![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/texting-on-smartphone-750x375.jpg)
People frequently track the real-time geographic movements of their close friends and family members through smartphone applications. A new survey of adults reveals that users most often share their whereabouts with romantic partners to manage practical logistics, while relying on the technology to monitor the physical safety of their parents and siblings. The findings were published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
Modern smartphones come equipped with a variety of tools that allow users to continuously broadcast their exact physical location to others. Features like Apple’s Find My, Google Maps, and dedicated tracking programs such as Life360 are increasingly common fixtures in daily life. Past research on this technology has often focused on specific risks, such as digital stalking or a loss of trust in romantic relationships. Other studies have examined how parents use these applications to monitor their adolescent children.
Yet little data exists regarding the broader social networks of location sharing. Researchers wanted to understand the full scope of who receives this access and the specific motivations driving these digital disclosures. Brian G. Ogolsky, a researcher at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and his colleagues sought to categorize the everyday habits of smartphone users. They grounded their work in communication privacy management theory, which suggests that people constantly negotiate the boundaries between personal privacy and social disclosure.
By treating geographic coordinates as a form of private information, the researchers aimed to map the changing norms of digital intimacy. Traditionally, social scientists have viewed privacy management as an active choice, where a person decides to reveal specific details in a specific moment. Smartphone tracking, however, creates a continuous and ambient stream of data. The research team wanted to know how people navigate this distinct type of constant revelation.
To gather the data, Ogolsky and his team recruited 203 adults between the ages of 19 and 59. The participants were required to own a smartphone and currently share their location with at least one person. During an online survey, participants opened their tracking applications and counted the total number of people who could see their movements. They then categorized their relationships with each person on the list.
Participants also answered open-ended questions detailing why they initially allowed access and why they continued to do so over time. The research team manually categorized the written responses, coding them into dozens of specific themes before collapsing them into four primary categories. This qualitative approach allowed the researchers to preserve the respondents’ own descriptions of their social behaviors.
The survey revealed that participants broadcast their location to an average of nearly four people. However, the majority of the respondents shared their whereabouts with just one or two individuals, indicating that people maintain tight privacy boundaries even with ambient technology. Romantic partners were the most common recipients of this information, selected by over 62 percent of the respondents. Friends and siblings were the next most common categories, followed by mothers, fathers, and children.
When analyzing the motivations for broadcasting physical movements, the researchers identified safety as the most frequently cited reason across the entire survey. Participants described using the technology to gain peace of mind and to ensure they could receive help in an emergency. They also mentioned safety in the context of developmental transitions, such as tracking a teenager who recently started driving or monitoring an aging parent who might face cognitive decline. The researchers noted that this type of safety is entirely passive, as it relies on the other person choosing to check the application when assistance is needed.
The second major category of motivation was practicality. People used location data to navigate the logistics of daily life, such as checking if a partner had left work or timing a dinner preparation. This allowed them to stay informed without needing to send a text message or make a phone call to ask for an estimated time of arrival. In this specific group of participants, staying informed of a partner’s movements was usually described as an issue of efficiency rather than an attempt to exert control.
A third category involved casual reasons for keeping tracking features active. Many participants cited sheer indifference, noting that they had forgotten the application was running or simply had no reason to turn it off. Some tracking applications enable location sharing by default, meaning users might accidentally broadcast their data continuously. Other respondents described using the technology purely for entertainment, with one participant noting that they “find it funny to check each other’s location and send texts about it.”
The final category involved relationship processes. In these instances, participants viewed the act of revealing their location as a way to maintain closeness or build trust. Some individuals used the continuous stream of geographic data to demonstrate transparency in a romantic partnership, offering explanations such as, “Because I’m fine with it. I have nothing to hide.” A small number of respondents reported sharing their location due to direct pressure from a partner or a cultural expectation that roommates should automatically know each other’s whereabouts.
The researchers then compared the reasons for sharing against the specific types of relationships. The motivations shifted depending on the person receiving the data. For romantic partners and friends, practical reasons dominated the decision to keep tracking applications active. These individuals likely spend a large portion of their time together and need efficient ways to coordinate shared schedules.
By contrast, safety was the primary driver for giving access to family members. Parents, children, and extended family members were granted access primarily to alleviate worries about physical well-being. Because adult children often live far away from their aging parents or extended family, location tracking provides a way to maintain a sense of connection and security across long physical distances.
The study relied on a specific demographic sample that was largely white, heterosexual, and highly educated. Because all participants already used tracking software, the results do not capture the perspectives of people who actively avoid the technology due to privacy concerns. The researchers also did not directly ask participants about intimate partner violence. This omission might have resulted in an underreporting of digital surveillance, controlling behaviors, or a lack of trust.
Future research will need to explore how digital boundaries change as tracking algorithms become more deeply integrated into daily life. Scientists also hope to investigate whether relying on passive digital tracking replaces traditional conversations, and how skipping basic logistical check-ins might alter interpersonal communication.
The study, “Near, Far, Wherever You Are: With Whom and Why Do People Use Location Sharing in Relationships,” was authored by Brian G. Ogolsky, Matthew Rivas-Koehl, Evaline Y. Li, Ghada Kawas, Emily J. Charvat, Christopher R. Maniotes and Jennifer L. Hardesty.