Internet, dating, addiction: A match made in heaven
Reviewers: Julius Klingelhoefer and an undisclosed reviewer.
Editorial Assistant: Elena Benini
Dating apps are said to have turned dating into an addiction. Instead of efficiently connecting people for in-person dates, users may get lost in “binge swiping”. But what makes it so hard to stop swiping – and when does it become a problem? We review existing research and explain what researchers mean by “online dating addiction”, why the science isn’t so simple, and what you can do to resist the pull.
Figure 1. Dating app swipe concept
Have you ever found yourself swiping endlessly through online dating profiles? One may think that dating apps are made to quickly and efficiently connect people for in-person dates. Yet, this is by no means always true. It seems to be a
myth that dating apps are made for dating. Instead of initiating interactions, many users of internet dating spend most of their time with in-app activities [1]. They report browsing through profiles (i.e., swiping) for up to four hours a day and then
feeling overwhelmed by the flood of faces, information, and micro-decisions that come with swiping [2].
If it results in fatigue, what makes excessive swiping still so tempting? When presenting themselves to potential sexual or romantic partners and trying to stick out from the masses, users disclose the most private information and sometimes make themselves very vulnerable. By unlocking such intimate profile information, swiping satisfies voyeuristic pleasures [3]. Moreover, at first glance, the pure act of swiping has no tangible risks: While interactions with others overtly carry the risk of rejection, dating apps do not show you how often or by whom you were rejected. Only after accepting many profiles and after some time can you infer that your success is low and feel bad [4]. At first glance, swiping offers nothing but
social acceptance in the form of matches. Thus, by making rejections invisible, apps incentivize swiping. Users’ “appetite for constant validation is fueled by Tinder’s addictive function” [5]. Psychoanalytic scholars even argue that the main function of dating apps is engaging users’
desire by playing with loss and gain, with promise and frustration. This is how apps tap into users’ desires for human connection but channel those desires into the app experience, creating
attachment to the platform rather than to other people [3].
Whoever has used apps like Tinder can feel that they are designed to be addictive. But when am I, in fact, addicted to online dating? How is online dating addiction defined? First, the term addiction is a lay term and not a diagnostic label. Lay people use the word addiction for drugs and increasingly for behaviors like sex, shopping, social media, pornography, or online dating. Practitioners may offer treatments for these common language “addictions”. Researchers may use the word addiction as a construct (or term), comparable to psychological constructs like extraversion or fear of missing out. However, this does not mean that these “addictions” are recognized as official diagnoses.
There are two global authorities to define psychiatric diagnoses, namely the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the
World Health Organization (WHO). The APA defines psychiatric diagnoses in their
DSM and the WHO in their
ICD. The latest versions of both diagnostic manuals (APA’s
DSM-5-TR and WHO’s
ICD-11) avoid the term addiction because its meaning is not precise. The American Psychiatric Association describes the use of substances leading to clinically
significant impairment or
distress as substance use disorder (earlier: substance abuse or dependence). Beyond substance use, the APA’s
DSM-5-TR recognizes only one behavioral addiction: gambling disorder. By contrast, the WHO’s
ICD-11 lists two “disorders due to addictive behaviours”: gambling disorder and gaming disorder. (In
DSM-5-TR, gaming remains a condition for further study rather than an official diagnosis.) So, apart from gambling (APA) and gambling plus gaming (WHO), no other behaviors are formally classified as addictive disorders in these manuals. Nevertheless, technology-facilitated addictions such as internet addiction are a hot topic of popular academic and clinical debate. There are different camps of experts: Proponents of behavioral addictions have tried to formalize the compulsive use of smartphones,
social media, pornography or – dating apps. This is based on research showing that those who use digital media more frequently or compulsively also report lower physical and psychological well-being, performance, and social interactions [6, 7]. Likewise, frequent or problematic use of dating apps has also been related to lower well-being, and scholars have attempted to formalize problematic dating app use in the sense of a behavioral addiction [5].
Figure 2. A man standing in the middle of the crowd
However, heavy use does not simply equal alarming use [8]. Experts do not agree on which quantities or behaviors are exactly disordered. Does using media like dating apps too much or in maladaptive ways (e.g., unregulated) cause life problems? To date, the empirical evidence has major flaws. Some studies simply compare users to nonusers regarding their life problems. But this is not sufficient, because these groups differ in countless ways beyond just their app use. Other studies use samples of users and test whether, within users, heavy or problematic online dating is associated with life problems. Still, a potential difference may mean that media use, in fact, causally increases life problems. However, cause and effect could also be reversed: It could be that struggling users are more likely to turn to media (heavily) to ease their troubles.
Moreover, questionnaires measuring problem use of online dating often have methodological flaws. In a recent review [9], we examined 29 papers to see how problematic online dating is defined, what adverse effects it might have, and how the studies were conducted. What we found is that definitions vary a lot. Some studies focused on why people use dating apps. For example, using apps to boost
self-esteem, cope with loneliness, build a sense of identity, or distract oneself was often seen as potentially harmful. Interestingly, even using dating apps for what they are nominally meant for – looking for a sexual or romantic relationship – was sometimes linked to negative outcomes. Some researchers looked at people who used dating apps when they were sad, lonely, drinking, using drugs, or to arrange sexual encounters for money. These motives were sometimes associated with greater psychological
distress [9].
Other studies took a different approach and described problematic use in terms of addiction [9]. This is in line with proponents of behavioral addictions arguing that not only substances, but also certain behaviors can become addictive. A common framework is the six-component model of addiction [10], which includes ideas like (1) salience (when using the dating app becomes the most important thing in a person’s life), (2) mood modification (using the app to feel better), (3) tolerance (needing to use it more and more to feel the same effect), (4) withdrawal (
feeling bad when not using it), (5) conflict (use causing problems in other areas of life), and (6) relapse (trying to cut down but failing). Novel questionnaires like the Problematic Tinder Use Scale [11] were used to measure these criteria, with questions like, “Have you spent much more time on Tinder than you meant to?” or “Have you tried to cut down on Tinder use without success?”.
Another group of studies looked at compulsive use [9]. In these cases, people felt they couldn’t control their app use, even when they wanted to stop or cut back. Some reported feeling guilty about how much time they spent on dating apps, or that they couldn’t resist the urge to swipe. Researchers noted that this sense of losing control is a key feature of what is often called compulsive or problematic use.
Many researchers suggest that online dating becomes a problem when people use it for certain motives – for example, to forget their problems [9]. They find that certain motives are linked to life problems. However, these motives are typically worded as
coping with an undesired state (e.g., use to forget problems) or boosting a desired state (e.g., use to enhance
self-esteem). It is therefore not surprising that
coping with undesired states correlates with life problems. Similarly, questionnaires of behavioral addiction include life problems (e.g., conflict due to use). Again, conflict is naturally linked to life problems. These studies thus mix up cause and effect: The very thing they use to predict addiction (for example, spending lots of time swiping) is also the outcome they’re trying to explain. In other words, the measure of the supposed cause is almost the same as the measure of the result, which makes it hard to tell what’s really driving what. This blurs the line between using the app and experiencing problems [9]. For future research, it’s important to clearly separate app use from the negative outcomes so that we can really see what’s happening.
What this review makes clear is that there’s no single, agreed-upon definition of what counts as problematic online dating. Different studies define and measure it in different ways, which makes it hard to compare results or draw solid conclusions. More robust research is needed, for example, research that follows people over time to see how things change.
Experimental research where one group gets a treatment (online dating addiction) and is compared against a reference (control) group would be ethically challenging. To really understand internet dating addiction, researchers will need clearer definitions, better measures, and stronger study designs that can tell us whether and how dating apps contribute to problems in people’s lives.
Figure 3. : A woman lying on bed while using smartphone
If you feel guilty about using dating apps too much, we have good news for you. Our strong fears surrounding the constructs internet, dating, and addiction make internet dating addiction a match made in heaven. Yet, in the end, findings are not robust enough to recognize internet dating addiction as a formal disorder. Dating apps do not seem inherently harmful and most people use them without major issues. Nevertheless, the apps are designed to be addictive, and excessive swiping is undeniably tempting. Try to limit your swiping to a maximum of 10 profiles (or 10 acceptances) per time because profiles you accept today may be piling up as matches and feel like responsibilities later. Hereunder, we offer five recommendations on how to resist binge swiping:
1. Do not swipe when you feel like it, but when you are relaxed. Swiping when you “feel like it” usually means swiping to regulate undesired emotions. Instead of reaching for your phone when you feel lonely, bored, or powerless, try another short activity that lifts your mood and increases
self-efficacy – like physical activity or doing something creative, like making food or music.
2. When in contact with someone, swiftly videocall (within the dating app if possible) and/or decide if you want to move from in-app communication to a different messenger. Thereby, you do not communicate next to the swiping
temptation. (Initiating a talk very soon also protects you from idealizing the other, that is, filling in the gaps with wishful thinking, often resulting in disappointment [12]).
3. Disable push notifications and reduce other tempting stimuli. They will only lure you in.
4. You can create barriers to logging in, for example, by forcing yourself to type in your password every time. This can make you reconsider. However, this method is risky: If such barriers fail to work, the act of typing in the password will remind you of your failed ambitions and make you feel guilty. If so, disable the barriers. Instead, try to associate your
goal (of conscious internet use) with pleasant emotions.
5. Try to replace swiping with other rewarding activities. Look for online and offline activities that give you more long-term satisfaction. Our brain’s learning and reward system works with the messenger dopamine – this chemical is released when you swipe. You can boost it in other ways, for instance, through exercise, social contact, or even nutrition: Foods rich in magnesium and the amino acid tyrosine can help your body produce dopamine.
Bibliography
[1] J. J. Cummings and K. Mays, "
Trait motivational reactivity as a predictor of online dating app behavior," Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 121, p. 106775, 2021/08/01/ 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106775.
[2] M. F. Thomas, A. Binder, A. Stevic, and J. Matthes, "99+ matches but a spark ain't one: Adverse psychological effects of excessive swiping on dating apps," (in eng), Telematics & Informatics, vol. 78, pp. N.PAG-N.PAG, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2023.101949.
[3] C. Bandinelli and A. Bandinelli, "What does the app want? A psychoanalytic interpretation of dating apps’ libidinal economy,"
Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 181–198, 2021, doi: 10.1057/s41282-021-00217-5.
[4] J. M. Hu and M. F. Thomas, "Are anxiously attached dating app users less successful and
feeling worse after use? The moderating role of perceived anonymity affordance," Information, Communication & Society, pp. 1-18, 2025, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2025.2539294.
[5] G. Orosz, I. Tóth-Király, B. Bőthe, and D. Melher, "Too many swipes for today: The development of the Problematic Tinder Use Scale (PTUS)," Journal of Behavioral Addictions, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 518–523, 2016, doi: 10.1556/2006.5.2016.016.
[6] J. D. Elhai, R. D. Dvorak, J. C. Levine, and B. J. Hall, "Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and
depression psychopathology," Journal of Affective Disorders, vol. 207, pp. 251-259, 2017/01/01/ 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.030.
[7] X. Han, E. Zhou, and D. Liu, "Electronic Media Use and Sleep Quality: Updated Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis," J Med Internet Res, vol. 26, p. e48356, 2024/4/23 2024, doi: 10.2196/48356.
[8] G. S. Brunborg et al., "Gaming Addiction, Gaming Engagement, and
Psychological Health Complaints Among Norwegian Adolescents," Media Psychology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 115-128, 2013/01/01 2013, doi: 10.1080/15213269.2012.756374.
[9] M. F. Thomas, S. Dörfler, G. Mittmann, and V. Steiner-Hofbauer, "Problematic online dating: Systematic review of definitions, correlates, and study designs," (in English), Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 27, p. e72850, 2025, doi: 10.2196/72850.
[10] M. Griffiths, "A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework," Journal of Substance Use, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 191-197, 2005/01/01 2005, doi: 10.1080/14659890500114359.
[11] G. Orosz, I. Tóth-Király, B. Bőthe, and D. Melher, "Too many swipes for today: The development of the Problematic Tinder Use Scale (PTUS)," (in eng), J Behav Addict, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 518-23, Sep 2016, doi: 10.1556/2006.5.2016.016.
[12] M. L. Antheunis, A. P. Schouten, and J. B. Walther, "The hyperpersonal effect in online dating: effects of text-based CMC vs. videoconferencing before meeting face-to-face," Media Psychology, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 820-839, 2020/11/01 2020, doi: 10.1080/15213269.2019.1648217.
Figures sources
Figure 1: https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/dating-app-swipe-concept_8247097.htm...
Figure 2: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-man-standing-in-the-middle-of-the-...
Figure 3: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-woman-lying-on-bed-while-using-smartphone...