically apart: Digital communication

when face-to-face interactions are limited. New Media & Society.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820985442

Owen, Jesse & Rhoades, Galena & Shuck, Brad & Fincham, Frank & Stanley,

Scott & Markman, Howard & Knopp, Kayla. (2014). Commitment

Uncertainty: A Theoretical Overview. Journal of Couple & Relationship

Therapy. 3. 207-219. 10.1037/cfp0000028.

 79

Apendix D
 80

Validation of the Research Instruments

 81

Apendix E
Statistical Test Results

SUMMARY OUTPUT:

DV!

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.277855332
R Square 0.077203586

Adjusted R Square 0.049519693

Standard Error 0.567291551
Observations 104

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regress 2.7887547
ion 3 2.692428649 0.897476216 15 0.044498815

Residua
l 100 32.18197039 0.321819704

Total 103 34.87439904

Standard
Coefficients Error t Stat P-value

Intercept 1.848849705 0.48414755 3.818773235 0.000232808

Platform usage 0.127304085 0.128667757 0.989401602 0.324854667

Frequency of use 0.238037759 0.106669292 2.231549061 0.027877168

Communication methods 0.144461853 0.082368081 1.753857216

0.08251872
 82

Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

0.888314755 2.809384654 0.888314755 2.809384654

-0.127969081 0.382577251 -0.127969081 0.382577251

0.026408921 0.449666597 0.026408921 0.449666597

-0.018954073 0.30787778 -0.018954073 0.30787778

DV2

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.496324858

R Square 0.246338364

Adjusted R Square 0.223728515

Standard Error 0.663801463

Observations 104

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 14.40230669 4.800768896 10.8951795 2.96656E-06

Residual 100 44.06323818 0.440632382

Total 103 58.46554487

Coefficients t Stat P-value

Standard
 83

Error

Intercept 1.42921124 0.566512671 2.522823078 0.013218111

Platform usage 0.010010811 0.150557232 0.066491729 0.947119098

Frequency of -
use -0.019616029 0.1248163 0.157159191 0.875436268

Communication
methods 0.538049254 0.096380869 5.582531678 2.03867E-07

Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

0.305266236 2.553156243 0.305266236 2.553156243

-0.288690449 0.30871207 -0.288690449 0.30871207

-0.267248012 0.228015955 -0.267248012 0.228015955

0.346832355 0.729266153 0.346832355 0.729266153

DV3

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.335275748

R Square 0.112409827

Adjusted R Square 0.085782122

Standard Error 0.383000586

Observations 104

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

10.895179
Regression 3 14.40230669 4.800768896 5 2.96656E-06
 84

Residual 100 44.06323818 0.440632382

Total 103 58.46554487

Standard
Coefficients Error t Stat P-value

0.56651267 0.01321811
Intercept 1.42921124 1 2.522823078 1

0.15055723 0.94711909
Platform usage 0.010010811 2 0.066491729 8

- 0.87543626
Frequency of use -0.019616029 0.1248163 0.157159191 8

Communication 0.09638086 2.03867E-

methods 0.538049254 9 5.582531678 07

Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

0.305266236 2.553156243 0.305266236 2.553156243

-0.288690449 0.30871207 -0.288690449 0.30871207

-0.267248012 0.228015955 -0.267248012 0.228015955

0.346832355 0.729266153 0.346832355 0.729266153

Unstandardized
Indicators Coefficients p- Decision
R2 t-value
(IV) Std. value @ a=.05
B
Error

(Constant) 1.429 0.567 0.246 2.523 0.0132

Failed to
Platform usage 0.010 0.151 0.066 0.947
Reject
Frequency of - Failed to
0.125 -0.157 0.875
use 0.020 Reject
 85

Communication 2.0386
0.538 0.096 5.583 Rejected
methods 7E-07

Dependent variable: Relationship

Adjusted R Squared:0.224
among Generation Z

F-ratio: 10.90 p-value:0.000

Unstandardized
Indicators Coefficients t- p- Decision
R2
(IV) Std. value value @ a=.05
B
Error

(Constant) 1.705 0.327 0.112 5.215 0.000

Failed to
Platform usage 0.163 0.087 1.879 0.063
Reject
Frequency of
0.151 0.072 2.096 0.000 Rejected
use
Communicatio Failed to
-0.067 0.056 -1.213 0.228
n methods Reject

Dependent variable: Relationship

Adjusted R Squared:0.09
among Generation Z

F-ratio:4.22 p-value:0.000
 86

Apendix F
Certificate of Statistical Analysis
 87

Apendix G
Certificate from the Grammarian
 88

Apendix H
 89

Certificate of Completion
 90

Apendix I
CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Data
Name: Meka-ella P. Madera
Address: Prk. 4E apokon tagum city
Mobile Number: 09700903150
Date of Birth: Dec, 18,2005
Place of Birth: Pantukan Hospital, Pantukan
Davao De Oro
Email:
Education
2024- At Present Tagum National Trade School (Ongoing)
Senior High School
Major in Housekeeping NC II, Food and Beverages NC
II, and Food processing NC ll
Apokon, Tagum City, Davao del Norte

2023 Boringot National Highschool

Junior High School
Pulang lupa, Napnapan, Pantukan, davao de oro

2019 Diat 6 Elementary school

Elementary Grades 1 to 6
Diat 6 Napnapan pantukan Davao de oro

CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Data
 91

Name: Jayson Matarab

Address: Prk. Mencisor, Magugpo east,
Tagum City
Mobile Number: 09169153809
Date of Birth: June 20, 2006
Place of Birth: Davao Regional Medical Center,
Tagum City
Email: [email protected]

Education
2025- At Present Tagum National Trade School (Ongoing)
Senior High School
Major in Housekeeping NC II, Food and Beverages NC
II, and Cookery NC ll
Apokon, Tagum City, Davao del Norte

2023 Boringot National Highschool

Junior High School
Pulang lupa, Napnapan, Pantukan, davao de oro

2018 Pulang-lupa Elementary School

Elementary Grades 1 to 5
Pulang lupa, Napnapan pantukan Davao de oro
2019 Boringot Elementary School
Elementary Grade 6
Boringot, Napnapan Pantukan, Davao De Oro

CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Data
 92

Name: Divine Grace M. Getizo

Address: Prk. Durian Seminary Drive
Tagum City
Mobile Number: 09361417723
Date of Birth: December 04, 2006
Place of Birth: Davao Regional Medical Center,
Tagum City
Email: [email protected]

Education
2026- At Present Tagum National Trade School (Ongoing)
Senior High School
Major in Housekeeping NC II, Food and Beverages NC
II, and Cookery NC II
Apokon, Tagum City, Davao del Norte

2023 Tagum National Trade School

Junior High School
Apokon Tagum City Davao Del Norte

2019 Magugpo Pilot Imelda Elementary School

Elementary Grades 1 to 6
Sobrecary St, Tagum, Davao Del Norte

CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Data
 93

Name: Joel R. Darunday Jr.

Address: Prk. Dreamville,Visayan Village
Mobile Number: 09928312050
Date of Birth: August 16, 2007
Place of Birth: Davao Regional Medical Center
Email: [email protected]
Education
2027- At Present Tagum National Trade School (Ongoing)
Senior High School
Major in Housekeeping NC II, Food and Beverages NC
II, and Cookery NC II
Apokon, Tagum City, Davao del Norte

2023 TAGUM CITY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

Junior High School
Visayan Village, Tagum City, Davao Del Norte

2019 Mangga Elementary School

Elementary Grades 1 to 6
Mangga, Visayan Village, Tagum City, Davaol Del Norte

CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Data
Name: Juvier M. Dingcong
 94

Address: Prk-3G-RTU Apokon, Tagum City

Mobile Number: 09631984292
Date of Birth: June 24 2007
Place of Birth: Purok Mauswagon, Teachers
Village Magugpo South ,Tagum City
Email: [email protected]
Education
2028- At Present Tagum National Trade School (Ongoing)
Senior High School
Major in Housekeeping NC II, Food and Beverages NC
II, and Cookery NC II
Apokon, Tagum City, Davao del Norte

2023 TAGUM CITY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

Junior High School
Visayan Village, Tagum City, Davao Del Norte

2019 Apokon Elementary School

Elementary Grades 1 to 6
Apokon, Tagum City, Davao Del Norte

CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Data
Name: Fritz Adrian P. Cabansag
Address: Prk.Mauswagon teachers
 95

village tagum city

Mobile Number: 09855385453
Date of Birth: MAY 10 2006
Place of Birth: Purok Mauswagon, Teachers
Village Magugpo South ,Tagum City
Email: [email protected]
Education
2029- At Present Tagum National Trade School (Ongoing)
Senior High School
Major in Housekeeping NC II, Food and Beverages NC
II, and Cookery NC II
Apokon, Tagum City, Davao del Norte

2023 TAGUM CITY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

Junior High School
Visayan Village, Tagum City, Davao Del Norte

2019 Magugpo Pilot Central Elementary School

Elementary Grades 1 to 6
Mabini St, Tagum, Davao del Norte