Study Overview
Total Sample
2,286
US men, online survey
Client
Hinge
Project 8851B
Gen Z
1,810
79.2% of sample
Millennial
476
20.8% of sample
LGBTQ+
420
18.4% of sample
No Close Friends
8.0%
184 men report zero
Study Purpose: This quantitative study (Part B of a mixed-methods project) was designed to measure what "friendship" and "connection" mean for Gen Z men — including how they define it, experience it, and where it breaks down. The research was built to field across the U.S., U.K., and Australia with Millennials included as a generational comparison. Five core questions drove the design:
(1) Definitions — How are Gen Z men defining friendship and closeness today, and does that differ by generation? (2) Experience & dynamics — What does friendship look like in practice? How do men show care, support, and accountability? (3) Barriers & pain points — What gets in the way: vulnerability limits, fear of rejection, lack of "third spaces"? (4) Relationship differences — How do close vs. peripheral friends differ? How do male-male and male-female friendships compare? How does romantic partnership affect male friendship? (5) Online vs. IRL — Does online camaraderie (Discord, social media) translate into real closeness, or create "false connection"?
(1) Definitions — How are Gen Z men defining friendship and closeness today, and does that differ by generation? (2) Experience & dynamics — What does friendship look like in practice? How do men show care, support, and accountability? (3) Barriers & pain points — What gets in the way: vulnerability limits, fear of rejection, lack of "third spaces"? (4) Relationship differences — How do close vs. peripheral friends differ? How do male-male and male-female friendships compare? How does romantic partnership affect male friendship? (5) Online vs. IRL — Does online camaraderie (Discord, social media) translate into real closeness, or create "false connection"?
Generation
Gen Z (n=1,810)
Millennial (n=476)
Sexuality
LGBTQ+ (n=420)
Straight (n=1,866)
Segment Profiles
Gen Z Men
n = 1,810 · 79.2% of sample
"More anxious, less experienced"
Positive life outlook69.4%
Have enough social support69.9%
Currently in a relationship36.5%
Never been in a relationship20.1%
3 or more close friends58.3%
Comfortable opening up anytime43.6%
Social anxiety as friendship barrier66.1%
Says friendship is easier than dating43.9%
Millennial Men
n = 476 · 20.8% of sample
"More settled, more emotionally skilled"
Positive life outlook73.3%
Have enough social support71.0%
Currently in a relationship48.7%
Never been in a relationship7.4%
3 or more close friends57.9%
Comfortable opening up anytime50.0%
Social anxiety as friendship barrier66.2%
Says friendship is easier than dating34.0%
LGBTQ+ Men
n = 420 · 18.4% of sample
"Higher stakes, deeper need"
Positive life outlook62.6%
Have enough social support64.8%
Trustworthiness: essential/very imp.94.5%
Support in tough times: ess./v. imp.91.7%
Fear of rejection as barrier68.8%
Comfortable opening up anytime49.8%
Prefer texting/online for openness57.4%
Competitiveness as barrier45.5%
Straight Men
n = 1,866 · 81.6% of sample
"Activity-first, slower to open up"
Positive life outlook71.9%
Have enough social support71.3%
Trustworthiness: essential/very imp.90.1%
Support in tough times: ess./v. imp.86.2%
Fear of rejection as barrier62.4%
Comfortable opening up anytime43.9%
Prefer texting/online for openness49.0%
Competitiveness as barrier53.8%
Friendship Landscape
How Many Close Friends? (Total Sample)
1 in 12 men has zero close friends. 8.0% (n=184) report having no close friends at all — rising to 8.3% among Gen Z, suggesting friendship formation may be getting harder for younger men, not easier.
Life Outlook — % Very or Somewhat Positive
LGBTQ+ men lag by 9.3 points. 62.6% feel positive about life vs 71.9% of Straight men — the largest segment gap in the study. Lower friendship quality and higher rejection fears likely compound this.
Enough Social Support (% Agree)
Romantic Relationship Status by Generation
When Were Current Close Friends First Met?
Friendships are formed young and stay young. Teenage years are the dominant formation stage (17.0%). Only 3.7% of close friendships are made in later adulthood (25+) — confirming the "closeness" question the study was designed to probe: how do men form deep friendship without the structural supports of school or shared crisis?
Conversation Depth with Close Friends by Generation
Most conversations are mixed, not deep. Half of men (50.5%) describe an even surface-and-deep mix. Only 7.6% say all conversations are emotionally deep — supporting the study's hypothesis that vulnerability is situational, not habitual.
What Men Value in a Close Friendship
% Essential or Very Important — Gen Z vs Millennial
% Essential or Very Important — LGBTQ+ vs Straight
| Attribute (% Essential + Very Important) | Gen Z | Millennial | LGBTQ+ | Straight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trustworthiness | 90.4% | 92.9% | 94.5% | 90.1% |
| Loyalty | 88.6% | 91.0% | 90.5% | 88.7% |
| Support in tough times | 86.3% | 90.5% | 91.7% | 86.2% |
| Humor and fun | 82.8% | 84.2% | 83.8% | 82.9% |
| Apologizing / forgiving | 83.0% | 84.9% | 86.0% | 82.9% |
| Listening without judgment | 82.0% | 88.9% | 86.0% | 82.9% |
| Showing appreciation | 79.5% | 81.9% | 82.4% | 79.5% |
| Making time for each other | 73.0% | 78.2% | 76.7% | 73.5% |
| Giving advice | 73.9% | 75.4% | 73.3% | 74.4% |
| Consistent communication | 70.8% | 72.9% | 72.9% | 70.9% |
| Willingness to be vulnerable | 70.7% | 76.7% | 77.4% | 70.7% |
6.7pt
Millennial men place 6.7 points more value on vulnerability in friendship (76.7% vs 70.7% for Gen Z) — the study's widest generational gap on any importance attribute. Willingness to be vulnerable is the one area where Gen Z men's definition of friendship measurably lags.
How Men Rate Themselves — vs. How Their Friends Rate Them
Self-Rating vs Friends' Rating (% Great or Pretty Good — All Men)
Self-Rating by Generation (% Great or Pretty Good)
7.6pt
Men underestimate how open they appear to others. Friends rate men 7.6 points higher on "being vulnerable" than men rate themselves (75.1% vs 67.5%). This perception gap — not an actual skill gap — may be one of the key inhibitors of deeper friendship: men assume they're less open than they actually are.
Where men over- and under-rate themselves: Men rate themselves higher than their friends rate them on being trustworthy (+2.8pt), loyal (+2.2pt), and listening without judgment (+3.7pt) — suggesting some blind spots around consistency and receptiveness. Conversely, friends rate men notably higher on vulnerability (+7.6pt), humor/fun (+4.3pt), communication (+4.7pt), and making time (+5.6pt) — all areas men undervalue in themselves.
Emotional Openness — When Men Open Up
One of the study's core measurement goals was to operationalize when men feel licensed to open up emotionally. Men were asked across 7 specific situational contexts. The data shows that openness is highly conditional for most men — particularly Gen Z — and that only a minority feel comfortable being vulnerable at any time, in any context. The contexts tested were drawn directly from the study's design goals around experience and dynamics of male friendship.
Comfort Opening Up Emotionally — Gen Z vs Millennial (% Comfortable)
Comfort Opening Up Emotionally — LGBTQ+ vs Straight (% Comfortable)
| Context (% Very + Somewhat Comfortable) | Gen Z | Millennial | LGBTQ+ | Straight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Celebrating something or someone | 50.7% | 58.2% | 57.4% | 51.1% |
| Texting or talking online | 49.2% | 55.5% | 57.4% | 49.0% |
| On a trip or outside routine | 47.4% | 55.3% | 52.4% | 48.3% |
| Anytime, regardless of circumstances | 43.6% | 50.0% | 49.8% | 43.9% |
| Times of crisis or hardship | 43.9% | 55.0% | 50.0% | 45.3% |
| After not seeing each other for a while | 42.5% | 52.7% | 50.7% | 43.2% |
| When drugs or alcohol are involved | 35.5% | 50.4% | 45.7% | 37.0% |
~11pt
Millennial men are consistently ~10–15 points more comfortable opening up than Gen Z across all 7 contexts — the widest gaps appearing in times of crisis (+11.1pt) and during substance-involved situations (+14.9pt). This generational openness gap is the study's most consistent pattern.
Barriers to Building Friendships
🚧 Obstacles to Meeting New Friends (% Agree)
Meeting Obstacles — Gen Z vs Millennial
Meeting Obstacles — LGBTQ+ vs Straight
💭 Obstacles to Developing Closer Friendships (% Agree)
Development Blocks — Gen Z vs Millennial
Development Blocks — LGBTQ+ vs Straight
| Barrier (% Agree) | Gen Z | Millennial | LGBTQ+ | Straight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not knowing if other person wants a friendship | 66.0% | 64.7% | 68.3% | 65.2% |
| Social anxiety / fear of putting yourself out there | 66.1% | 66.2% | 68.6% | 65.5% |
| Fear of rejection | 63.0% | 65.5% | 68.8% | 62.4% |
| Not knowing where to meet people | 64.3% | 60.9% | 64.0% | 63.5% |
| Not wanting to rely on other people | 62.3% | 66.0% | 62.9% | 63.1% |
| Nothing in common with the people I meet | 61.2% | 63.7% | 64.8% | 61.0% |
| Not knowing how to get close to someone | 61.2% | 61.1% | 62.9% | 60.8% |
| Not knowing how to ask someone to hang out | 61.9% | 60.5% | 65.2% | 60.8% |
| Being competitive | 52.2% | 52.5% | 45.5% | 53.8% |
6.4pt
LGBTQ+ men face a 6.4-point higher fear of rejection than Straight men (68.8% vs 62.4%). They also score higher on social anxiety (+3.1pt), not knowing how to ask to hang out (+4.4pt), and ambiguity about mutual interest (+3.1pt) — suggesting that for LGBTQ+ men, the stakes of rejection feel meaningfully higher when building new friendships.
Communication & Connection
Preferred Communication Method — Ranked #1 by Generation
In-person still dominates (38%), but 1:1 texting is the clear #2 preference (17.2%) — and Millennial men lean more heavily on texting (21.0%) than Gen Z (16.2%), consistent with the life-stage constraints of maintaining geographically dispersed friendships.
Online Friendships — Connection vs In-Person (% Each View)
Online vs. IRL closeness: 77.9% of Gen Z feel equally or more connected to online friends as in-person friends. But Millennial men (34.2%) are notably more likely than Gen Z (25.4%) to feel more connected online — pointing to geographic separation from original friend groups as a key driver of online friendship reliance.
Romance vs. Friendship
The study was designed to explore how romantic relationships affect platonic friendships — a core research question. The data addresses two angles: where men invest their relational effort, and whether they perceive friendship or romance as the harder thing to find.
Where Do Men Put More Relational Effort?
What Feels Easier — Finding a Partner or Making a Close Friend?
36.7%
More than 1 in 3 men invests more effort in romance than friendship — yet 43.9% of Gen Z say friendship is actually easier to find than a romantic partner. Men are underinvesting in the thing they're better positioned to succeed at. Millennials are more likely to see romance as easier to find (23.1% vs 18.3%) — possibly reflecting dating app fluency and reduced social anxiety over time.
Key Findings
01
1 in 12 men has zero close friends. 8.0% of US men in the sample report no close friendships at all — rising slightly to 8.3% among Gen Z. This is the study's starkest headline on the "closeness deficit."
02
Close friendships are formed young and largely stay that way. The teenage years are the dominant friendship formation stage (17.0% of single-stage responses). Only 3.7% of close friendships are formed in later adulthood — suggesting the window for deep connection may feel closed to many men.
03
The #1 barrier is ambiguity — not anxiety. 65.7% of men say not knowing if the other person wants a friendship is their biggest development block — outranking social anxiety, fear of rejection, and lack of common ground. Men are waiting for a signal that never comes.
04
Men underestimate their own emotional openness. Friends rate men 7.6 points higher on "being vulnerable" than men rate themselves (75.1% vs 67.5%). The perception gap — not a true skill gap — is likely a meaningful inhibitor of deeper friendship formation.
05
Emotional openness is context-locked, not constant. Only 43–50% of men are comfortable opening up "anytime." Celebrating (52.3%) and texting/online (50.5%) are the highest-comfort contexts — practical anchors for designing friendship-deepening experiences.
06
Millennial men are ~10 points more emotionally open across all contexts. The generational gap is remarkably consistent — suggesting that emotional fluency in friendship builds with age and relationship experience, not simply with cultural shift.
07
LGBTQ+ men face compounded friendship barriers. Higher fear of rejection (+6.4pt vs Straight), lower positive outlook (−9.3pt), less perceived support (−6.5pt) — yet LGBTQ+ men place more importance on trustworthiness and emotional availability than Straight men, not less.
08
Vulnerability is valued more by Millennials — by 6.7 points. The widest generational gap in the importance battery: 76.7% of Millennials vs 70.7% of Gen Z call vulnerability essential or very important in a friend. Gen Z's definition of friendship is still forming.
09
Most male conversations stay at the surface — but not always. 50.5% report an even mix of surface and deep conversations. The data supports the study's hypothesis: men do have emotional range in friendship, but specific conditions need to be in place.
10
Online connection is real — especially for Millennials. 77.9% of Gen Z feel equally or more connected to online friends as in-person ones. Millennial men are more likely (34.2%) to feel more connected online than in-person — likely reflecting geographic separation from original friend groups.
11
Men underinvest in the thing they're best positioned to find. 36.7% put more effort into romance than friendship — yet 43.9% of Gen Z say friendship is actually easier to find. Effort and opportunity are structurally misaligned.
12
Competitiveness is a Straight-specific barrier. 53.8% of Straight men cite competitiveness as a development block vs 45.5% of LGBTQ+ men (8.3pt gap). This may reflect different norms around hierarchy and social performance within male peer groups across sexuality.
Strategic Recommendations
1. Solve the Mutual-Interest Signal Problem
The #1 friendship development barrier is not knowing if the other person wants to be friends (65.7%). This ambiguity paralyses men who already want connection. Products, platforms, or social norms that make mutual interest visible and safe to express — without requiring the vulnerable ask — could unlock enormous latent demand for friendship. This is a clear product design opportunity for Hinge and adjacent social platforms.
2. Reframe Vulnerability for Gen Z Around the Perception Gap
Gen Z men underestimate how emotionally open they appear to their friends. Rather than telling men to "be more vulnerable," the more accurate intervention is showing them they already are — friends rate them 7.6 points higher than they rate themselves. Content and messaging that reflects this gap back to young men could reduce the self-limiting belief that they're less capable of closeness than they feel.
3. Design Specifically for LGBTQ+ Men's Friendship Barriers
LGBTQ+ men show worse outcomes across life outlook, social support, and wellbeing — while placing higher value on friendship quality. Generic content underserves this group. Features, communities, or messaging that reduce the specific stakes of rejection in LGBTQ+ social contexts — and that recognize these men want depth, not just connection — are warranted and commercially underexplored.
4. Use Millennial Emotional Patterns as Aspirational Benchmarks
Millennial men score ~10 points higher on emotional openness across all contexts, and place significantly more value on vulnerability in friendship. These patterns likely develop with age, relationship experience, and accumulated friendship depth — not purely from generational values. Frame the Millennial data as a reachable future state for Gen Z men, not a generational divide, and design toward it.
5. Build Emotional Prompts Into Celebration and Digital Contexts
Men are most comfortable emotionally opening up while celebrating (52.3%) and texting/talking online (50.5%) — not during crisis or intentional "deep conversation" moments. Practical design implication: embed friendship-deepening prompts into low-stakes moments rather than high-stakes ones. These are the contexts where men's guards are down and connection happens naturally.
6. Address the Adult Friendship Formation Gap
Only 3.7% of men's close friendships are made in later adulthood. The structural supports that create friendship — school, sports, shared geography — disappear after the early 20s. Any platform or product that creates structured, low-pressure repeated exposure among men with shared interests is addressing the gap no one has yet solved. The study was designed to surface exactly this kind of unmet need.