#datingapps — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #datingapps, aggregated by home.social.
-
DATE: May 26, 2026 at 06:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: More choices on dating apps actually increase commitment, new study suggests
URL: https://www.psypost.org/more-choices-on-dating-apps-actually-increase-commitment-new-study-suggests/
A recent study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships provides evidence that having a larger number of online dating options tends to increase a person’s desire to pursue a relationship with a chosen match. The research suggests that a larger pool of potential partners improves the chances of finding a compatible connection. Finding this better match then boosts dating motivation, challenging the popular idea that having too many options automatically makes online daters distracted.
Today, a majority of people use the internet to find romantic partners, but many report feeling frustrated with the process. A dominant view among scientists has been that dating apps offer an overwhelming number of choices. This abundance is thought to trigger choice overload, a psychological phenomenon where having too many alternatives makes people overly picky and reluctant to settle down.
Some earlier research supported this idea, suggesting that online daters treat potential partners like products on a grocery store shelf. Under this consumer mindset, constantly evaluating new profiles can make users fear they are missing out on a better match. This mindset often leads to lower satisfaction with the person they eventually select.
The authors of the new paper sought to explore a different perspective borrowed from economics. Junwen Hu, a communication researcher at Michigan State University, authored the study alongside David Markowitz, an associate professor of communication at Michigan State University. They theorized that having more options might actually be beneficial for daters.
The researchers noted that the tech industry often assumes users need fewer choices to succeed. “Dating apps tend to limit the number of dating candidates people have, claiming to prevent the paradox of choice (from having too many options to choose from),” the authors explained. “This is related to an old debate in the field: does limiting options (candidates to date) discourage participation? To address that, we conducted two experiments to compare different explanations that have emerged in the literature.”
The scientists viewed online dating as a matching market, which is a system where people with very different traits, interests, and needs search for someone who fits their specific preferences. In this type of market, both parties evaluate each other. Success depends heavily on how well two people align in their goals and lifestyles.
In economics, a concept called the thick market effect suggests that larger markets offer a better chance of finding a highly specific, compatible match. For example, a person looking for a highly specialized job is more likely to find it in a massive city than in a small rural town. The researchers theorized that this same mathematical logic applies to dating apps.
To test these ideas, the researchers conducted two separate online experiments. In the first experiment, they recruited 193 single adults in the United States, aged 21 to 30, through an online survey platform. The sample included a relatively even mix of men and women of various racial backgrounds and sexual orientations.
The participants were told they were testing a new dating website called Date Today. First, the participants answered questions about their demographics, dating preferences, hobbies, and the qualities they desired in a partner. They were then shown a series of realistic dating profiles that matched their preferred gender. All profiles were drawn from a pre-tested database to ensure they looked authentic.
The scientists randomly assigned the participants to one of two conditions. The low-option group viewed a selection of six profiles, while the high-option group viewed a selection of thirty-one profiles. After browsing the options on a single page, each participant had to select one person they would like to go on a date with.
The researchers then measured the participants’ immediate intention to pursue a relationship with their choice. They also measured the participants’ general readiness to commit to a relationship. To understand the psychological mechanisms at play, the scientists asked participants to rate how picky they felt, how compatible they thought they were with their chosen match, their perceived social status, and their fear of being single.
The findings contradicted the idea that more options lead to less commitment. “Our results run contrary to the conventional wisdom that people should limit their options in online dating,” the researchers said. Participants who saw thirty-one profiles reported a greater intention to pursue a relationship with their selected match compared to those who saw only six profiles.
The high-option group did not show a difference in general commitment readiness in this first study, but their immediate desire to date their chosen match was noticeably higher.
The researchers analyzed the data to understand the psychological mechanisms behind this boost in motivation. They found that participants in the high-option group felt a stronger sense of compatibility with the person they chose. This sense of perceived compatibility directly predicted their desire to pursue a date.
The scientists did not find evidence that seeing more profiles made participants overly picky. Seeing many profiles also did not impact the participants’ perceived social status or their fear of being single. The positive effect of finding a compatible match seemed to outweigh any negative effects of choice overload.
To confirm these findings, the authors conducted a second experiment with a larger group of 342 single adults aged 18 to 35. To ensure the results applied to real-world scenarios, the researchers only included participants who were actively using dating apps. The procedures mirrored the first experiment, but the scientists refined their questionnaires to include a measure for perceived similarity.
The second experiment replicated the outcomes of the first. Participants who chose from thirty-one profiles showed greater relationship pursuit intention than those who chose from six. In this larger study, the high-option group also demonstrated higher general commitment readiness.
Once again, the data pointed to compatibility as the driving force. Seeing more profiles allowed participants to find someone they perceived as highly compatible and highly similar to themselves. This strong sense of similarity provided the motivation to pursue a meaningful connection.
“Online daters can be harmed by having overly limited options; they are more willing to date someone if they choose that person from more abundant options,” Hu and Markowitz told PsyPost. “This effect is found in our design where we ask users to clarify their preferences before the online dating session.”
The authors suggest that these results carry practical weight for the tech industry and for users seeking romance. “Our findings have important implications for users and platforms,” the researchers noted. “Our findings suggest that online daters can be more engaged when seeking a date from where options are adequate rather than limiting.”
As with all research, there are some caveats to consider. It might be easy to assume that limitless options are always better, but the researchers only measured immediate reactions right after a participant selected a profile. Real-world dating involves interacting over time, and a person’s satisfaction with their choice might change after a few days of chatting.
The experimental setup also forced participants to choose one specific profile from a single, static page of options. Actual dating apps often involve continuously swiping through one profile at a time, which might trigger different psychological responses. Additionally, testing a pool of hundreds of profiles against a pool of thirty might reveal a breaking point where choice overload finally takes over.
“Our finding should be interpreted in a very specific context: daters were instructed to choose one person to date, immediate response was asked (would they interact with a chosen match or not), preferences were clarified before the selection, and traits and preferences of candidates were randomly varied,” the authors explained.
Moving forward, the scientists plan to continue exploring how digital environments shape romantic connections. They aim to incorporate economic principles into broader communication theories to understand modern matchmaking.
“We hope that this work can lead to a working theory of mediated relationship search, one that reconsiders the role of insights from market economics,” the researchers said. “As communication scholars, we often examine how people make meaning out of social interactions at the micro level. However, we hope that structural forces (that are not altered by individual intentions, like market design) could be factored in this equation as well.”
The authors also see opportunities to apply these insights outside the laboratory to help improve user experiences on actual dating applications. “We encourage digital platforms that are interested in improving the well-being of online daters to collaborate with us,” Hu and Markowitz added.
The study, “Re-examining Relational Pursuit and Mate Selection in Online Dating,” was authored by Junwen M. Hu and David M. Markowitz.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/more-choices-on-dating-apps-actually-increase-commitment-new-study-suggests/
-------------------------------------------------
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot
Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com
EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org
READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org
It's primitive... but it works... mostly...
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #OnlineDating #DatingApps #RelationshipGoals #Matchmaking #Compatibility #ThickMarketEffect #DatingResearch #RelationshipMotivation #ChoiceInTech #DatingScience
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@somoszorro/116637383875978880
Se solo avessero onorato gli Elio E Le Storie Tese e l'avessero chiamata Zborro l'avrei installata!
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@somoszorro/116637383875978880
Se solo avessero onorato gli Elio E Le Storie Tese e l'avessero chiamata Zborro l'avrei installata!
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@somoszorro/116637383875978880
Se solo avessero onorato gli Elio E Le Storie Tese e l'avessero chiamata Zborro l'avrei installata!
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@somoszorro/116637383875978880
Se solo avessero onorato gli Elio E Le Storie Tese e l'avessero chiamata Zborro l'avrei installata!
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@somoszorro/116637383875978880
Se solo avessero onorato gli Elio E Le Storie Tese e l'avessero chiamata Zborro l'avrei installata!
-
These Privacy-Conscious Gay Dating Apps Want to Dethrone Grindr
-
These Privacy-Conscious Gay Dating Apps Want to Dethrone Grindr
-
These Privacy-Conscious Gay Dating Apps Want to Dethrone Grindr
-
These Privacy-Conscious Gay Dating Apps Want to Dethrone Grindr
-
These Privacy-Conscious Gay Dating Apps Want to Dethrone Grindr
-
Said I'm 5'10". She read 6'2". The dog wasn't even his dog.
Swipe Life is a comedy rap about the beautiful disaster of dating apps — free to download, no algorithm required.
👇 https://tracks.montysounds.com/swipelife
#SwipeLife #MontySounds #ComedyRap #HipHop #DatingApps #NewMusic
-
How to Make Apps and Websites Remove Your Nonconsensual Nudes
https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-remove-nudes-take-it-down-act/
-
How to Make Apps and Websites Remove Your Nonconsensual Nudes
https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-remove-nudes-take-it-down-act/
-
How to Make Apps and Websites Remove Your Nonconsensual Nudes
https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-remove-nudes-take-it-down-act/
-
How to Make Apps and Websites Remove Your Nonconsensual Nudes
https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-remove-nudes-take-it-down-act/
-
How to Make Apps and Websites Remove Your Nonconsensual Nudes
https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-remove-nudes-take-it-down-act/
-
https://www.europesays.com/ie/486231/ Bumble is killing the swipe and replacing it with AI matchmaking. What could go wrong? – The Journal #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #Bumble #Business #DatingApps #Éire #IE #Ireland #ModernDating #OnlineDating #Technology #WhitneyWolfeHerd
-
Found a useful AI dating assistant for anyone who gets stuck replying on dating apps: https://rizzai.ai/
RizzAI helps generate better replies, openers, rizz lines, and dating bio ideas. It’s best used as inspiration, then edited in your own voice.
-
Found a useful AI dating assistant for anyone who gets stuck replying on dating apps: https://rizzai.ai/
RizzAI helps generate better replies, openers, rizz lines, and dating bio ideas. It’s best used as inspiration, then edited in your own voice.
-
Found a useful AI dating assistant for anyone who gets stuck replying on dating apps: https://rizzai.ai/
RizzAI helps generate better replies, openers, rizz lines, and dating bio ideas. It’s best used as inspiration, then edited in your own voice.
-
Found a useful AI dating assistant for anyone who gets stuck replying on dating apps: https://rizzai.ai/
RizzAI helps generate better replies, openers, rizz lines, and dating bio ideas. It’s best used as inspiration, then edited in your own voice.
-
Found a useful AI dating assistant for anyone who gets stuck replying on dating apps: https://rizzai.ai/
RizzAI helps generate better replies, openers, rizz lines, and dating bio ideas. It’s best used as inspiration, then edited in your own voice.
-
DATE: May 14, 2026 at 04:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Making snap judgments on dating apps hurts your own perceived value as a mate
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-swiping-by-gut-feeling-on-dating-apps-might-lower-your-self-esteem/
Making snap, gut-level judgments on dating apps might leave users feeling worse about themselves than evaluating profiles methodically based on set criteria. A recent study published in Media Psychology found that while seeing a high number of potential partners increases feelings of being overwhelmed, it is the intuitive swiping strategy that actually harms users’ self-esteem and perceived value as a mate. These results suggest that the fast-paced design of modern dating platforms carries hidden psychological costs depending on how individuals choose to engage with the app.
Traditional online matchmaking agencies typically rely on lengthy questionnaires and deliberate algorithms to pair users. Modern mobile dating platforms take a vastly different approach, exposing users to a massive pool of seemingly available partners within a single session. Users are invited to evaluate these profiles rapidly with a simple swipe of their thumb. Platform designs, which offer positive social feedback in the form of matches, heavily incentivize this continuous browsing behavior.
Prior research into consumer behavior suggests that having an abundance of options can make decisions harder and leave people feeling dissatisfied. Psychologists often refer to this phenomenon as a tyranny of choice. Under this theory, an optimal environment filled with endless choices increases the pressure to succeed. If a user fails to find a partner or makes a bad choice, they have no excuses left and might blame their own personal shortcomings.
Marina F. Thomas, a researcher at the Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences in Austria, led the investigation alongside Alice Binder and Jörg Matthes from the University of Vienna. They set out to test how the sheer number of viewed profiles and the user’s personal decision-making style jointly affect psychological well-being. The investigators wanted to test whether dating apps provide the self-validation users often seek or if the apps simply overwhelm them.
To frame their experiment, the researchers utilized regulatory mode theory. This psychological concept explains that people usually make decisions using one of two primary modes. The assessment mode involves methodically judging options, comparing specific attributes, and trying to make the right, defensible choice. The locomotion mode is action-oriented. People using this mode make quick, intuitive decisions based on gut feelings, primarily trying to keep moving forward rather than overthinking.
To test these dynamics, the researchers recruited 401 undergraduate students for an online experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to view varying pools of dating app profiles. One group viewed a low number of 11 profiles, a second group viewed a medium number of 31 profiles, and a third group viewed a high number of 91 profiles. The photos were presented in a mock dating application specially designed for the study.
The researchers used a two-part method to influence how participants made their decisions. First, participants completed a writing task to prime their mindset. They wrote down personal memories of times they acted as a quick decision maker to spark the action-oriented mode, or they wrote about times they critically compared themselves to others to spark the assessment mode. A control group skipped this writing exercise and received no special instructions.
Following the writing task, participants were given explicit instructions for evaluating the dating profiles. One group was told to evaluate profiles critically, looking at specific physical traits, clothing styles, and perceived social status to make highly justified decisions. The action-oriented group was instructed to swipe intuitively and dynamically, basing their choices purely on first impressions and gut feelings.
After sorting through the mock profiles, participants answered questions designed to measure several psychological outcomes. The researchers assessed their state self-esteem, their fear of being single, how highly they rated their own value as a potential romantic partner, and how overwhelmed they felt. The software also silently recorded the percentage of profiles each participant chose to accept.
The experiment revealed that looking at a higher number of options directly increased the feeling of being overwhelmed. Participants who looked at 91 profiles reported a heavier mental burden than those who viewed fewer profiles. Evaluating more options also resulted in lower overall acceptance rates. Participants became much pickier as the abundance of choices grew, accepting a smaller percentage of the people they saw.
Contrary to the tyranny of choice theory, the sheer volume of profiles did not negatively impact self-esteem or the participants’ fears regarding their relationship status. Instead, the specific way participants made their decisions produced the psychological shifts. The results showed that swiping intuitively based on gut feelings directly led to a drop in self-esteem.
Participants who followed the quick, action-oriented strategy reported lower self-esteem than those who swiped naturally without instructions, as well as those who used specific criteria to evaluate profiles. The intuitive group also rated their own personal value as a mate lower than the other groups did. The research team noted this was an unexpected outcome, as previous theories suggested that highly critical, criteria-based decision-making typically caused more stress and self-doubt in consumer settings.
The authors suspect that making intuitive choices places the entire burden of the decision on the user’s internal feelings rather than observable facts. Because romantic preferences are difficult to perfectly define, relying solely on unexplainable gut instincts might make users feel uneasy. As a result, they might misdirect that unease inward, causing them to doubt their own self-worth. By contrast, relying on concrete traits provides an external buffer that protects the ego from the weight of the decision.
Another possible explanation involves cognitive friction regarding the format of the dating app. A static dating profile primarily displays unmoving photos and brief text, which naturally lends itself to critical evaluation. Pushing users to react quickly and intuitively to static photos might create a mismatch between the task and the mental mode. Users might misinterpret this subtle mental mismatch as a personal inadequacy.
The chosen swiping strategy also influenced when participants started to feel mentally overloaded. For people using strict criteria or swiping naturally, looking at 31 profiles felt about as manageable as looking at 11 profiles. For those swiping based on gut instincts, the feeling of being overwhelmed spiked much earlier, hitting just as hard at 31 profiles as it did when evaluating 91 profiles.
While the experiment provides a detailed window into dating app use, the study has practical limitations depending on its simulated nature. The decisions made during the experiment carried no actual social consequences, meaning participants knew they would not go on real dates with the people they evaluated. In a functioning dating app, users might put varying levels of effort into their choices because real rejections or connections are at stake.
The study also relied on a sample composed largely of young college students evaluating portraits tailored specifically to their demographic. The authors noted that college students often work in environments that reward critical assessment, which might have made the intuitive swiping task feel unusually foreign. Future research should involve more diverse populations encompassing different age groups and educational backgrounds.
Future investigations could also track actual dating app behaviors over time to see how self-reported decision styles hold up outside a laboratory environment. Implementing technology like eye-tracking software could help researchers observe what kind of profile information users focus on naturally. This approach would allow scientists to study natural swiping mechanisms accurately without relying on explicit behavioral instructions.
The study, “Decision-Making on Dating Apps: Is Swiping More Less and Swiping Right Wrong?,” was authored by Marina F. Thomas, Alice Binder, and Jörg Matthes.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-swiping-by-gut-feeling-on-dating-apps-might-lower-your-self-esteem/
-------------------------------------------------
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot
Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com
EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org
READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org
It's primitive... but it works... mostly...
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #DatingApps #SwipeRight #SelfEsteem #TyrannyOfChoice #IntuitiveSwipe #DecisionMaking #RomanticRelationships #ProfileEvaluation #PsychologyOfDating #DatingAppTips
-
DATE: May 14, 2026 at 04:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Making snap judgments on dating apps hurts your own perceived value as a mate
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-swiping-by-gut-feeling-on-dating-apps-might-lower-your-self-esteem/
Making snap, gut-level judgments on dating apps might leave users feeling worse about themselves than evaluating profiles methodically based on set criteria. A recent study published in Media Psychology found that while seeing a high number of potential partners increases feelings of being overwhelmed, it is the intuitive swiping strategy that actually harms users’ self-esteem and perceived value as a mate. These results suggest that the fast-paced design of modern dating platforms carries hidden psychological costs depending on how individuals choose to engage with the app.
Traditional online matchmaking agencies typically rely on lengthy questionnaires and deliberate algorithms to pair users. Modern mobile dating platforms take a vastly different approach, exposing users to a massive pool of seemingly available partners within a single session. Users are invited to evaluate these profiles rapidly with a simple swipe of their thumb. Platform designs, which offer positive social feedback in the form of matches, heavily incentivize this continuous browsing behavior.
Prior research into consumer behavior suggests that having an abundance of options can make decisions harder and leave people feeling dissatisfied. Psychologists often refer to this phenomenon as a tyranny of choice. Under this theory, an optimal environment filled with endless choices increases the pressure to succeed. If a user fails to find a partner or makes a bad choice, they have no excuses left and might blame their own personal shortcomings.
Marina F. Thomas, a researcher at the Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences in Austria, led the investigation alongside Alice Binder and Jörg Matthes from the University of Vienna. They set out to test how the sheer number of viewed profiles and the user’s personal decision-making style jointly affect psychological well-being. The investigators wanted to test whether dating apps provide the self-validation users often seek or if the apps simply overwhelm them.
To frame their experiment, the researchers utilized regulatory mode theory. This psychological concept explains that people usually make decisions using one of two primary modes. The assessment mode involves methodically judging options, comparing specific attributes, and trying to make the right, defensible choice. The locomotion mode is action-oriented. People using this mode make quick, intuitive decisions based on gut feelings, primarily trying to keep moving forward rather than overthinking.
To test these dynamics, the researchers recruited 401 undergraduate students for an online experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to view varying pools of dating app profiles. One group viewed a low number of 11 profiles, a second group viewed a medium number of 31 profiles, and a third group viewed a high number of 91 profiles. The photos were presented in a mock dating application specially designed for the study.
The researchers used a two-part method to influence how participants made their decisions. First, participants completed a writing task to prime their mindset. They wrote down personal memories of times they acted as a quick decision maker to spark the action-oriented mode, or they wrote about times they critically compared themselves to others to spark the assessment mode. A control group skipped this writing exercise and received no special instructions.
Following the writing task, participants were given explicit instructions for evaluating the dating profiles. One group was told to evaluate profiles critically, looking at specific physical traits, clothing styles, and perceived social status to make highly justified decisions. The action-oriented group was instructed to swipe intuitively and dynamically, basing their choices purely on first impressions and gut feelings.
After sorting through the mock profiles, participants answered questions designed to measure several psychological outcomes. The researchers assessed their state self-esteem, their fear of being single, how highly they rated their own value as a potential romantic partner, and how overwhelmed they felt. The software also silently recorded the percentage of profiles each participant chose to accept.
The experiment revealed that looking at a higher number of options directly increased the feeling of being overwhelmed. Participants who looked at 91 profiles reported a heavier mental burden than those who viewed fewer profiles. Evaluating more options also resulted in lower overall acceptance rates. Participants became much pickier as the abundance of choices grew, accepting a smaller percentage of the people they saw.
Contrary to the tyranny of choice theory, the sheer volume of profiles did not negatively impact self-esteem or the participants’ fears regarding their relationship status. Instead, the specific way participants made their decisions produced the psychological shifts. The results showed that swiping intuitively based on gut feelings directly led to a drop in self-esteem.
Participants who followed the quick, action-oriented strategy reported lower self-esteem than those who swiped naturally without instructions, as well as those who used specific criteria to evaluate profiles. The intuitive group also rated their own personal value as a mate lower than the other groups did. The research team noted this was an unexpected outcome, as previous theories suggested that highly critical, criteria-based decision-making typically caused more stress and self-doubt in consumer settings.
The authors suspect that making intuitive choices places the entire burden of the decision on the user’s internal feelings rather than observable facts. Because romantic preferences are difficult to perfectly define, relying solely on unexplainable gut instincts might make users feel uneasy. As a result, they might misdirect that unease inward, causing them to doubt their own self-worth. By contrast, relying on concrete traits provides an external buffer that protects the ego from the weight of the decision.
Another possible explanation involves cognitive friction regarding the format of the dating app. A static dating profile primarily displays unmoving photos and brief text, which naturally lends itself to critical evaluation. Pushing users to react quickly and intuitively to static photos might create a mismatch between the task and the mental mode. Users might misinterpret this subtle mental mismatch as a personal inadequacy.
The chosen swiping strategy also influenced when participants started to feel mentally overloaded. For people using strict criteria or swiping naturally, looking at 31 profiles felt about as manageable as looking at 11 profiles. For those swiping based on gut instincts, the feeling of being overwhelmed spiked much earlier, hitting just as hard at 31 profiles as it did when evaluating 91 profiles.
While the experiment provides a detailed window into dating app use, the study has practical limitations depending on its simulated nature. The decisions made during the experiment carried no actual social consequences, meaning participants knew they would not go on real dates with the people they evaluated. In a functioning dating app, users might put varying levels of effort into their choices because real rejections or connections are at stake.
The study also relied on a sample composed largely of young college students evaluating portraits tailored specifically to their demographic. The authors noted that college students often work in environments that reward critical assessment, which might have made the intuitive swiping task feel unusually foreign. Future research should involve more diverse populations encompassing different age groups and educational backgrounds.
Future investigations could also track actual dating app behaviors over time to see how self-reported decision styles hold up outside a laboratory environment. Implementing technology like eye-tracking software could help researchers observe what kind of profile information users focus on naturally. This approach would allow scientists to study natural swiping mechanisms accurately without relying on explicit behavioral instructions.
The study, “Decision-Making on Dating Apps: Is Swiping More Less and Swiping Right Wrong?,” was authored by Marina F. Thomas, Alice Binder, and Jörg Matthes.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-swiping-by-gut-feeling-on-dating-apps-might-lower-your-self-esteem/
-------------------------------------------------
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot
Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com
EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org
READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org
It's primitive... but it works... mostly...
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #DatingApps #SwipeRight #SelfEsteem #TyrannyOfChoice #IntuitiveSwipe #DecisionMaking #RomanticRelationships #ProfileEvaluation #PsychologyOfDating #DatingAppTips
-
DATE: May 14, 2026 at 04:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Making snap judgments on dating apps hurts your own perceived value as a mate
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-swiping-by-gut-feeling-on-dating-apps-might-lower-your-self-esteem/
Making snap, gut-level judgments on dating apps might leave users feeling worse about themselves than evaluating profiles methodically based on set criteria. A recent study published in Media Psychology found that while seeing a high number of potential partners increases feelings of being overwhelmed, it is the intuitive swiping strategy that actually harms users’ self-esteem and perceived value as a mate. These results suggest that the fast-paced design of modern dating platforms carries hidden psychological costs depending on how individuals choose to engage with the app.
Traditional online matchmaking agencies typically rely on lengthy questionnaires and deliberate algorithms to pair users. Modern mobile dating platforms take a vastly different approach, exposing users to a massive pool of seemingly available partners within a single session. Users are invited to evaluate these profiles rapidly with a simple swipe of their thumb. Platform designs, which offer positive social feedback in the form of matches, heavily incentivize this continuous browsing behavior.
Prior research into consumer behavior suggests that having an abundance of options can make decisions harder and leave people feeling dissatisfied. Psychologists often refer to this phenomenon as a tyranny of choice. Under this theory, an optimal environment filled with endless choices increases the pressure to succeed. If a user fails to find a partner or makes a bad choice, they have no excuses left and might blame their own personal shortcomings.
Marina F. Thomas, a researcher at the Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences in Austria, led the investigation alongside Alice Binder and Jörg Matthes from the University of Vienna. They set out to test how the sheer number of viewed profiles and the user’s personal decision-making style jointly affect psychological well-being. The investigators wanted to test whether dating apps provide the self-validation users often seek or if the apps simply overwhelm them.
To frame their experiment, the researchers utilized regulatory mode theory. This psychological concept explains that people usually make decisions using one of two primary modes. The assessment mode involves methodically judging options, comparing specific attributes, and trying to make the right, defensible choice. The locomotion mode is action-oriented. People using this mode make quick, intuitive decisions based on gut feelings, primarily trying to keep moving forward rather than overthinking.
To test these dynamics, the researchers recruited 401 undergraduate students for an online experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to view varying pools of dating app profiles. One group viewed a low number of 11 profiles, a second group viewed a medium number of 31 profiles, and a third group viewed a high number of 91 profiles. The photos were presented in a mock dating application specially designed for the study.
The researchers used a two-part method to influence how participants made their decisions. First, participants completed a writing task to prime their mindset. They wrote down personal memories of times they acted as a quick decision maker to spark the action-oriented mode, or they wrote about times they critically compared themselves to others to spark the assessment mode. A control group skipped this writing exercise and received no special instructions.
Following the writing task, participants were given explicit instructions for evaluating the dating profiles. One group was told to evaluate profiles critically, looking at specific physical traits, clothing styles, and perceived social status to make highly justified decisions. The action-oriented group was instructed to swipe intuitively and dynamically, basing their choices purely on first impressions and gut feelings.
After sorting through the mock profiles, participants answered questions designed to measure several psychological outcomes. The researchers assessed their state self-esteem, their fear of being single, how highly they rated their own value as a potential romantic partner, and how overwhelmed they felt. The software also silently recorded the percentage of profiles each participant chose to accept.
The experiment revealed that looking at a higher number of options directly increased the feeling of being overwhelmed. Participants who looked at 91 profiles reported a heavier mental burden than those who viewed fewer profiles. Evaluating more options also resulted in lower overall acceptance rates. Participants became much pickier as the abundance of choices grew, accepting a smaller percentage of the people they saw.
Contrary to the tyranny of choice theory, the sheer volume of profiles did not negatively impact self-esteem or the participants’ fears regarding their relationship status. Instead, the specific way participants made their decisions produced the psychological shifts. The results showed that swiping intuitively based on gut feelings directly led to a drop in self-esteem.
Participants who followed the quick, action-oriented strategy reported lower self-esteem than those who swiped naturally without instructions, as well as those who used specific criteria to evaluate profiles. The intuitive group also rated their own personal value as a mate lower than the other groups did. The research team noted this was an unexpected outcome, as previous theories suggested that highly critical, criteria-based decision-making typically caused more stress and self-doubt in consumer settings.
The authors suspect that making intuitive choices places the entire burden of the decision on the user’s internal feelings rather than observable facts. Because romantic preferences are difficult to perfectly define, relying solely on unexplainable gut instincts might make users feel uneasy. As a result, they might misdirect that unease inward, causing them to doubt their own self-worth. By contrast, relying on concrete traits provides an external buffer that protects the ego from the weight of the decision.
Another possible explanation involves cognitive friction regarding the format of the dating app. A static dating profile primarily displays unmoving photos and brief text, which naturally lends itself to critical evaluation. Pushing users to react quickly and intuitively to static photos might create a mismatch between the task and the mental mode. Users might misinterpret this subtle mental mismatch as a personal inadequacy.
The chosen swiping strategy also influenced when participants started to feel mentally overloaded. For people using strict criteria or swiping naturally, looking at 31 profiles felt about as manageable as looking at 11 profiles. For those swiping based on gut instincts, the feeling of being overwhelmed spiked much earlier, hitting just as hard at 31 profiles as it did when evaluating 91 profiles.
While the experiment provides a detailed window into dating app use, the study has practical limitations depending on its simulated nature. The decisions made during the experiment carried no actual social consequences, meaning participants knew they would not go on real dates with the people they evaluated. In a functioning dating app, users might put varying levels of effort into their choices because real rejections or connections are at stake.
The study also relied on a sample composed largely of young college students evaluating portraits tailored specifically to their demographic. The authors noted that college students often work in environments that reward critical assessment, which might have made the intuitive swiping task feel unusually foreign. Future research should involve more diverse populations encompassing different age groups and educational backgrounds.
Future investigations could also track actual dating app behaviors over time to see how self-reported decision styles hold up outside a laboratory environment. Implementing technology like eye-tracking software could help researchers observe what kind of profile information users focus on naturally. This approach would allow scientists to study natural swiping mechanisms accurately without relying on explicit behavioral instructions.
The study, “Decision-Making on Dating Apps: Is Swiping More Less and Swiping Right Wrong?,” was authored by Marina F. Thomas, Alice Binder, and Jörg Matthes.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-swiping-by-gut-feeling-on-dating-apps-might-lower-your-self-esteem/
-------------------------------------------------
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot
Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com
EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org
READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org
It's primitive... but it works... mostly...
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #DatingApps #SwipeRight #SelfEsteem #TyrannyOfChoice #IntuitiveSwipe #DecisionMaking #RomanticRelationships #ProfileEvaluation #PsychologyOfDating #DatingAppTips
-
Chelsea Handler slams modern dating culture, says men struggle to commit
Chelsea Handler is sounding off on modern dating, and, according to the comedian, the problem is men. During a…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #Celebrities #celebritydating #CelebrityNews #ChelseaHandler #datingapps #Entertainment #SexandRelationships
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/642376/ -
Chelsea Handler slams modern dating culture, says men struggle to commit
Chelsea Handler is sounding off on modern dating, and, according to the comedian, the problem is men. During a…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #Celebrities #celebritydating #CelebrityNews #ChelseaHandler #datingapps #Entertainment #SexandRelationships
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/642376/ -
Survey suggests sexting is changing modern relationships
https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://nerds.xyz/2026/05/sexting-modern-relationships-survey/
-
Survey suggests sexting is changing modern relationships
https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://nerds.xyz/2026/05/sexting-modern-relationships-survey/
-
DATE: May 12, 2026 at 02:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Does romantic rejection hurt more than platonic rejection? A new study says no
Most people assume that rejection by a potential romantic partner is far more painful than rejection by a prospective friend. However, new research published in the European Journal of Social Psychology suggests that, when rejection is actually experienced, the emotional impact is remarkably similar regardless of whether it comes from a romantic or a platonic source.
Romantic rejection is often seen as uniquely devastating, in part because modern societies place heavy emotional expectations on romantic relationships. However, researchers have long noted that humans are broadly motivated by a fundamental need for belonging. Social rejection tends to hurt across all contexts because it threatens shared psychological needs, such as feeling valued, in control, and meaningful.
What has been less clear is whether rejection by a potential romantic partner is more painful than rejection in a friendship context. Given the intense expectations placed on romantic relationships—which are often expected to fulfill a wide range of emotional and personal needs—it has seemed plausible that being denied such a relationship would be especially distressing.
To examine these assumptions, researchers conducted three related studies. In the first, 1,500 American adults were asked which type of rejection they believed would be more painful: being turned down by a potential romantic partner or by a potential friend. The responses largely reflected common intuitions: approximately half expected romantic rejection to be worse, compared with roughly a quarter who anticipated greater pain from platonic rejection, while the remaining participants believed both would be equally distressing.
Led by Natasha R. Wood of Leiden University in the Netherlands, the team then tested real‑time responses to rejection in a controlled experimental setting. In Study 2, 934 single adults aged 18 to 29 (57.9% women; average age 23.4) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: accepted or rejected by either a potential romantic partner or a potential platonic friend.
Participants engaged with a simulated app environment, designed to resemble dating or social networking platforms, and received either positive or negative feedback from profiles purportedly representing other users. Afterward, they reported how they felt across a range of measures capturing their sense of belonging, self-worth, and emotional wellbeing.
The researchers found that rejection reliably reduced wellbeing, and acceptance reliably enhanced it, but the type of relationship framing—romantic versus platonic—had no effect on emotional outcomes. The team also tested whether feelings of romantic instrumentality (seeing a partner as someone who would help you achieve more of your goals in life) or self-blame might explain any romantic-versus-platonic difference in pain. Neither emerged as a meaningful driver.
In a third study involving 477 participants (73.6% women; average age 20.3), predicted emotional reactions were compared with actual emotional experiences. The researchers also added a “stranger control” group, in which participants were told there was no expectation of forming a relationship of any kind.
Participants were asked to forecast how they would feel before receiving feedback, then report how they felt afterward. Once again, relationship type did not meaningfully influence emotional responses; rejection by a stranger hurt just as much as rejection by a potential date. Furthermore, participants consistently overestimated the intensity of both outcomes, particularly the pain of rejection.
Wood and colleagues put it simply: “It seems the experience of being accepted is so positive and the experience of being rejected is so negative that it does not matter who is doing so.”
There are, however, important caveats to keep in mind. For example, the study was conducted exclusively with American participants, which limits how far the findings can be generalised across different cultures where romantic and platonic relationships may be valued differently. Furthermore, the simulated app environment may not perfectly capture the intense emotions of an in-person rejection.
The study, “What Could Have Been: Predicted and Actual Exclusion by Potential Romantic Partners and Platonic Friends,” was authored by Natasha R. Wood, Sydney G. Wicks, Adam J. Beam, Elijah P. Mudryk, Ellie Bray, and Andrew H. Hales.
-------------------------------------------------
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot
Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com
EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org
READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org
It's primitive... but it works... mostly...
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #romanticrejection #platonicrejection #socialpsychology #belongingness #emotionalwellbeing #rejectionresearch #datingapps #selfworth #humanneeds #relationshipsstudy
-
DATE: May 12, 2026 at 02:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Does romantic rejection hurt more than platonic rejection? A new study says no
Most people assume that rejection by a potential romantic partner is far more painful than rejection by a prospective friend. However, new research published in the European Journal of Social Psychology suggests that, when rejection is actually experienced, the emotional impact is remarkably similar regardless of whether it comes from a romantic or a platonic source.
Romantic rejection is often seen as uniquely devastating, in part because modern societies place heavy emotional expectations on romantic relationships. However, researchers have long noted that humans are broadly motivated by a fundamental need for belonging. Social rejection tends to hurt across all contexts because it threatens shared psychological needs, such as feeling valued, in control, and meaningful.
What has been less clear is whether rejection by a potential romantic partner is more painful than rejection in a friendship context. Given the intense expectations placed on romantic relationships—which are often expected to fulfill a wide range of emotional and personal needs—it has seemed plausible that being denied such a relationship would be especially distressing.
To examine these assumptions, researchers conducted three related studies. In the first, 1,500 American adults were asked which type of rejection they believed would be more painful: being turned down by a potential romantic partner or by a potential friend. The responses largely reflected common intuitions: approximately half expected romantic rejection to be worse, compared with roughly a quarter who anticipated greater pain from platonic rejection, while the remaining participants believed both would be equally distressing.
Led by Natasha R. Wood of Leiden University in the Netherlands, the team then tested real‑time responses to rejection in a controlled experimental setting. In Study 2, 934 single adults aged 18 to 29 (57.9% women; average age 23.4) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: accepted or rejected by either a potential romantic partner or a potential platonic friend.
Participants engaged with a simulated app environment, designed to resemble dating or social networking platforms, and received either positive or negative feedback from profiles purportedly representing other users. Afterward, they reported how they felt across a range of measures capturing their sense of belonging, self-worth, and emotional wellbeing.
The researchers found that rejection reliably reduced wellbeing, and acceptance reliably enhanced it, but the type of relationship framing—romantic versus platonic—had no effect on emotional outcomes. The team also tested whether feelings of romantic instrumentality (seeing a partner as someone who would help you achieve more of your goals in life) or self-blame might explain any romantic-versus-platonic difference in pain. Neither emerged as a meaningful driver.
In a third study involving 477 participants (73.6% women; average age 20.3), predicted emotional reactions were compared with actual emotional experiences. The researchers also added a “stranger control” group, in which participants were told there was no expectation of forming a relationship of any kind.
Participants were asked to forecast how they would feel before receiving feedback, then report how they felt afterward. Once again, relationship type did not meaningfully influence emotional responses; rejection by a stranger hurt just as much as rejection by a potential date. Furthermore, participants consistently overestimated the intensity of both outcomes, particularly the pain of rejection.
Wood and colleagues put it simply: “It seems the experience of being accepted is so positive and the experience of being rejected is so negative that it does not matter who is doing so.”
There are, however, important caveats to keep in mind. For example, the study was conducted exclusively with American participants, which limits how far the findings can be generalised across different cultures where romantic and platonic relationships may be valued differently. Furthermore, the simulated app environment may not perfectly capture the intense emotions of an in-person rejection.
The study, “What Could Have Been: Predicted and Actual Exclusion by Potential Romantic Partners and Platonic Friends,” was authored by Natasha R. Wood, Sydney G. Wicks, Adam J. Beam, Elijah P. Mudryk, Ellie Bray, and Andrew H. Hales.
-------------------------------------------------
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot
Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com
EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org
READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org
It's primitive... but it works... mostly...
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #romanticrejection #platonicrejection #socialpsychology #belongingness #emotionalwellbeing #rejectionresearch #datingapps #selfworth #humanneeds #relationshipsstudy
-
DATE: May 12, 2026 at 02:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Does romantic rejection hurt more than platonic rejection? A new study says no
Most people assume that rejection by a potential romantic partner is far more painful than rejection by a prospective friend. However, new research published in the European Journal of Social Psychology suggests that, when rejection is actually experienced, the emotional impact is remarkably similar regardless of whether it comes from a romantic or a platonic source.
Romantic rejection is often seen as uniquely devastating, in part because modern societies place heavy emotional expectations on romantic relationships. However, researchers have long noted that humans are broadly motivated by a fundamental need for belonging. Social rejection tends to hurt across all contexts because it threatens shared psychological needs, such as feeling valued, in control, and meaningful.
What has been less clear is whether rejection by a potential romantic partner is more painful than rejection in a friendship context. Given the intense expectations placed on romantic relationships—which are often expected to fulfill a wide range of emotional and personal needs—it has seemed plausible that being denied such a relationship would be especially distressing.
To examine these assumptions, researchers conducted three related studies. In the first, 1,500 American adults were asked which type of rejection they believed would be more painful: being turned down by a potential romantic partner or by a potential friend. The responses largely reflected common intuitions: approximately half expected romantic rejection to be worse, compared with roughly a quarter who anticipated greater pain from platonic rejection, while the remaining participants believed both would be equally distressing.
Led by Natasha R. Wood of Leiden University in the Netherlands, the team then tested real‑time responses to rejection in a controlled experimental setting. In Study 2, 934 single adults aged 18 to 29 (57.9% women; average age 23.4) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: accepted or rejected by either a potential romantic partner or a potential platonic friend.
Participants engaged with a simulated app environment, designed to resemble dating or social networking platforms, and received either positive or negative feedback from profiles purportedly representing other users. Afterward, they reported how they felt across a range of measures capturing their sense of belonging, self-worth, and emotional wellbeing.
The researchers found that rejection reliably reduced wellbeing, and acceptance reliably enhanced it, but the type of relationship framing—romantic versus platonic—had no effect on emotional outcomes. The team also tested whether feelings of romantic instrumentality (seeing a partner as someone who would help you achieve more of your goals in life) or self-blame might explain any romantic-versus-platonic difference in pain. Neither emerged as a meaningful driver.
In a third study involving 477 participants (73.6% women; average age 20.3), predicted emotional reactions were compared with actual emotional experiences. The researchers also added a “stranger control” group, in which participants were told there was no expectation of forming a relationship of any kind.
Participants were asked to forecast how they would feel before receiving feedback, then report how they felt afterward. Once again, relationship type did not meaningfully influence emotional responses; rejection by a stranger hurt just as much as rejection by a potential date. Furthermore, participants consistently overestimated the intensity of both outcomes, particularly the pain of rejection.
Wood and colleagues put it simply: “It seems the experience of being accepted is so positive and the experience of being rejected is so negative that it does not matter who is doing so.”
There are, however, important caveats to keep in mind. For example, the study was conducted exclusively with American participants, which limits how far the findings can be generalised across different cultures where romantic and platonic relationships may be valued differently. Furthermore, the simulated app environment may not perfectly capture the intense emotions of an in-person rejection.
The study, “What Could Have Been: Predicted and Actual Exclusion by Potential Romantic Partners and Platonic Friends,” was authored by Natasha R. Wood, Sydney G. Wicks, Adam J. Beam, Elijah P. Mudryk, Ellie Bray, and Andrew H. Hales.
-------------------------------------------------
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot
Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com
EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org
READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org
It's primitive... but it works... mostly...
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #romanticrejection #platonicrejection #socialpsychology #belongingness #emotionalwellbeing #rejectionresearch #datingapps #selfworth #humanneeds #relationshipsstudy
-
Dating? You Will Never Be Done Dealing With This
https://wp.me/p84YjG-aSc
#dating #relationships #trust #cheating #socialmedia #disappointment #betrayal #games #pacaran #pacar #partner #zsoltzsemba #past #socialmedia #datingapps #partner #wife #husband #suami #istrihttps://zsoltzsemba.com/dating-relationships-will-never-be-trust-dealing-with-this/
-
Dating? You Will Never Be Done Dealing With This
https://wp.me/p84YjG-aSc
#dating #relationships #trust #cheating #socialmedia #disappointment #betrayal #games #pacaran #pacar #partner #zsoltzsemba #past #socialmedia #datingapps #partner #wife #husband #suami #istrihttps://zsoltzsemba.com/dating-relationships-will-never-be-trust-dealing-with-this/
-
Dating? You Will Never Be Done Dealing With This
https://wp.me/p84YjG-aSc
#dating #relationships #trust #cheating #socialmedia #disappointment #betrayal #games #pacaran #pacar #partner #zsoltzsemba #past #socialmedia #datingapps #partner #wife #husband #suami #istrihttps://zsoltzsemba.com/dating-relationships-will-never-be-trust-dealing-with-this/
-
Dating? You Will Never Be Done Dealing With This
https://wp.me/p84YjG-aSc
#dating #relationships #trust #cheating #socialmedia #disappointment #betrayal #games #pacaran #pacar #partner #zsoltzsemba #past #socialmedia #datingapps #partner #wife #husband #suami #istrihttps://zsoltzsemba.com/dating-relationships-will-never-be-trust-dealing-with-this/
-
Dating? You Will Never Be Done Dealing With This
https://wp.me/p84YjG-aSc
#dating #relationships #trust #cheating #socialmedia #disappointment #betrayal #games #pacaran #pacar #partner #zsoltzsemba #past #socialmedia #datingapps #partner #wife #husband #suami #istrihttps://zsoltzsemba.com/dating-relationships-will-never-be-trust-dealing-with-this/
-
Would you pay an app to help you make new friends?
First there were dating apps. Now, there are apps not just for meeting romantic mates, but platonic ones,…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #Mobile #Bumble #datingapps #friendship #Networking #socialnetwork #Technology
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/633798/ -
Would you pay an app to help you make new friends?
First there were dating apps. Now, there are apps not just for meeting romantic mates, but platonic ones,…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #Mobile #Bumble #datingapps #friendship #Networking #socialnetwork #Technology
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/633798/ -
Sexualized Dating Profiles: A Double-Edged Sword in the Search for Connection
New research shows sexualized dating profiles might get attention but can make people seem less ready for serious relationships. Find out why.
#DatingApps, #RelationshipAdvice, #OnlineDating, #DatingTips, #LoveLife
https://newsletter.tf/sexual-dating-profiles-hurt-long-term-relationship-chances/
-
Weird: This Person Who Listed Their Political Affiliation as ‘Moderate’ on Dating App Seems To Love Donald Trump
-
Weird: This Person Who Listed Their Political Affiliation as ‘Moderate’ on Dating App Seems To Love Donald Trump
-
Weird: This Person Who Listed Their Political Affiliation as ‘Moderate’ on Dating App Seems To Love Donald Trump
-
Weird: This Person Who Listed Their Political Affiliation as ‘Moderate’ on Dating App Seems To Love Donald Trump
-
A viral post on X has left the internet amused after a woman claimed she once matched with New York’s new mayor Zohran Mamdani on Hinge but rejected him for 'being too short.' https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/world/woman-rejected-zohran-mamdani-on-hinge-over-height-nwrso4f8?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #ZohranMamdani #NewYorkMayor #DatingApps #ViralPost
-
A viral post on X has left the internet amused after a woman claimed she once matched with New York’s new mayor Zohran Mamdani on Hinge but rejected him for 'being too short.' https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/world/woman-rejected-zohran-mamdani-on-hinge-over-height-nwrso4f8?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #ZohranMamdani #NewYorkMayor #DatingApps #ViralPost
-
A viral post on X has left the internet amused after a woman claimed she once matched with New York’s new mayor Zohran Mamdani on Hinge but rejected him for 'being too short.' https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/world/woman-rejected-zohran-mamdani-on-hinge-over-height-nwrso4f8?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #ZohranMamdani #NewYorkMayor #DatingApps #ViralPost
-
Feeld Was a Dating App for the Freaks. Now Some People Call It ‘Normie Hell’
-
My opinion: If I install and pay for dating apps: Tinder, Boo, Bumble; then basically the partner I find there isn't certain to be a partner. I think they are more like a product of those dating apps because we paid for our ads as customers. Our profiles are boosted, special perks like double verification ticks are enabled, and we paid for a list of who stalks our profiles. Now I realise why people hate dating apps. Now I realise why I have never found a partner from dating apps. Because my partner should never be a product, but a PARTNER, and full stop. Yeah.
#datingapps #tinder #bumble #boo #capitalism #humantech #relationships #modernrelationships #critique #commodification #connection #authenticity #selfworth #partner #love #dating #ethics #datingadvice #apps #digital