research questions on online dating

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Dating Apps and Their Sociodemographic and Psychosocial Correlates: A Systematic Review

The emergence and popularization of dating apps have changed the way people meet and interact with potential romantic and sexual partners. In parallel with the increased use of these applications, a remarkable scientific literature has developed. However, due to the recency of the phenomenon, some gaps in the existing research can be expected. Therefore, the objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the empirical research of the psychosocial content published in the last five years (2016–2020) on dating apps. A search was conducted in different databases, and we identified 502 articles in our initial search. After screening titles and abstracts and examining articles in detail, 70 studies were included in the review. The most relevant data (author/s and year, sample size and characteristics, methodology) and their findings were extracted from each study and grouped into four blocks: user dating apps characteristics, usage characteristics, motives for use, and benefits and risks of use. The limitations of the literature consulted are discussed, as well as the practical implications of the results obtained, highlighting the relevance of dating apps, which have become a tool widely used by millions of people around the world.

1. Introduction

In the last decade, the popularization of the Internet and the use of the smartphone and the emergence of real-time location-based dating apps (e.g., Tinder, Grindr) have transformed traditional pathways of socialization and promoted new ways of meeting and relating to potential romantic and/or sexual partners [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ].

It is difficult to know reliably how many users currently make use of dating apps, due to the secrecy of the developer companies. However, thanks to the information provided by different reports and studies, the magnitude of the phenomenon can be seen online. For example, the Statista Market Forecast [ 5 ] portal estimated that by the end of 2019, there were more than 200 million active users of dating apps worldwide. It has been noted that more than ten million people use Tinder daily, which has been downloaded more than a hundred million times worldwide [ 6 , 7 ]. In addition, studies conducted in different geographical and cultural contexts have shown that around 40% of single adults are looking for an online partner [ 8 ], or that around 25% of new couples met through this means [ 9 ].

Some theoretical reviews related to users and uses of dating apps have been published, although they have focused on specific groups, such as men who have sex with men (MSM [ 10 , 11 ]) or on certain risks, such as aggression and abuse through apps [ 12 ].

Anzani et al. [ 1 ] conducted a review of the literature on the use of apps to find a sexual partner, in which they focused on users’ sociodemographic characteristics, usage patterns, and the transition from online to offline contact. However, this is not a systematic review of the results of studies published up to that point and it leaves out some relevant aspects that have received considerable research attention, such as the reasons for use of dating apps, or their associated advantages and risks.

Thus, we find a recent and changing object of study, which has achieved great social relevance in recent years and whose impact on research has not been adequately studied and evaluated so far. Therefore, the objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the empirical research of psychosocial content published in the last five years (2016–2020) on dating apps. By doing so, we intend to assess the state of the literature in terms of several relevant aspects (i.e., users’ profile, uses and motives for use, advantages, and associated risks), pointing out some limitations and posing possible future lines of research. Practical implications will be highlighted.

2. Materials and Methods

The systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 13 , 14 ], and following the recommendations of Gough et al. [ 15 ]. However, it should be noted that, as the objective of this study was to provide a state of the art view of the published literature on dating apps in the last five years and without statistical data processing, there are several principles included in the PRISMA that could not be met (e.g., summary measures, planned methods of analysis, additional analysis, risk of bias within studies). However, following the advice of the developers of these guidelines concerning the specific nature of systematic reviews, the procedure followed has been described in a clear, precise, and replicable manner [ 13 ].

2.1. Literature Search and Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

We examined the databases of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Medline, as well as PsycInfo and Psycarticle and Google Scholar, between 1 March and 6 April 2020. In all the databases consulted, we limited the search to documents from the last five years (2016–2020) and used general search terms, such as “dating apps” and “online dating” (linking the latter with “apps”), in addition to the names of some of the most popular and frequently used dating apps worldwide, such as “tinder”, “grindr”, and “momo”, to identify articles that met the inclusion criteria (see below).

The selection criteria in this systematic review were established and agreed on by the two authors of this study. The database search was carried out by one researcher. In case of doubt about whether or not a study should be included in the review, consultation occurred and the decision was agreed upon by the two researchers.

Four-hundred and ninety-three results were located, to which were added 15 documents that were found through other resources (e.g., social networks, e-mail alerts, newspapers, the web). After these documents were reviewed and the duplicates removed, a total of 502 records remained, as shown by the flowchart presented in Figure 1 . At that time, the following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) empirical, quantitative or qualitative articles; (2) published on paper or in electronic format (including “online first”) between 2016 and 2020 (we decided to include articles published since 2016 after finding that the previous empirical literature in databases on dating apps from a psychosocial point of view was not very large; in fact, the earliest studies of Tinder included in Scopus dated back to 2016; (3) to be written in English or Spanish; and (4) with psychosocial content. No theoretical reviews, case studies/ethnography, user profile content analyses, institutional reports, conference presentations, proceeding papers, etc., were taken into account.

Flowchart of the systematic review process.

Thus, the process of refining the results, which can be viewed graphically in Figure 1 , was as follows. Of the initial 502 results, the following exclusion criteria were applied: (1) pre-2016 documents (96 records excluded); (2) documents that either did not refer to dating apps or did so from a technological approach (identified through title and abstract; 239 records excluded); (3) published in a language other than English or Spanish (10 records excluded); (4) institutional reports, or analysis of the results of such reports (six records excluded); (5) proceeding papers (six records excluded); (6) systematic reviews and theoretical reflections (26 records excluded); (7) case studies/ethnography (nine records excluded); (8) non-empirical studies of a sociological nature (20 records excluded); (9) analysis of user profile content and campaigns on dating apps and other social networks (e.g., Instagram; nine records excluded); and (10) studies with confusing methodology, which did not explain the methodology followed, the instruments used, and/or the characteristics of the participants (11 records excluded). This process led to a final sample of 70 empirical studies (55 quantitative studies, 11 qualitative studies, and 4 mixed studies), as shown by the flowchart presented in Figure 1 .

2.2. Data Collection Process and Data Items

One review author extracted the data from the included studies, and the second author checked the extracted data. Information was extracted from each included study of: (1) author/s and year; (2) sample size and characteristics; (3) methodology used; (4) main findings.

Table 1 shows the information extracted from each of the articles included in this systematic review. The main findings drawn from these studies are also presented below, distributed in different sections.

Characteristics of reviewed studies.

3.1. Characteristics of Reviewed Studies

First, the characteristics of the 70 articles included in the systematic review were analyzed. An annual increase in production can be seen, with 2019 being the most productive year, with 31.4% ( n = 22) of included articles. More articles (11) were published in the first three months of 2020 than in 2016. It is curious to note, on the other hand, how, in the titles of the articles, some similar formulas were repeated, even the same articles (e.g., Love me Tinder), playing with the swipe characteristic of this type of application (e.g., Swiping more, Swiping right, Swiping me).

As for the methodology used, the first aspect to note is that all the localized studies were cross-sectional and there were no longitudinal ones. As mentioned above, 80% ( n = 55) of the studies were quantitative, especially through online survey ( n = 49; 70%). 15.7% ( n = 11) used a qualitative methodology, either through semi-structured interviews or focus groups. And 5.7% ( n = 4) used a mixed methodology, both through surveys and interviews. It is worth noting the increasing use of tools such as Amazon Mechanical Turk ( n = 9, 12.9%) or Qualtrics ( n = 8, 11.4%) for the selection of participants and data collection.

The studies included in the review were conducted in different geographical and cultural contexts. More than one in five investigations was conducted in the United States (22.8%, n = 16), to which the two studies carried out in Canada can be added. Concerning other contexts, 20% ( n = 14) of the included studies was carried out in different European countries (e.g., Belgium, The Netherlands, UK, Spain), whereas 15.7% ( n = 11) was carried out in China, and 8.6% ( n = 6) in other countries (e.g., Thailand, Australia). However, 21.4% ( n = 15) of the investigations did not specify the context they were studying.

Finally, 57.1% ( n = 40) of the studies included in the systematic review asked about dating apps use, without specifying which one. The results of these studies showed that Tinder was the most used dating app among heterosexual people and Grindr among sexual minorities. Furthermore, 35% ( n = 25) of the studies included in the review focused on the use of Tinder, while 5.7% ( n = 4) focused on Grindr.

3.2. Characteristics of Dating App Users

It is difficult to find studies that offer an overall user profile of dating apps, as many of them have focused on specific populations or groups. However, based on the information collected in the studies included in this review, some features of the users of these applications may be highlighted.

Gender. Traditionally, it has been claimed that men use dating apps more than women and that they engage in more casual sex relationships through apps [ 3 ]. In fact, some authors, such as Weiser et al. [ 75 ], collected data that indicated that 60% of the users of these applications were male and 40% were female. Some current studies endorse that being male predicts the use of dating apps [ 23 ], but research has also been published in recent years that has shown no differences in the proportion of male and female users [ 59 , 68 ].

To explain these similar prevalence rates, some authors, such as Chan [ 27 ], have proposed a feminist perspective, stating that women use dating apps to gain greater control over their relationships and sexuality, thus countering structural gender inequality. On the other hand, other authors have referred to the perpetuation of traditional masculinity and femmephobic language in these applications [ 28 , 53 ].

Age. Specific studies have been conducted on people of different ages: adolescents [ 49 ], young people (e.g., [ 21 , 23 , 71 ]), and middle-aged and older people [ 58 ]. The most studied group has been young people between 18 and 30 years old, mainly university students, and some authors have concluded that the age subgroup with a higher prevalence of use of dating apps is between 24 and 30 years of age [ 44 , 59 ].

Sexual orientation. This is a fundamental variable in research on dating apps. In recent years, especially after the success of Tinder, the use of these applications by heterosexuals, both men and women, has increased, which has affected the increase of research on this group [ 3 , 59 ]. However, the most studied group with the highest prevalence rates of dating apps use is that of men from sexual minorities [ 18 , 40 ]. There is considerable literature on this collective, both among adolescents [ 49 ], young people [ 18 ], and older people [ 58 ], in different geographical contexts and both in urban and rural areas [ 24 , 36 , 43 , 79 ]. Moreover, being a member of a sexual minority, especially among men, seems to be a good predictor of the use of dating apps [ 23 ].

For these people, being able to communicate online can be particularly valuable, especially for those who may have trouble expressing their sexual orientation and/or finding a partner [ 3 , 80 ]. There is much less research on non-heterosexual women and this focuses precisely on their need to reaffirm their own identity and discourse, against the traditional values of hetero-patriate societies [ 35 , 69 ].

Relationship status. It has traditionally been argued that the prevalence of the use of dating apps was much higher among singles than among those with a partner [ 72 ]. This remains the case, as some studies have shown that being single was the most powerful sociodemographic predictor of using these applications [ 23 ]. However, several investigations have concluded that there is a remarkable percentage of users, between 10 and 29%, who have a partner [ 4 , 17 , 72 ]. From what has been studied, usually aimed at evaluating infidelity [ 17 , 75 ], the reasons for using Tinder are very different depending on the relational state, and the users of this app who had a partner had had more sexual and romantic partners than the singles who used it [ 72 ].

Other sociodemographic variables. Some studies, such as the one of Shapiro et al. [ 64 ], have found a direct relationship between the level of education and the use of dating apps. However, most studies that contemplated this variable have focused on university students (see, for example [ 21 , 23 , 31 , 38 ]), so there may be a bias in the interpretation of their results. The findings of Shapiro et al. [ 64 ] presented a paradox: while they found a direct link between Tinder use and educational level, they also found that those who did not use any app achieved better grades. Another striking result about the educational level is that of the study of Neyt et al. [ 9 ] about their users’ characteristics and those that are sought in potential partners through the apps. These authors found a heterogeneous effect of educational level by gender: whereas women preferred a potential male partner with a high educational level, this hypothesis was not refuted in men, who preferred female partners with lower educational levels.

Other variables evaluated in the literature on dating apps are place of residence or income level. As for the former, app users tend to live in urban contexts, so studies are usually performed in large cities (e.g., [ 11 , 28 , 45 ]), although it is true that in recent years studies are beginning to be seen in rural contexts to know the reality of the people who live there [ 43 ]. It has also been shown that dating app users have a higher income level than non-users, although this can be understood as a feature associated with young people with high educational levels. However, it seems that the use of these applications is present in all social layers, as it has been documented even among homeless youth in the United States [ 66 ].

Personality and other psychosocial variables. The literature that relates the use of dating apps to different psychosocial variables is increasingly extensive and diverse. The most evaluated variable concerning the use of these applications is self-esteem, although the results are inconclusive. It seems established that self-esteem is the most important psychological predictor of using dating apps [ 6 , 8 , 59 ]. But some authors, such as Orosz et al. [ 55 ], warn that the meaning of that relationship is unclear: apps can function both as a resource for and a booster of self-esteem (e.g., having a lot of matches) or to decrease it (e.g., lack of matches, ignorance of usage patterns).

The relationship between dating app use and attachment has also been studied. Chin et al. [ 29 ] concluded that people with a more anxious attachment orientation and those with a less avoidant orientation were more likely to use these apps.

Sociosexuality is another important variable concerning the use of dating apps. It has been found that users of these applications tended to have a less restrictive sociosexuality, especially those who used them to have casual sex [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 21 ].

Finally, the most studied approach in this field is the one that relates the use of dating apps with certain personality traits, both from the Big Five and from the dark personality model. As for the Big Five model, Castro et al. [ 23 ] found that the only trait that allowed the prediction of the current use of these applications was open-mindedness. Other studies looked at the use of apps, these personality traits, and relational status. Thus, Timmermans and De Caluwé [ 71 ] found that single users of Tinder were more outgoing and open to new experiences than non-user singles, who scored higher in conscientiousness. For their part, Timmermans et al. [ 72 ] concluded that Tinder users who had a partner scored lower in agreeableness and conscientiousness and higher in neuroticism than people with partners who did not use Tinder.

The dark personality, on the other hand, has been used to predict the different reasons for using dating apps [ 48 ], as well as certain antisocial behaviors in Tinder [ 6 , 51 ]. As for the differences in dark personality traits between users and non-users of dating apps, the results are inconclusive. A study was localized that highlighted the relevance of psychopathy [ 3 ] whereas another study found no predictive power as a global indicator of dark personality [ 23 ].

3.3. Characteristics of Dating App Use

It is very difficult to know not only the actual number of users of dating apps in any country in the world but also the prevalence of use. This varies depending on the collectives studied and the sampling techniques used. Given this caveat, the results of some studies do allow an idea of the proportion of people using these apps. It has been found to vary between the 12.7% found by Castro et al. [ 23 ] and the 60% found by LeFebvre [ 44 ]. Most common, however, is to find a participant prevalence of between 40–50% [ 3 , 4 , 39 , 62 , 64 ], being slightly higher among men from sexual minorities [ 18 , 50 ].

The study of Botnen et al. [ 21 ] among Norwegian university students concluded that about half of the participants appeared to be a user of dating apps, past or present. But only one-fifth were current users, a result similar to those found by Castro et al. [ 23 ] among Spanish university students. The most widely used, and therefore the most examined, apps in the studies are Tinder and Grindr. The first is the most popular among heterosexuals, and the second among men of sexual minorities [ 3 , 18 , 36 , 70 ].

Findings from existing research on the characteristics of the use of dating apps can be divided among those referring to before (e.g., profiling), during (e.g., use), and after (e.g., offline behavior with other app users). Regarding before , the studies focus on users’ profile-building and self-presentation more among men of sexual minorities [ 52 , 77 ]. Ward [ 74 ] highlighted the importance of the process of choosing the profile picture in applications that are based on physical appearance. Like Ranzini and Lutz [ 59 ], Ward [ 74 ] mentions the differences between the “real self” and the “ideal self” created in dating apps, where one should try to maintain a balance between one and the other. Self-esteem plays a fundamental role in this process, as it has been shown that higher self-esteem encourages real self-presentation [ 59 ].

Most of the studies that analyze the use of dating apps focus on during , i.e. on how applications are used. As for the frequency of use and the connection time, Chin et al. [ 29 ] found that Tinder users opened the app up to 11 times a day, investing up to 90 minutes per day. Strubel and Petrie [ 67 ] found that 23% of Tinder users opened the app two to three times a day, and 14% did so once a day. Meanwhile, Sumter and Vandenbosch [ 3 ] concluded that 23% of the users opened Tinder daily.

It seems that the frequency and intensity of use, in addition to the way users behave on dating apps, vary depending on sexual orientation and sex. Members of sexual minorities, especially men, use these applications more times per day and for longer times [ 18 ]. As for sex, different patterns of behavior have been observed both in men and women, as the study of Timmermans and Courtois [ 4 ] shows. Men use apps more often and more intensely, but women use them more selectively and effectively. They accumulate more matches than men and do so much faster, allowing them to choose and have a greater sense of control. Therefore, it is concluded that the number of swipes and likes of app users does not guarantee a high number of matches in Tinder [ 4 ].

Some authors are alert to various behaviors observed in dating apps which, in some cases, may be negative for the user. For example, Yeo and Fung [ 77 ] mention the fast and hasty way of acting in apps, which is incongruous with cultural norms for the formation of friendships and committed relationships and ends up frustrating those who seek more lasting relationships. Parisi and Comunello [ 57 ] highlighted a key to the use of apps and a paradox. They referred to relational homophilia, that is, the tendency to be attracted to people similar to oneself. But, at the same time, this occurs in a context that increases the diversity of intimate interactions, thus expanding pre-existing networks. Finally, Licoppe [ 45 ] concluded that users of Grindr and Tinder present almost opposite types of communication and interaction. In Grindr, quick conversations seem to take precedence, aimed at organizing immediate sexual encounters, whereas, in Tinder, there are longer conversations and more exchange of information.

The latest group of studies focuses on offline behavior with contacts made through dating apps. Differences have been observed in the prevalence of encounters with other app users, possibly related to participants’ sociodemographic characteristics. Whereas Strugo and Muise [ 2 ], and Macapagal et al. [ 49 ] found that between 60 and 70% of their participants had had an encounter with another person known through these applications, in other studies this is less common, with prevalence being less than 50% [ 3 , 4 , 62 ]. In fact, Griffin et al. [ 39 ] stated that in-person encounters were relatively rare among users of dating apps.

There are also differences in the types of relationships that arose after offline encounters with other users. Strugo and Muise [ 2 ] concluded that 33% of participants had found a romantic partner and that 52% had had casual sex with at least one partner met through an app. Timmermans and Courtois [ 4 ] found that one-third of the offline encounters ended in casual sex and one-fourth in a committed relationship. Sumter and Vandenbosch [ 3 ], for their part, concluded that 18.6% of the participants had had sex with another person they had met on Tinder. And finally, the participants in the study of Timmermans and De Caluwé [ 71 ] indicated that: (1) they had met face-to-face with an average of 4.25 people whom they had met on Tinder; (2) they had had one romantic relationship with people met on Tinder; (3) they had had casual sex with an average of 1.57 people met on Tinder; and (4) they had become friends with an average of 2.19 people met on Tinder.

3.4. Motives for Dating App Use

There is a stereotype that dating apps are used only, or above all, to look for casual sex [ 44 ]. In fact, these applications have been accused of generating a hookup culture, associated with superficiality and sexual frivolity [ 2 ]. However, this is not the case. In the last five years, a large body of literature has been generated on the reasons why people use dating apps, especially Tinder, and the conclusion is unanimous: apps serve multiple purposes, among which casual sex is only one [ 1 , 4 , 44 ]. It has been found that up to 70% of the app users participating in a study [ 18 ] indicated that their goal when using it was not sex-seeking.

An evolution of research interest can be traced regarding the reasons that guide people to use dating apps [ 55 ]. The first classification of reasons for using Tinder was published by Ranzini and Lutz [ 59 ], who adapted a previous scale, designed for Grindr, composed of six motives: hooking up/sex (finding sexual partners), friendship (building a social network), relationship (finding a romantic partner), traveling (having dates in different places), self-validation (self-improvement), and entertainment (satisfying social curiosity). They found that the reason given by most users was those of entertainment, followed by those of self-validation and traveling, with the search for sex occupying fourth place in importance. However, the adaptation of this scale did not have adequate psychometric properties and it has not been reused.

Subsequently, Sumter et al. [ 68 ] generated a new classification of reasons to use Tinder, later refined by Sumter and Vandenbosch [ 3 ]. They proposed six reasons for use, both relational (love, casual sex), intrapersonal (ease of communication, self-worth validation), and entertainment (the thrill of excitement, trendiness). The motivation most indicated by the participants was that of love, and the authors concluded that Tinder is used: (1) to find love and/or sex; (2) because it is easy to communicate; (3) to feel better about oneself; and (4) because it’s fun and exciting.

At the same time, Timmermans and De Caluwé [ 70 ] developed the Tinder Motives Scale, which evaluates up to 13 reasons for using Tinder. The reasons, sorted by the scores obtained, were: to pass time/entertainment, curiosity, socializing, relationship-seeking, social approval, distraction, flirting/social skills, sexual orientation, peer pressure, traveling, sexual experience, ex, and belongingness. So far, the most recently published classification of reasons is that of Orosz et al. [ 55 ], who in the Tinder Use Motivations Scale proposed four groups of reasons: boredom (individual reasons to use Tinder to overcome boredom), self-esteem (use of Tinder to improve self-esteem), sex (use of Tinder to satisfy sexual need) and love (use of Tinder to find love). As in the previous scales, the reasons of seeking sex did not score higher on this scale, so it can be concluded that dating apps are not mainly used for this reason.

The existing literature indicates that reasons for the use of dating apps may vary depending on different sociodemographic and personality variables [ 1 ]. As for sex, Ranzini and Lutz [ 59 ] found that women used Tinder more for friendship and self-validation, whereas men used it more to seek sex and relationships. Sumter et al. [ 68 ] found something similar: men scored higher than women in casual sex motivation and also in the motives of ease of communication and thrill of excitement.

With regard to age, Ward [ 74 ] concluded that motivations change over time and Sumter et al. [ 68 ] found a direct association with the motives of love, casual sex, and ease of communication. In terms of sexual orientation, it has become commoner for people from sexual minorities, especially men, than for heterosexual participants to use these applications much more in the search for casual sex [ 18 ].

Finally, other studies have concluded that personality guides the motivations for the use of dating apps [ 3 , 72 ]. A line of research initiated in recent years links dark personality traits to the reasons for using Tinder. In this investigation, Lyons et al. [ 48 ] found that people who score high in Machiavellianism and psychopathy offer more reasons for use (e.g., get casual sex, acquiring social or flirting skills).

3.5. Benefits and Risks of Using Dating Apps

In the latter section, the benefits and advantages of the use of dating apps are analyzed. There is also an extensive literature on the risks associated with use. Many studies indicate that dating apps have opened a new horizon in how to meet potential partners, allowing access to many [ 3 , 6 , 8 ], which may be even more positive for certain individuals and groups who have been silenced or marginalized, such as some men from sexual minorities [ 80 ]. It has also been emphasized that these applications are a non-intimidating way to start connecting, they are flexible and free, and require less time and effort than other traditional means of communication [ 1 , 55 ].

On the other hand, the advantages of apps based on the technology they use and the possibilities they pose to users have been highlighted. Ranzini and Lutz [ 59 ] underlined four aspects. First is the portability of smartphones and tablets, which allows the use of apps in any location, both private and public. Second is availability, as their operation increases the spontaneity and frequency of use of the apps, and this, in turn, allows a quick face-to-face encounter, turning online interactions into offline relationships [ 70 , 77 ]. Thirdly is locatability, as dating apps allow matches, messages, and encounters with other users who are geographically close [ 77 ]. Finally is multimediality, the relevance of the visual, closely related to physical appearance, which results in two channels of communication (photos and messages) and the possibility of linking the profile with that of other social networks, such as Facebook and Instagram [ 4 ].

There is also considerable literature focused on the potential risks associated with using these applications. The topics covered in the studies can be grouped into four blocks, having in common the negative consequences that these apps can generate in users’ mental, relational, and sexual health. The first block focuses on the configuration and use of the applications themselves. Their emergence and popularization have been so rapid that apps pose risks associated with security, intimacy, and privacy [ 16 , 20 ]. This can lead to more insecure contacts, especially among women, and fears related to the ease of localization and the inclusion of personal data in apps [ 39 ]. Some authors highlight the paradox that many users suffer: they have more chances of contact than ever before, but at the same time this makes them more vulnerable [ 26 , 80 ].

This block can also include studies on the problematic use of apps, which can affect the daily lives of users [ 34 , 56 ], and research that focuses on the possible negative psychological effects of their use, as a link has been shown between using dating apps and loneliness, dissatisfaction with life, and feeling excluded from the world [ 24 , 34 , 78 ].

The second block of studies on the risks associated with dating apps refers to discrimination and aggression. Some authors, such as Conner [ 81 ] and Lauckner et al. [ 43 ], have argued that technology, instead of reducing certain abusive cultural practices associated with deception, discrimination, or abuse (e.g., about body types, weight, age, rural environments, racism, HIV stigma), has accentuated them, and this can affect users’ mental health. Moreover, certain antisocial behaviors in apps, such as trolling [ 6 , 51 ], have been studied, and a relationship has been found between being a user of these applications and suffering some episode of sexual victimization, both in childhood and adulthood [ 30 ].

The following block refers to the risks of dating app use regarding diet and body image. These applications, focusing on appearance and physical attractiveness, can promote excessive concerns about body image, as well as various negative consequences associated with it (e.g., unhealthy weight management behaviors, low satisfaction and high shame about the body, more comparisons with appearance [ 22 , 36 , 67 , 73 ]). These risks have been more closely associated with men than with women [ 61 ], perhaps because of the standards of physical attractiveness prevalent among men of sexual minorities, which have been the most studied collective.

The last block of studies on the risks of dating app use focuses on their relationship with risky sexual behaviors. This is probably the most studied topic in different populations (e.g., sexual minority men, heterosexual people). The use of these applications can contribute to a greater performance of risky sexual behaviors, which results in a higher prevalence of sexually transmitted illnesses (STIs). However, the results of the studies analyzed are inconclusive [ 40 ].

On the one hand, some studies find a relationship between being a user of dating apps and performing more risky sexual behaviors (e.g., having more sexual partners, less condom use, more relationships under the effects of alcohol and other drugs), both among men from sexual minorities [ 19 ] and among heterosexual individuals [ 32 , 41 , 62 ]. On the other hand, some research has found that, although app users perform more risky behaviors, especially having more partners, they also engage in more prevention behaviors (e.g., more sex counseling, more HIV tests, more treatment) and they do not use the condoms less than non-users [ 18 , 50 , 64 , 79 ]. Studies such as that of Luo et al. [ 46 ] and that of Wu [ 76 ] also found greater use of condoms among app users than among non-users.

Finally, some studies make relevant appraisals of this topic. For example, Green et al. [ 38 ] concluded that risky sexual behaviors are more likely to be performed when sex is performed with a person met through a dating app with whom some common connection was made (e.g., shared friends in Facebook or Instagram). This is because these users tend to avoid discussing issues related to prevention, either because they treat that person more familiarly, or for fear of possible gossip. Finally, Hahn et al. [ 40 ] found that, among men from sexual minorities, the contact time prior to meeting in person was associated with greater prevention. The less time between the conversation and the first encounter, the more likely the performance of risky behaviors.

4. Discussion

In a very few years, dating apps have revolutionized the way of meeting and interacting with potential partners. In parallel with the popularization of these applications, a large body of knowledge has been generated which, however, has not been collected in any systematic review. Given the social relevance that this phenomenon has reached, we performed this study to gather and analyze the main findings of empirical research on psychosocial content published in the last five years (2016–2020) on dating apps.

Seventy studies were located and analyzed, after applying stringent inclusion criteria that, for various reasons, left out a large number of investigations. Thus, it has been found that the literature on the subject is extensive and varied. Studies of different types and methodologies have been published, in very diverse contexts, on very varied populations and focusing on different aspects, some general and others very specific. Therefore, the first and main conclusion of this study is that the phenomenon of dating apps is transversal, and very present in the daily lives of millions of people around the world.

This transversality has been evident in the analysis of the characteristics of the users of dating apps. Apps have been found to be used, regardless of sex [ 59 , 68 ], age [ 49 , 58 , 71 ], sexual orientation [ 3 , 59 ], relational status [ 72 ], educational and income level [ 9 , 66 ], or personality traits [ 23 , 48 , 72 ].

Another conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that there are many preconceived ideas and stereotypes about dating apps, both at the research and social level, which are supported by the literature, but with nuances. For example, although the stereotype says that apps are mostly used by men, studies have concluded that women use them in a similar proportion, and more effectively [ 4 ]. The same goes for sexual orientation or relational status; the stereotype says that dating apps are mostly used by men of sexual minorities and singles [ 1 ], but some apps (e.g., Tinder) are used more by heterosexual people [ 3 , 59 ] and there is a remarkable proportion of people with a partner who use these apps [ 4 , 17 ].

A third conclusion of the review of the studies is that to know and be able to foresee the possible consequences of the use of dating apps, how and why they are used are particularly relevant. For this reason, both the use and the motives for use of these applications have been analyzed, confirming the enormous relevance of different psychosocial processes and variables (e.g., self-esteem, communication, and interaction processes), both before (profiling), during (use), and after (off-line encounters) of the use of dating apps.

However, in this section, what stands out most is the difficulty in estimating the prevalence of the use of dating apps. Very disparate prevalence have been found not only because of the possible differences between places and groups (see, for example [ 18 , 23 , 44 , 64 ]), but also because of the use of different sampling and information collection procedures, which in some cases, over-represent app users. All this hinders the characterization and assessment of the phenomenon of dating apps, as well as the work of the researchers. After selecting the group to be studied, it would be more appropriate to collect information from a representative sample, without conditioning or directing the study toward users, as this may inflate the prevalence rates.

The study of motives for the use of dating apps may contain the strongest findings of all those appraised in this review. Here, once again, a preconceived idea has been refuted, not only among researchers but across society. Since their appearance, there is a stereotype that dating apps are mostly used for casual sex [ 2 , 44 ]. However, studies constantly and consistently show that this is not the case. The classifications of the reasons analyzed for their use have concluded that people use dating apps for a variety of reasons, such as to entertain themselves, out of curiosity, to socialize, and to seek relationships, both sexual and romantic [ 3 , 59 , 68 , 70 ]. Thus, these apps should not be seen as merely for casual sex, but as much more [ 68 ].

Understanding the reasons for using dating apps provides a necessary starting point for research questions regarding the positive and negative effects of use [ 70 ]. Thus, the former result block reflected findings on the advantages and risks associated with using dating apps. In this topic, there may be a paradox in the sense that something that is an advantage (e.g., access to a multitude of potential partners, facilitates meeting people) turns into a drawback (e.g., loss of intimacy and privacy). Research on the benefits of using dating apps is relatively scarce, but it has stressed that these tools are making life and relationships easier for many people worldwide [ 6 , 80 ].

The literature on the risks associated with using dating apps is much broader, perhaps explaining the negative social vision of them that still exists nowadays. These risks have highlighted body image, aggression, and the performance of risky sexual behaviors. Apps represent a contemporary environment that, based on appearance and physical attractiveness, is associated with several negative pressures and perceptions about the body, which can have detrimental consequences for the physical and mental health of the individual [ 67 ]. As for assaults, there is a growing literature alerting us to the increasing amount of sexual harassment and abuse related to dating apps, especially in more vulnerable groups, such as women, or among people of sexual minorities (e.g., [ 12 , 82 ]).

Finally, there is considerable research that has analyzed the relationship between the use of dating apps and risky sexual behaviors, in different groups and with inconclusive results, as has already been shown [ 40 , 46 , 76 ]. In any case, as dating apps favor contact and interaction between potential partners, and given that a remarkable percentage of sexual contacts are unprotected [ 10 , 83 ], further research should be carried out on this topic.

Limitations and Future Directions

The meteoric appearance and popularization of dating apps have generated high interest in researchers around the world in knowing how they work, the profile of users, and the psychosocial processes involved. However, due to the recency of the phenomenon, there are many gaps in the current literature on these applications. That is why, in general terms, more research is needed to improve the understanding of all the elements involved in the functioning of dating apps.

It is strange to note that many studies have been conducted focusing on very specific aspects related to apps while other central aspects, such as the profile of users, had not yet been consolidated. Thus, it is advisable to improve the understanding of the sociodemographic and personality characteristics of those who use dating apps, to assess possible differences with those who do not use them. Attention should also be paid to certain groups that have been poorly studied (e.g., women from sexual minorities), as research has routinely focused on men and heterosexual people.

Similarly, limitations in understanding the actual data of prevalence of use have been highlighted, due to the over-representation of the number of users of dating apps seen in some studies. Therefore, it would be appropriate to perform studies in which the app user would not be prioritized, to know the actual use of these tools among the population at large. Although further studies must continue to be carried out on the risks of using these applications (e.g., risky sexual behaviors), it is also important to highlight the positive sexual and relational consequences of their use, in order to try to mitigate the negative social vision that still exists about dating app users. Last but not least, as all the studies consulted and included in this systematic review were cross-sectional, longitudinal studies are necessary which can evaluate the evolution of dating apps, their users and their uses, motives, and consequences.

The main limitations of this systematic review concern the enormous amount of information currently existing on dating apps. Despite having applied rigorous exclusion criteria, limiting the studies to the 2016–2020 period, and that the final sample was of 70 studies, much information has been analyzed and a significant number of studies and findings that may be relevant were left out. In future, the theoretical reviews that are made will have to be more specific, focused on certain groups and/or problems.

Another limitation—in this case, methodological, to do with the characteristics of the topic analyzed and the studies included—is that not all the criteria of the PRISMA guidelines were followed [ 13 , 14 ]. We intended to make known the state of the art in a subject well-studied in recent years, and to gather the existing literature without statistical treatment of the data. Therefore, there are certain criteria of PRISMA (e.g., summary measures, planned methods of analysis, additional analysis, risk of bias within studies) that cannot be satisfied.

However, as stated in the Method section, the developers of the PRISMA guidelines themselves have stated that some systematic reviews are of a different nature and that not all of them can meet these criteria. Thus, their main recommendation, to present methods with adequate clarity and transparency to enable readers to critically judge the available evidence and replicate or update the research, has been followed [ 13 ].

Finally, as the initial search in the different databases was carried by only one of the authors, some bias could have been introduced. However, as previously noted, with any doubt about the inclusion of any study, the final decision was agreed between both authors, so we expect this possible bias to be small.

5. Conclusions

Dating apps have come to stay and constitute an unstoppable social phenomenon, as evidenced by the usage and published literature on the subject over the past five years. These apps have become a new way to meet and interact with potential partners, changing the rules of the game and romantic and sexual relationships for millions of people all over the world. Thus, it is important to understand them and integrate them into the relational and sexual life of users [ 76 ].

The findings of this systematic review have relevant implications for various groups (i.e., researchers, clinicians, health prevention professionals, users). Detailed information has been provided on the characteristics of users and the use of dating apps, the most common reasons for using them, and the benefits and risks associated with them. This can guide researchers to see what has been done and how it has been done and to design future research.

Second, there are implications for clinicians and health prevention and health professionals, concerning mental, relational, and sexual health. These individuals will have a starting point for designing more effective information and educational programs. These programs could harness the potential of the apps themselves and be integrated into them, as suggested by some authors [ 42 , 84 ].

Finally and unavoidably, knowledge about the phenomenon of dating apps collected in this systematic review can have positive implications for users, who may have at their disposal the necessary tools to make a healthy and responsible use of these applications, maximizing their advantages and reducing the risks posed by this new form of communication present in the daily life of so many people.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Á.C. and J.R.B.; methodology, Á.C. and J.R.B.; formal analysis, Á.C. and J.R.B.; investigation, Á.C. and J.R.B.; resources, Á.C. and J.R.B.; data curation, Á.C. and J.R.B.; writing—original draft preparation, Á.C.; writing—review and editing, J.R.B. and Á.C.; project administration, Á.C.; funding acquisition, Á.C. and J.R.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was funded by: (1) Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Government of Spain (PGC2018-097086-A-I00); and (2) Government of Aragón (Group S31_20D). Department of Innovation, Research and University and FEDER 2014-2020, “Building Europe from Aragón”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science

Read the Full Text

Although the authors find that online dating sites offer a distinctly different experience than conventional dating, the superiority of these sites is not as evident. Dating sites provide access to more potential partners than do traditional dating methods, but the act of browsing and comparing large numbers of profiles can lead individuals to commoditize potential partners and can reduce their willingness to commit to any one person. Communicating online can foster intimacy and affection between strangers, but it can also lead to unrealistic expectations and disappointment when potential partners meet in real life. Although many dating sites tout the superiority of partner matching through the use of “scientific algorithms,” the authors find that there is little evidence that these algorithms can predict whether people are good matches or will have chemistry with one another.

The authors’ overarching assessment of online dating sites is that scientifically, they just don’t measure up. As online dating matures, however, it is likely that more and more people will avail themselves of these services, and if development — and use — of these sites is guided by rigorous psychological science, they may become a more promising way for people to meet their perfect partners.

Hear author Eli J. Finkel discuss the science behind online dating at the 24th APS Annual Convention .

About the Authors

Editorial: Online Dating:  The Current Status —and Beyond

By Arthur Aron

I agree wholeheartedly that so-called scientific dating sites are totally off-base. They make worse matches than just using a random site. That’s because their matching criteria are hardly scientific, as far as romance goes. They also have a very small pool of educated, older men, and lots more women. Therefore they often come up with no matches at all, despite the fact that women with many different personality types in that age group have joined. They are an expensive rip-off for many women over 45.

Speaking as someone who was recently “commoditized” by who I thought was a wonderful man I met on a dating site, I find that the types of people who use these services are looking at the wrong metrics when they seek out a prospective love interest. My mother and father had very few hobbies and interests in common, but because they shared the same core values, their love endured a lifetime. When I got dumped because I didn’t share my S.O.’s interests exactly down the line, I realized how dangerous this line of thinking truly is, how it marginalizes people who really want to give and receive love for more important reasons.

I met a few potential love interests online and I never paid for any matching service! I did my own research on people and chatted online within a site to see if we had things in common. If we had a few things in common, we exchanged numbers, texted for a while, eventually spoke on the phone and if things felt right, we’d meet in a public place to talk. If that went well, we would have another date. I am currently with a man I met online and we have been together for two years! We have plans to marry in the future. But there is always the thought that if this doesn’t work out, how long will it take either of us to jump right back online to find the next possible love connection? I myself would probably start looking right away since looking for love online is a lengthy process!

I knew this man 40 years ago as we worked in the same agency for two years but never dated. Last November 2013 I saw his profile on a dating site. My husband had died four years ago and his wife died 11 years ago. We dated for five months. I questioned him about his continued online search as I had access to his username. Five months into the friendship he told me he “Was looking for his dream women in cyberspace”. I think he has been on these dating sites for over 5 years. Needless to say I will not tolerate this and it was over. I am sad, frustrated and angry how this ended as underneath all of his insecurities, unresolved issues with his wife’s death he is a good guy. I had been on these dating sties for 2 and 1/2 years and now I am looking at Matchmaking services as a better choice in finding a “Better good guy”.

I refer to these sites as “Designer Dating” sites. I liken the search process to ‘Window Shopping’. No-one seems very interested in making an actual purchase or commitment. I notice that all the previous comments are from women only. I agree with the article that says essentially, there are too many profiles and photos. Having fallen under this spell myself…”Oh, he’s nice but I’m sure there’s something better on the next page…” Click. Next. And on it goes. The term Chemistry gets thrown around a lot. I don’t know folks. I sure ain’t feelin’ it. Think I’ll go hang out with some friends now.

Stumbling upon this article during research for my Master thesis and I am curious: Would you use an app, that introduces a new way of dating, solely based on your voice and who you are, rather than how you look like? To me, we don’t fall in love with someone because of their looks (or their body mass index for that matter) or because of an algorithm, but because of the way somebody makes you feel and the way s.o. makes you laugh. At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter if someone has blue or brown eyes and my experience is, that most people place fake, manipulated or outdated pictures online to sell someone we don’t really are. And we are definitely more than our looks. I found my partner online and we had no picture of each other for three months – but we talked every night for hours…. fell in love and still are after 10 years… We met on a different level and got aligned long before we met. So, the question is, would you give this way of meeting someone a chance… an app where you can listen in to answers people give to questions other user asked before and where you can get a feeling for somebody before you even see them?

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

New Report Finds “Gaps and Variation” in Behavioral Science at NIH

A new NIH report emphasizes the importance of behavioral science in improving health, observes that support for these sciences at NIH is unevenly distributed, and makes recommendations for how to improve their support at the agency.

APS Advocates for Psychological Science in New Pandemic Preparedness Bill

APS has written to the U.S. Senate to encourage the integration of psychological science into a new draft bill focused on U.S. pandemic preparedness and response.

APS Urges Psychological Science Expertise in New U.S. Pandemic Task Force

APS has responded to urge that psychological science expertise be included in the group’s personnel and activities.

Privacy Overview

The Psychological Science Behind Online Dating

Research can help daters know what to post, what to look for, and who to pick..

Posted May 15, 2024 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

• The Science of Mating
• Take our Romantic Personality Test
• Find a therapist near me
• Online dating can feel confusing and overwhelming, but there are ways to make it easier and more successful.
• Finding the right partner begins before one even opens an app. Understand the self to identify better matches.
• Profile pictures matter. Recent and more accurate photos can help avoid disappointment.
• Someone's profile will be instantly more appealing if they highlight their ability to be a great partner.

Dating has changed. Apps like Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, Zoosk, OkCupid, CoffeeMeetsBagel, and Match have become embedded in the dating process.

There are many potential partners and a lot to manage. It’s a bit overwhelming, especially if you haven’t dated recently. According to Pew Research, 79 percent of recent dating app users were excited by the potential partners they’ve seen on the app. This sounds promising, but the same sample also found that 88 percent were disappointed with the potential options.

It’s a lot to navigate and can lead to feelings of “ dating app burnout .”

There’s some recent research that can make dating easier and more successful.

Why do people use online dating?

A series of in-depth interviews revealed that a key reason for online dating is getting a lot of dating experience quickly (Sharabi, 2023). One person characterized it as “training wheels” to help them warm up to dating and learn what they wanted. But there are risks. Others said they relied too heavily on online strategies, which led to them missing out on real-life opportunities. Goals changed over time (e.g., wanting short vs. long-term relationships), and many users had a “download and delete” experience where they went on the apps (typically several at a time) for a while, deleted them, and then tried again.

There are so many potential partners on these apps. How can I know who to pick and who to avoid?

Finding the right partner starts before you even click on a dating app. Research suggests the key is being clear and confident about who you are as a person (Kubin et al., 2024). In other words, you need to know yourself. When you have high self-concept clarity, you will have an easier time identifying which partners are a good match for you based on their personality qualities, hobbies, interests, and values.

Need to boost your clarity and self-understanding? These 36 questions can help.

I want to make my dating profile more appealing. What’s an underrated quality that can help?

Typically, people write profiles focusing on what they’re looking for in a partner. When researchers looked at profiles from Match and Coffee Meets Bagel, they found that most people say they’re looking for a partner who will listen to them and support them (Schroeder & Fishbach, 2024). That’s fair, but there’s a missing ingredient.

People rarely mention that they can fulfill those roles for their partner. Research indicates that potential partners rate dating profiles that emphasize a desire for deeper emotional connection, strong listening abilities, and a supportive nature as significantly more attractive.

Here’s some specific wording to highlight your ability to be a great partner:

• “My friends all say that I’m a great listener.”
• “I’m curious about your life experiences and want to learn about your interests, values, and ambitions.”
• “I’ll be your strongest supporter and advocate.”

Should you post your “best” pictures or more current and realistic pictures?

A major milestone in online dating is the first face-to-face meet-up. That’s when you see what the other person really looks like. In a sample of those who got married or engaged following online dating, “Nearly all participants reported that their partner either met or surpassed what they envisioned” (Sharabi, 2023).

There’s a lesson there: Successful couples weren’t let down by meeting an unrecognizable person. As one participant stated, “He was even more good-looking than I had imagined.” That’s a far better experience than witnessing the other person’s disappointment when you don’t match your profile pictures. That said, participants were tolerant of minor variations (e.g., slight weight differences). But overall, you’re better off sharing a recent picture showing the real you, not an unrealistic version of you from the past.

Is there a way to tell from pictures in a guy’s profile if he wants a real relationship?

A study found that men displayed different pictures depending on the type of relationship they wanted (Zinck et al., 2022). Men seeking long-term mates displayed dependents in their pictures more frequently than men seeking short-term relationships. This pattern was mostly thanks to guys posting pictures with their dogs.

What are women actually looking for in a partner?

To answer that, a global survey of 20,000 single women aged 18 to 67 across 150 countries assessed various traits such as attractiveness , education , financial security, intelligence , kindness, success, and supportiveness (Botzet et al., 2023).

The number-one quality women desired? Kindness. Across all ages, women wanted a nice, kind, and supportive partner.

Does starting a relationship online lead to worse or lower-quality relationships later on?

No. In fact, research finds that participants believed starting their marriage online encourages self-disclosure, which led to building the relationship on emotional intimacy (vs. physical intimacy) (Sharabi, 2023). Participants also thought meeting online helped them make better partner choices because they weren’t relying on circumstances (e.g., people they met in their day-to-day life), which gave them a larger pool to choose from and allowed them not to lower their standards.

Facebook image: AnemStyle/Shutterstock

Botzet, L. J., Shea, A., Vitzthum, V. J., Druet, A., Sheesley, M., & Gerlach, T. M. (2023). The link between age and partner preferences in a large, international sample of single women. Human Nature, 34 (4), 539–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-023-09460-4

Kubin, D., Kreitewolf, J., & Lydon, J. E. (2024). Ruling out potential dating partners: The role of self-concept clarity in initial romantic partner evaluations. Self and Identity . https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2024.2314319

Pew Research Center (2023). From Looking for Love to Swiping the Field: Online Dating in the U.S. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/02/02/from-looking-for-love-to-swiping-the-field-online-dating-in-the-u-s/

Schroeder, J., & Fishbach, A. (2024). Feeling known predicts relationship satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 111 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104559

Sharabi, L. L. (2023). The enduring effect of Internet Dating: Meeting online and the Road to marriage. Communication Research , 009365022211274. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221127498

Zinck, M. J., Weir, L. K., & Fisher, M. L. (2022). Dependents as signals of mate value: Long-term mating strategy predicts displays on online dating profiles for men. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 8 (2), 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-021-00294-w

Gary W. Lewandowski Jr., Ph.D., is the author of Stronger Than You Think: The 10 Blind Spots That Undermine Your Relationship...and How to See Past Them .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Access through  your organization
• Purchase PDF

Article preview

Introduction, section snippets, references (48), cited by (4).

Computers in Human Behavior

The online dating effect: where a couple meets predicts the quality of their marriage ☆.

• • People who met a spouse in online dating possessed different attributes than those who met offline.
• • Online daters reported less satisfying and stable marriages, a phenomenon we refer to as the online dating effect.
• • Societal marginalization and geographic distance explained these effects on marital satisfaction and stability.

Who is marrying from online dating?

Sample and procedures, individual differences in marriage, credit author statement, declaration of competing interest, later first marriage and marital success, social science research, collaborative filtering for people-to-people recommendation in online dating: data analysis and user trial, international journal of human-computer studies, development and validation of the tinder motives scale (tms), social penetration: the development of interpersonal relationships, the virtues and downsides of online dating, the social and physical environment of relationship initiation: an interdependence analysis, the role of minority stressors in lesbian relationship commitment and persistence over time, psychology of sexual orientation and gender diversity, probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: inferential and graphical techniques, multivariate behavioral research, measuring martial instability, journal of marriage and family, residential propinquity as a factor in marriage selection, american journal of sociology, marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues, proceedings of the national academy of sciences, marriage, a history: how love conquered marriage, there are plenty of fish in the sea: the effects of choice overload and reversibility on online daters' satisfaction with selected partners, media psychology, perceived versus reported social referent approval and romantic relationship commitment and persistence, personal relationships, social pressures in informal groups: a study of human factors in housing, online dating: a critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science, psychological science in the public interest, self-presentation in online personals: the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet dating, communication research, relating through technology, introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach, a generic measure of relationship satisfaction, the social ecology of marriage and other intimate unions, behavioral buffers on the effect of negativity on marital satisfaction: a longitudinal study, absence makes the communication grow fonder: geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships, journal of communication, incorporating geographic distance into mate preference research: necessities and luxuries, 2.0, a linkage study investigating sexualized self-presentation on mobile dating apps and user traits, the affective and relational correlates of algorithmic beliefs among u.s. online daters: extension of two previous studies, does online dating make relationships more successful replication and extension of a previous study, state-run dating apps: are they morally desirable.

11 Results from Studies About Online Dating

With more and more people relying on online dating to meet a partner, the act of online dating also gets studied more and more. Here are 11 revelations from recent studies.

1. 81 PERCENT OF PEOPLE LIE ABOUT THEIR HEIGHT, WEIGHT, OR AGE IN THEIR ONLINE DATING PROFILES.

This phenomenon was observed in a study conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The researchers weighed and measured subjects in addition to checking their driver’s licenses for their actual ages, then looked at their subjects’ online dating profiles. Women tended to claim that they were 8.5 pounds lighter than they actually were. Men lied by less—only two pounds—but rounded up their height by a half inch more often. People lied the least when it came to age.

2. PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE WORD "LOVE" IN THEIR PROFILES ARE MORE LIKELY TO FIND LOVE.

In 2014, dating site PlentyofFish conducted a study in which scientists examined word choice in all 1.2 million dating profiles on the site. In addition to the observation that those who used the word “love” more were more successful in finding it, the researchers discovered that men benefited from using the words “heart,” “children,” “romantic,” and “relationship.”

3. MEN SPEND 50 PERCENT LESS TIME READING ONLINE DATING PROFILES THAN WOMEN.

In 2012, the research company AnswerLab conducted a study in which they used a Tobii X1 Light Eye Tracker, which recorded the eye movements of subjects who were reading online dating profiles from Match.com and eHarmony.com. By doing this, they were able determine where men and women were actually looking while reading online dating profiles. As it happens, men spend 65 percent more time looking at the pictures in the profile than women do.

4. RACE AND CLASS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS TO DATERS.

In 2014, BuzzFeed ran an experiment in which one of their writers built a mock-Tinder with stock photos. She found that when someone viewed the person in the Tinder profile picture as “working-class,” they would swipe “yes” 13 percent of the time. But, when they considered the person “middle-class,” they swiped “yes” between 36 and 39 percent of the time. The study also found that people preferred a potential partner to be of mixed or ambiguous race instead of a blatantly different race than their own. OkCupid co-founder, Christian Rudder, confirmed her findings. He noted, “When you’re looking at how two American strangers behave in a romantic context, race is the ultimate confounding factor.”

A 2014  study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences does note that this phenomenon isn’t as bad as it might seem. According to the researchers at the University of California San Diego, the majority of heterosexuals on OKCupid did contact people of another race or at least answer messages from them.

More Articles About Dating:

5. THE ALGORITHMS CAN'T PREDICT WHETHER TWO PEOPLE ARE COMPATIBLE.

A group of U.S. psychology professors collaborated on a report, describing the faults of online dating, which was published in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest in 2012. The dating sites wouldn't share their specific algorithms with the researchers, but the professors stated that the sites couldn’t predict whether a relationship would last just because two people had similar interests and personalities. According to Professor Eli Finkel , who worked on the report, "We reviewed the literature and feel safe to conclude they do not [work]."

6. ONE-THIRD OF ONLINE DATERS NEVER GO ON DATES WITH PEOPLE THEY MEET ONLINE.

This surprising statistic comes from a survey conducted in late 2013 by the Pew Research Center. Even more surprising, this is actually a significantly lower number than it used to be. In 2005, over half of people with online dating profiles never went on an in-person date with someone they had met on the site.

7. WOMEN WHO DON'T DRINK RECEIVE 24 PERCENT FEWER MESSAGE THAN WOMEN WHO DO.

PlentyOfFish put together graphics describing the most “desirable singles of 2014,” based on what they observed heterosexual online daters liked in the opposite sex; the site claimed that women are more likely to get messages if they are Catholic, have a dog, earn more than $25,000, and don’t have a masters degree. Men get more messages if they are Christian, brunette, high-earners, and PhDs.

8. ABOUT 30 PRESENT OF WOMEN CONSULT WITH A FREIND ABOUT THEIR PROFILE. ONLY 16 PERCENT OF MEN DO. 

This accounts for a total of 22 percent of people with online dating profiles who ask a friend “to help them create or review their profile,” according to the Pew Research Center.

9. COUPLES WHO MEET ONLINE ARE MORE LIKELY TO BREAK UP.

A recent study that claims couples who met on dating sites are less likely to get married has been getting a lot of traction on the Internet. Researchers from Stanford University and Michigan State University surveyed more than 4000 people and they learned that breakups were more common in couples who met online versus offline. They claim that the phenomenon holds true for both married and unmarried couples.

10. ON THE FLIP SIDE: COUPLES WHO MEET ONLINE ARE LESS LIKELY TO DIVORCE.

Obviously this phenomenon needs to be studied a little more. A 2013 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that 35 percent of the 20,000 people who responded to a survey met their spouse online. The study also contradicts the Stanford and Michigan State study by claiming that couples who met online have a 6 percent separation and divorce rate whereas couples who met offline have an 8 percent rate. (It’s worth noting that the study was funded by eHarmony.)

11. ONLINE DATING SAVES PEOPLE $6400.

If you believe that people do marry sooner when they use online dating, then you can also believe that online dating saves you money. A group of researchers at ConvergEx Group calculated that couples who meet online get married after 18.5 months, on average. Couples who don’t meet online, on the other hand, wait an average of 42 months before marrying. ConvergEx group factored in $130 per week for dates, making total cost $23,660 versus $12,803. If the pair is splitting bills, that’s around $6400 each saved before marriage.

• Questions to Ask When Online Dating

Fact Checked by: Rychel Johnson, M.S., LCPC

Has online dating ever felt like a never-ending stream of job interviews? You ask the same questions, get the same answers, and never really get that far in getting to know someone or validating if they’re worth your time for a date.

Good news—you’re not alone. But even better news is that we’re here to help. In this guide, we’re going to outline the best questions to ask when online dating. We’ll talk about questions to ask a new match (before you meet), questions to ask on a first date, and even get into some questions you should be asking of yourself before you take the leap into the realm of online dating. Also, we’ve added a section on questions that you shouldn’t ask, which can be just as important.

We’d ask if you’re ready to get started, but there are already enough amazing questions in this guide that we’ll spare you one more!

Questions to Ask When You’re Not Getting Results

Online dating is not a lot of fun when you aren’t getting the results you want. Maybe you’re not meeting enough people? Maybe you’re meeting the wrong kinds of people? Maybe you’re struggling to find someone to go on a date with? Whatever it may be, it’s not the results you want!

But that doesn’t mean it always has to be that way. Here are some questions to ask yourself to find ways to improve your results when dating online.

• Am I actually putting in an adequate amount of effort to attract the kind of people I’m interested in?
• Does my dating profile show effort and accurately portray who I am and what I’m looking for? If you aren’t sure, check out our guide on how to write a dating profile .
• Am I trying to hard and pushing myself toward emotional burnout? This is far more common than you might think. Check out our data on emotional burnout from online dating .
• Are my expectations realistic? Remember, online dating is way more of a marathon than it is a sprint.

Am I using a quality dating app? If not, will I do anything about it?

It’s no secret that there are thousands of scammers, catfish, and fake profiles, and as a result many dating apps are a complete waste of time . If you’re only using a free dating app or one without a great track record, you’re not going to get results. If you’re not happy with the app you’re using now then this is what we recommend:

• If you want a real relationship, check out eharmony . It’s the #1 dating app in the world for building lasting love, bar none!
• If you want a casual relationship or maybe you’re not sure what you want yet, then check out Zoosk . It’s relaxed and casual without being sleezy.
• If you want a Christian relationship, check out Higher Bond . It’s a newcomer to the Christian dating app scene, but making serious changes to be different and stand out from the pack.

Questions to Ask a New Match

Talking to someone new online is exciting. You never know when you’re going to be talking to that special someone that you might spend a lot of time or even the rest of your life with. But how do you best get to know them? How do you make sure they’re worth your time for a first date? How do you make sure you’re setting yourself up for success?

Well, the answer to these questions is more questions. Here’s a lengthy collection of some of the best questions to ask a new match when dating online. Keep in mind that you don’t have to ask all of these, but just pick and choose the ones that are the most important to you. Also, feel free to reword them if you need to in order to better fit you.

• What are you passionate about in life?
• What short and long term goals do you have for your personal and professional life?
• Would you consider your values more traditional or progressive?
• What scares you/what’s your biggest fear in life?
• Are you religious? If so, how big of a role does it play in your life? (Yes, it’s okay to ask about this. Avoiding these topics because of antiquated guidance is just a waste of your time.)
• How do you like to spend your weekends and your free time?
• Ask questions about things on their profile that are interesting to you. (This also shows that you read their profile, which usually means big brownie points.) Example: I saw on your profile you said you love dogs. Do you have any pets?
• Are you a spontaneous person or a planner?
• Do you tend to focus more on the big picture or the little details?
• What do you do for a living/what kind of work do you do? (Notice we didn’t say “Where do you work?” That can be a little too personal when you’re first getting to know someone. There’s nothing wrong with asking what they do for a living, though. They are two distinctly different questions.)
• What’s your schedule normally like? (This is a great question to ask when you’re transitioning into looking to set up a potential first date. It’s also nice to know for general information.)
• Do you prefer going out or staying in more?
• Do you prefer being inside or outside more?
• What kind of sense of humor would you say you have?
• Would you consider yourself a morning person or a night owl?

Questions to Ask on a First Date

Some people like to really get to know someone before they meet up, and some people like to chat for a very limited amount of time and get to know each other in person. If you are in the first group, you’ve already asked a lot of the questions in the previous section. If you’re in the latter section, make sure you use some of the questions from the first section on your first date since you probably haven’t asked many or any of them yet.

In addition, though, there are some great questions you can ask on a first date. These questions can also be asked online, but they’re ones we feel might be better to talk about in person.

• Tell me about your family. Are you close with your parents? Siblings? Big family or little family? (Don’t be off-put if they’re hesitant to talk about their family on a first date. Some people are a little more private on these things.)
• How do you enjoy what you do for a living? What’s a typical day for you like?
• Do you have a lot of friends you split your time between or just a few close friends?
• What’s your biggest dating pet peeve?
• How long ago was your past relationship? (Note: don’t let this devolve into talking about exes. You just want to find out if you’re at risk for being a rebound.)
• How long have you been dating online? Any funny or awkward stories so far?
• What kind of food do you like to eat? Do you normally eat super healthy or are you a foodie? What’s your favorite food? Are there any foods you absolutely don’t like?
• Did you grow up here? Is your family local?
• Do you enjoy traveling? What’s been your favorite trip so far? Anywhere you would like to go one day?
• Do you have a favorite holiday? Why is that your favorite? (Take note, this question can actually tell you a lot about someone).
• What’s the coolest thing you’ve ever done in your life, and don’t worry if it comes off as bragging?
• What’s your absolute favorite story to tell?
• What are you most proud of in your life? (You can let them know it’s okay to brag a little when they answer if you want to.)

Questions You SHOULDN’T Ask

While there are so many great questions to ask a new match when dating online, there are quite a few that you should avoid. And these questions should also be avoided when it comes to a first date. Down the line, yes, these almost all will be important questions (with a few exceptions). However, they’re not great for someone you’re just meeting.

• Tell me about your last relationship/your ex.
• How much money do you make?
• Anything about politics. (The one exception here is if politics is just that incredibly important and critical to your life where you can’t spend a minute with someone who doesn’t share the same views as you. Additionally, if politics is a deal breaker, you might as well find out if things are a match or not.)
• Anything overtly sexual. (The exception here is if you met on the pretenses of a casual and physical relationship. If that wasn’t directly discussed online, though, keep it PG.)
• Where do you live? (Some people aren’t comfortable with this information early on, and you probably shouldn’t be either for safety reasons. A better question to ask is “What side of town do you live on?”)
• What did you like about me? What made you want to go on a date with me? (These sound like you’re fishing for a compliment and make you sound unconfident. They’re very unattractive questions to ask.)
• What kind of guys/girls do you typically date? (There’s just not a whole lot of good that can come out of this question.)
• Questions with no substance that you don’t really care about the answer to. For example, what’s your favorite color? While you’ll probably learn this down the road if you date this person, is that really critical to your first date or seeing if you want to go out with them? It’s the equivalent of talking about the weather (unless there is something out of the ordinary going on.)
• Are you having fun? If you can’t tell if they’re having a good time or not, asking won’t help your cause. Pay more attention to their non-verbal cues.
• Anything accusatory. For example, if they showed up late—why were you late? While being late is rude, it’s not a great idea to call someone out on that via question.

What happens if my date or match asks me these questions?

It’s up to you how you react to that. Some people haven’t had the privilege of reading this guide and just might not know better. Always remember that you can politely decline answering and questions you don’t want to. Easy responses include:

• We can probably talk about that later if we see each other a few more times.
• I usually like to wait until later to talk about that topic.
• I’m not really comfortable talking about that just yet.

Questions to Ask Yourself

A lot of people jump headfirst into online dating without taking the time to get all their ducks in a row. And while we’re advocates for taking the plunge, there are some questions you can ask yourself before you get started to make sure you’re setting yourself up for success.

Here are several fantastic questions to ask yourself before you start dating online.

• Am I emotionally happy enough with myself to be vulnerable in a dating environment? Am I using dating to try and fill a hole in my life? Do I want a relationship or need one? (If it’s the latter, you should probably pump the brakes and work on you first. Relationships are supposed to be complimentary to your life and happiness. If it’s a want instead of a need , you’re good to go. If it’s the other way around, work on you first.
• What are my goals with online dating?
• Am I looking for something casual, serious, or in-between?
• What are my absolute deal breakers?
• Do I have a plan in place to safely date online? Read: Our Online Dating Safety Guide
• Where do I stand with physical intimacy?
• Would I let someone pick me up on the first date?
• Am I comfortable giving out my phone number before the first date? (You can always chat on the app.)
• What am I looking for? (This may sound super basic, but the more exact and detailed you can get in your answer—the better. Know what your wants are and what your needs are. Be careful not to fall into the trap of creating a dating checklist that might make things harder for you.

The more of these questions you can have figured out before you get started with online dating, the better position you’re going to be in. It’s like the old country song says—”You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.”

The Bottom Line – Avoid the Interview

People get nervous on first dates. It’s inevitable, and it’s okay! The temptation in those situations can be to worry more about what you’re going to say and not actually listening.

When you ask these questions, listen to their answers. It’s great if you’re able to find follow up questions or even situations where you have things in common. Try and find the happy balance of talking and listening, and when you’re listening—actually listen and process what they’re saying. The worst thing you can do is just read through these questions one by one. That’s how you end up getting that unnatural job interview feel.

Related Articles:

• How Long Should a First Date Really Last?
• Is a Movie a Bad Location for a First Date?

Author: Matt Seymour, MSF

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key takeaways on Americans’ views of and experiences with dating and relationships

Dating has always come with challenges. But the advent of dating apps and other new technologies – as well as the #MeToo movement – presents a new set of norms and expectations for American singles looking for casual or committed relationships, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey .

Some 15% of U.S. adults say they are single and looking for a committed relationship or casual dates. Among them, most say they are dissatisfied with their dating lives, according to the survey, which was conducted in October 2019 – before the coronavirus pandemic shook up the dating scene. Here are some additional key findings from the study.

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans’ attitudes toward and personal experiences with dating and relationships. These findings are based on a survey conducted Oct. 16-28, 2019, among 4,860 U.S. adults. This includes those who took part as members of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses, as well as respondents from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel who indicated that they identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB).

Recruiting ATP panelists by phone or mail ensures that nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. This gives us confidence that any sample can represent the whole U.S. adult population (see our Methods 101 explainer on random sampling). To further ensure that each ATP survey reflects a balanced cross-section of the nation, the data is weighted to match the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.

For more, see the report’s methodology about the project. You can also find the questions asked and the answers the public provided in this topline .

Nearly half (47%) of all Americans say dating is harder today than it was 10 years ago. A third of adults (33%) say dating is about the same as it was a decade ago, and 19% say it’s easier. Women are much more likely than men to say dating has gotten harder (55% vs. 39%).

Among those who say dating is harder today, 21% think it is because of increased risk, including physical risks as well as the risk of getting scammed or lied to. Women are twice as likely as men to cite increased risk as a reason why dating is harder (26% vs. 13%).

Other reasons why people think dating is harder include technology (12%), the idea that dating has become more impersonal (10%), the more casual nature of dating today (9%), and changing societal expectations, moral or gender roles (8%).

Technology tops the list of reasons why people think dating has gotten easier in the last decade. Among those who say dating is easier today, 41% point to technology, followed by 29% who say it’s easier to meet people now and 10% who cite changing gender roles and societal expectations.

Most daters don’t feel like their dating life is going well and say it’s been hard to find people to date. Two-thirds of those who are single and looking for a relationship or dates say their dating life is going not too or not at all well (67%), while 33% say it’s going very or fairly well. Majorities of daters across gender, age, race and ethnicity, education, sexual orientation and marital history say their dating life isn’t going well.

Three-quarters of daters say it’s been difficult to find people to date in the past year, according to the pre-coronavirus survey. Among the top reasons cited are finding someone looking for the same type of relationship (53%), finding it hard to approach people (46%) and finding someone who meets their expectations (43%).

Substantial shares of daters also report other obstacles, including the limited number of people in their area (37%), being too busy (34%) and people not being interested in dating them (30%).

A majority (57%) of women – and 35% of men – say they have experienced some kind of harassing behavior from someone they were dating or had been on a date with. Women are much more likely than men to say they have been pressured for sex (42% vs. 19%) or have been touched in a way that made them feel uncomfortable (35% vs. 9%). While the gender gap is smaller, women are also more likely than men to say someone they have been on a date with sent them unwanted sexually explicit images or spread rumors about their sexual history.

Some 42% of women younger than 40 say someone they’ve been on a date with has sent them unwanted sexually explicit images, compared with 26% of men in this age group. And while 23% of women younger than 40 say someone they have been on a date with has spread rumors about their sexual history, 16% of younger men say the same. There is no gender gap on these questions among those older than 40.

Many Americans say an increased focus on sexual harassment and assault has muddied the waters, especially for men, in the dating landscape. A majority of Americans (65%) say the increased focus on sexual harassment and assault over the last few years has made it harder for men to know how to interact with someone they’re on a date with. About one-in-four adults (24%) say it hasn’t made much of a difference, while 9% say it has made things easier for men.

Meanwhile, 43% of Americans say the attention paid to sexual harassment and assault has made it harder for women to know how to interact with someone they’re on a date with, compared with 38% who say it hasn’t made much of a difference and 17% who say it’s easier for women.

Men are more likely than women to think the focus on sexual harassment and assault has made it harder for men to know how to act on dates. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to say this. Older men are also more likely than their younger counterparts to hold this view: Three-quarters of men 50 and older say it’s harder for single-and-looking men to know how to behave, compared with 63% of men younger than 50.

Premarital sex is largely seen as acceptable, but more Americans see open relationships and sex on the first date as taboo. Most adults (65%) say sex between unmarried adults in a committed relationship can be acceptable, and about six-in-ten (62%) say casual sex between consenting adults who aren’t in a committed relationship is acceptable at least sometimes. While men and women have similar views about premarital sex, men are much more likely than women to find casual sex acceptable (70% vs. 55%).

Americans are less accepting of other practices. For example, open relationships – that is, committed relationships where both people agree that it is acceptable to date or have sex with other people – are viewed as never or rarely acceptable by most Americans. About half of adults (48%) say having an open relationship is never acceptable, 20% say it’s rarely acceptable and 32% say it’s sometimes or always acceptable.

When it comes to consenting adults sharing sexually explicit images of themselves, about half of adults (49%) say it is at least sometimes acceptable, while a similar share (50%) say it is rarely or never acceptable. However, there are large age differences in views of this practice. Adults ages 18 to 29 are more than three times as likely as those 65 and older to say this is always or sometimes acceptable (70% vs. 21%). Younger adults are also more likely to say open relationships can be acceptable.

Many singles are open to dating someone who is different from them, but certain characteristics would give some people pause. Distance, debt and voting for Donald Trump top the list of reasons singles looking for a relationship wouldn’t consider a potential partner, but there are other considerations, too. For example, 38% say dating someone 10 years older than them would give them pause, and 36% say the same about dating someone who is raising children from another relationship. Some of those looking for a relationship also say they definitely or probably wouldn’t consider being in a relationship with someone who is a Republican (27% of all daters), someone who voted for Hillary Clinton (26%), someone who practices a different religion (23%) or someone who is a different race or ethnicity (15%). Among daters looking for a relationship who are 28 and older, 27% say they definitely or probably wouldn’t consider a relationship with someone 10 years younger than them.

There are some differences in these attitudes by gender, political party and age. For example, single women looking for a relationship are roughly three times as likely as men to say they wouldn’t consider a relationship with someone who makes significantly less money than them (24% vs. 7%). Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they probably or definitely wouldn’t consider a committed relationship with someone of a different race or ethnicity (21% vs. 12%). And when it comes to debt, 59% of adults 40 and older say they probably or definitely wouldn’t consider a committed relationship with someone who has significant debt, compared with 41% of people younger than 40.

While meeting partners through personal networks is still the most common kind of introduction, about one-in-ten partnered adults (12%) say they met their partner online. About a third (32%) of adults who are married, living with a partner or are in a committed relationship say friends and family helped them find their match. Smaller shares say they met through work (18%), through school (17%), online (12%), at a bar or restaurant (8%), at a place of worship (5%) or somewhere else (8%).

Meeting online is more common among younger adults and those who live in urban and suburban areas, as well as those who are lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB). About one-in-five partnered adults ages 18 to 29 (21%) say they met their partner online, compared with 15% or fewer among their older counterparts. And while 28% of partnered LGB adults say they met their partner online, 11% of those who are straight say the same.  

Among those who met their partner online, 61% say they met through a dating app, while 21% met on a social media site or app, 10% met on an online discussion forum, 3% met on a texting or messaging app and 3% through online gaming.  

Half of singles say they aren’t currently looking for a relationship or dates. Among these single non-daters, 47% say a major reason why they aren’t currently looking for a relationship or dates is that they have more important priorities, while 44% say they just like being single. Other factors include being too busy (20%), not having had luck in the past (18%), feeling like no one would be interested in dating them (17%), not being ready to date after losing a spouse or ending a relationship (17%), feeling too old to date (17%) and having health problems that make dating difficult (11%).

While these answers are mostly similar for men and women, there is one notable exception: Male non-daters are about twice as likely as female non-daters to say a major reason they aren’t looking to date is the feeling that no one would be interested in dating them (26% vs. 12%).

There is also some variation by age. For example, 61% of non-daters younger than 50 say that a major reason they aren’t looking to date is that they have more important priorities, compared with 38% of older non-daters. And a quarter of non-daters ages 50 and older – including 30% of those 65 and up – say a major reason is they that feel too old to date.

Note: Here are the questions asked for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

• Online Dating
• Romance & Dating

Amanda Barroso is a former writer/editor focusing on social trends at Pew Research Center .

For Valentine’s Day, facts about marriage and dating in the U.S.

Dating at 50 and up: older americans’ experiences with online dating, about half of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults have used online dating, about half of never-married americans have used an online dating site or app, key findings about online dating in the u.s., most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center