#selfesteem — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #selfesteem, aggregated by home.social.
-
So let us look for beauty and grace, for love and friendship, for that which is creative and birth-giving and soul-stretching. Let us dare to laugh at ourselves, healthy, affirmative laughter. Only when we take ourselves lightly can we take ourselves seriously, so that we are given the courage to say, “Yes! I dare disturb the universe.”
Madeleine L'Engle (1918-2007) American writer
Speech (1983-11-16), “Dare To Be Creative,” Lecture, Library of Congress, Washington, DCMore about this quote: wist.info/lengle-madeleine/838…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #lengle #madeleinelengle #agency #beauty #change #courage #creativity #disturbing #gravitas #humility #humor #laughter #lightheartedness #selfactualization #selfaffirmation #selfappreciation #selfchallenging #selfesteem #selfimage #selfimportance #selfliberation #selfregard.selftrust #selfunderstanding #selfworth #senseofhumor #stretchgoals
-
So let us look for beauty and grace, for love and friendship, for that which is creative and birth-giving and soul-stretching. Let us dare to laugh at ourselves, healthy, affirmative laughter. Only when we take ourselves lightly can we take ourselves seriously, so that we are given the courage to say, “Yes! I dare disturb the universe.”
Madeleine L'Engle (1918-2007) American writer
Speech (1983-11-16), “Dare To Be Creative,” Lecture, Library of Congress, Washington, DCMore about this quote: wist.info/lengle-madeleine/838…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #lengle #madeleinelengle #agency #beauty #change #courage #creativity #disturbing #gravitas #humility #humor #laughter #lightheartedness #selfactualization #selfaffirmation #selfappreciation #selfchallenging #selfesteem #selfimage #selfimportance #selfliberation #selfregard.selftrust #selfunderstanding #selfworth #senseofhumor #stretchgoals
-
So let us look for beauty and grace, for love and friendship, for that which is creative and birth-giving and soul-stretching. Let us dare to laugh at ourselves, healthy, affirmative laughter. Only when we take ourselves lightly can we take ourselves seriously, so that we are given the courage to say, “Yes! I dare disturb the universe.”
Madeleine L'Engle (1918-2007) American writer
Speech (1983-11-16), “Dare To Be Creative,” Lecture, Library of Congress, Washington, DCMore about this quote: wist.info/lengle-madeleine/838…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #lengle #madeleinelengle #agency #beauty #change #courage #creativity #disturbing #gravitas #humility #humor #laughter #lightheartedness #selfactualization #selfaffirmation #selfappreciation #selfchallenging #selfesteem #selfimage #selfimportance #selfliberation #selfregard.selftrust #selfunderstanding #selfworth #senseofhumor #stretchgoals
-
So let us look for beauty and grace, for love and friendship, for that which is creative and birth-giving and soul-stretching. Let us dare to laugh at ourselves, healthy, affirmative laughter. Only when we take ourselves lightly can we take ourselves seriously, so that we are given the courage to say, “Yes! I dare disturb the universe.”
Madeleine L'Engle (1918-2007) American writer
Speech (1983-11-16), “Dare To Be Creative,” Lecture, Library of Congress, Washington, DCMore about this quote: wist.info/lengle-madeleine/838…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #lengle #madeleinelengle #agency #beauty #change #courage #creativity #disturbing #gravitas #humility #humor #laughter #lightheartedness #selfactualization #selfaffirmation #selfappreciation #selfchallenging #selfesteem #selfimage #selfimportance #selfliberation #selfregard.selftrust #selfunderstanding #selfworth #senseofhumor #stretchgoals
-
DON'T LET ATTR(ule)ACTIVE PEOPLE TRICK YOU INTO HAVING SELF-ESTEEM
-
DON'T LET ATTR(ule)ACTIVE PEOPLE TRICK YOU INTO HAVING SELF-ESTEEM
-
DON'T LET ATTR(ule)ACTIVE PEOPLE TRICK YOU INTO HAVING SELF-ESTEEM
-
DON'T LET ATTR(ule)ACTIVE PEOPLE TRICK YOU INTO HAVING SELF-ESTEEM
-
You're giving a better impression than you realize! Give yourself some time to prepare if you're not at ease, then you're good to go! You'll be doing amazing! ✨
#furrycommunity #selfconfidence #selfesteem #socialinteractions #furryfandom
-
“Before you diagnose yourself with #depression or low #selfesteem, first make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.”
- William Gibson
-
“Before you diagnose yourself with #depression or low #selfesteem, first make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.”
- William Gibson
-
“Before you diagnose yourself with #depression or low #selfesteem, first make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.”
- William Gibson
-
DATE: May 16, 2026 at 06:00PM
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: How personality traits and attachment styles shape women’s reactions to infidelity
Women’s reactions to an unfaithful partner may depend on a mixture of personality traits, attachment styles, and past relationship experiences. Research investigating these personal characteristics suggests that specific behavioral tendencies are linked to whether someone might forgive a cheating partner or stay in the relationship. The findings were published in The Journal of Psychology.
When a romantic partner forms a secretive sexual or emotional connection with someone else, the betrayed partner often experiences immense distress. Infidelity is one of the most common reasons couples break up or divorce. For the partners who are cheated on, the discovery of deceit can severely impact their mental health.
Women in heterosexual relationships are statistically more likely to experience a partner’s extradyadic affair. The aftermath of this deception can lead to episodes of major depression, anxiety, and a sharp decline in overall psychological well-being. Even if the couple decides to stay together, the betrayed person remains highly susceptible to enduring emotional pain.
Researchers wanted to understand which personal characteristics might identify who is most vulnerable to these negative outcomes and who might be inclined to forgive. Lead author Grace White, a psychologist at the University of Central Florida, along with Alejandra Medina Fernandez and Adrianna J. Valencia, designed a study to explore this dynamic. They investigated women’s actual and anticipated responses to betrayal in romantic relationships.
To build their behavioral profile, the researchers relied on several established psychological concepts. The first is the five-factor model of personality, which groups human behavior into five main traits. Extraversion describes an outgoing and highly social nature. Neuroticism involves a tendency toward negative emotions like anxiety or mood swings. Agreeableness reflects a person’s cooperative and compassionate tendencies. Conscientiousness relates to organization and dependability, while openness involves a preference for novelty and creativity.
The research team also looked at adult attachment styles. According to attachment theory, the bonds formed in early childhood influence how adults relate to their romantic partners. Insecure attachment comes in a few forms. Anxious attachment involves a constant worry about rejection and a fear that a partner does not truly reciprocate love. Dependent attachment describes how much a person relies on others and believes those people will be there for them. A person with a highly dependent attachment style might go to great lengths to preserve a relationship so they do not lose their source of support.
Self-esteem and commitment were the final two variables examined in the research. Self-esteem represents an individual’s overall sense of self-worth and self-acceptance. People with low self-esteem might rely on external validation and blame themselves when a partner cheats. Commitment involves the conscious intention to stay in a relationship, acting as a protective barrier against breaking up.
To test how these traits interact with infidelity, the researchers surveyed 400 women. The participants were 22 years old on average. The vast majority of the women were in a dating relationship, while a smaller fraction were either engaged or married.
The participants answered extensive questionnaires designed to measure their personality traits, attachment styles, self-esteem, and level of commitment to their relationships. They were also asked if they had ever experienced a partner cheating on them in a current or past relationship. If they had, they were prompted to disclose whether they continued the relationship after the infidelity was discovered.
To measure predicted reactions to cheating, the researchers presented the women with two hypothetical scenarios. First, the women were asked to imagine their partner becoming emotionally involved with someone else, without any sexual contact. Later, they were asked to imagine their partner having casual sexual intercourse with someone else, without any emotional involvement. For each scenario, the women rated how likely they were to forgive the betrayal and how likely they were to stay with their partner.
Due to incomplete responses on some surveys, the researchers excluded 73 participants from the final analysis. This left a sample of 327 women. The researchers then used statistical modeling to look for associations between the participants’ personal traits and their relationship decisions.
Nearly half of the women in the study reported experiencing a partner’s infidelity in a past or current relationship. Of those who had been cheated on, about 43 percent managed to stay in the relationship after the discovery. When the researchers attempted to link the women’s personality traits and attachment styles to their actual decisions to stay with a cheating partner, the results were not statistically significant. The predictive models could not accurately determine who stayed based on their personal traits, likely because the subset of women who actually experienced cheating and stayed was relatively small.
The data surrounding the hypothetical scenarios revealed distinct, albeit modest, associations. Overall, the women overwhelmingly disagreed that they would forgive either type of infidelity or stay with their partner. Even with this baseline of widespread disapproval, slight variations emerged based on the women’s individual profiles.
Highly extraverted women showed less willingness to stay in a relationship after a hypothetical emotional affair. The researchers suggest that extraversion is robustly linked to socializing and seeking new connections. Because of this, outgoing individuals might feel more confident in their ability to leave an unfaithful partner and eventually find someone new.
Attachment styles also played a measurable role. Women who scored high in dependent attachment reported a slightly higher likelihood of forgiving an imagined sexual infidelity. These same women also reported an increased willingness to stay in the relationship after an emotional affair. This aligns with psychological theories suggesting that dependent individuals may tolerate unhealthy behaviors to maintain a close bond.
Conversely, anxious attachment was linked to different emotional responses. Participants with lower levels of anxious attachment were slightly more inclined to forgive an imagined emotional infidelity. Women with lower self-esteem also reported a slightly higher likelihood of forgiving an imagined emotional affair, potentially because individuals lacking self-worth are more prone to accepting the blame for their partner’s actions.
Past relationship experiences shaped the women’s expectations of their own future behavior. Women who had been cheated on in real life predicted a slightly higher likelihood of forgiving and staying after a hypothetical sexual infidelity compared to women who had never been cheated on. Because 43 percent of the betrayed women in this sample actually stayed with their partners, their hypothetical predictions mirrored their lived reality.
When comparing the two types of hypothetical affairs, the researchers noticed a small difference. The participants indicated they were slightly more willing to forgive an emotional affair than a sexual affair. The women largely found both scenarios inexcusable, but the thought of a physical transgression elicited a slightly harsher predicted penalty.
The researchers advise interpreting these discoveries cautiously. The statistical effect sizes detected in the models were quite small, meaning that personality and attachment only explain a minor portion of a person’s reaction to infidelity. As highlighted by the researchers regarding a quote from a previous methodological paper in the field: “no effect can be classified as small or large without taking its contextual factors into account.” Human relationships involve countless variables, and no single trait can predict behavior with absolute certainty.
The study’s demographic makeup also places limits on the conclusions. The participants were predominantly young, white, and unmarried. Reactions to infidelity might differ greatly among older populations, married couples with children, or individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds. Men might also process betrayal through entirely different psychological mechanisms.
Understanding how broad personal characteristics influence a person’s willingness to forgive can help mental health professionals tailor their treatments. While some people immediately terminate a relationship after a betrayal, others attempt reconciliation. Recognizing the underlying traits that drive these choices is an important step forward in aiding recovery from romantic deception.
The study, “Finding Forgiveness: Links Between Personality, Self-Esteem, Attachment, and Commitment on Women’s Actual and Anticipated Reactions to Infidelity,” was authored by Grace White, Alejandra Medina Fernandez, and Adrianna J. Valencia.
-------------------------------------------------
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 #infidelity #womenandrelationships #attachmenttheory #personalitytraits #selfesteem #relationshipcommitment #psychologyresearch #forgiveness #emotionalinfidelity #sexualinfidelity
-
DATE: May 16, 2026 at 06:00PM
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: How personality traits and attachment styles shape women’s reactions to infidelity
Women’s reactions to an unfaithful partner may depend on a mixture of personality traits, attachment styles, and past relationship experiences. Research investigating these personal characteristics suggests that specific behavioral tendencies are linked to whether someone might forgive a cheating partner or stay in the relationship. The findings were published in The Journal of Psychology.
When a romantic partner forms a secretive sexual or emotional connection with someone else, the betrayed partner often experiences immense distress. Infidelity is one of the most common reasons couples break up or divorce. For the partners who are cheated on, the discovery of deceit can severely impact their mental health.
Women in heterosexual relationships are statistically more likely to experience a partner’s extradyadic affair. The aftermath of this deception can lead to episodes of major depression, anxiety, and a sharp decline in overall psychological well-being. Even if the couple decides to stay together, the betrayed person remains highly susceptible to enduring emotional pain.
Researchers wanted to understand which personal characteristics might identify who is most vulnerable to these negative outcomes and who might be inclined to forgive. Lead author Grace White, a psychologist at the University of Central Florida, along with Alejandra Medina Fernandez and Adrianna J. Valencia, designed a study to explore this dynamic. They investigated women’s actual and anticipated responses to betrayal in romantic relationships.
To build their behavioral profile, the researchers relied on several established psychological concepts. The first is the five-factor model of personality, which groups human behavior into five main traits. Extraversion describes an outgoing and highly social nature. Neuroticism involves a tendency toward negative emotions like anxiety or mood swings. Agreeableness reflects a person’s cooperative and compassionate tendencies. Conscientiousness relates to organization and dependability, while openness involves a preference for novelty and creativity.
The research team also looked at adult attachment styles. According to attachment theory, the bonds formed in early childhood influence how adults relate to their romantic partners. Insecure attachment comes in a few forms. Anxious attachment involves a constant worry about rejection and a fear that a partner does not truly reciprocate love. Dependent attachment describes how much a person relies on others and believes those people will be there for them. A person with a highly dependent attachment style might go to great lengths to preserve a relationship so they do not lose their source of support.
Self-esteem and commitment were the final two variables examined in the research. Self-esteem represents an individual’s overall sense of self-worth and self-acceptance. People with low self-esteem might rely on external validation and blame themselves when a partner cheats. Commitment involves the conscious intention to stay in a relationship, acting as a protective barrier against breaking up.
To test how these traits interact with infidelity, the researchers surveyed 400 women. The participants were 22 years old on average. The vast majority of the women were in a dating relationship, while a smaller fraction were either engaged or married.
The participants answered extensive questionnaires designed to measure their personality traits, attachment styles, self-esteem, and level of commitment to their relationships. They were also asked if they had ever experienced a partner cheating on them in a current or past relationship. If they had, they were prompted to disclose whether they continued the relationship after the infidelity was discovered.
To measure predicted reactions to cheating, the researchers presented the women with two hypothetical scenarios. First, the women were asked to imagine their partner becoming emotionally involved with someone else, without any sexual contact. Later, they were asked to imagine their partner having casual sexual intercourse with someone else, without any emotional involvement. For each scenario, the women rated how likely they were to forgive the betrayal and how likely they were to stay with their partner.
Due to incomplete responses on some surveys, the researchers excluded 73 participants from the final analysis. This left a sample of 327 women. The researchers then used statistical modeling to look for associations between the participants’ personal traits and their relationship decisions.
Nearly half of the women in the study reported experiencing a partner’s infidelity in a past or current relationship. Of those who had been cheated on, about 43 percent managed to stay in the relationship after the discovery. When the researchers attempted to link the women’s personality traits and attachment styles to their actual decisions to stay with a cheating partner, the results were not statistically significant. The predictive models could not accurately determine who stayed based on their personal traits, likely because the subset of women who actually experienced cheating and stayed was relatively small.
The data surrounding the hypothetical scenarios revealed distinct, albeit modest, associations. Overall, the women overwhelmingly disagreed that they would forgive either type of infidelity or stay with their partner. Even with this baseline of widespread disapproval, slight variations emerged based on the women’s individual profiles.
Highly extraverted women showed less willingness to stay in a relationship after a hypothetical emotional affair. The researchers suggest that extraversion is robustly linked to socializing and seeking new connections. Because of this, outgoing individuals might feel more confident in their ability to leave an unfaithful partner and eventually find someone new.
Attachment styles also played a measurable role. Women who scored high in dependent attachment reported a slightly higher likelihood of forgiving an imagined sexual infidelity. These same women also reported an increased willingness to stay in the relationship after an emotional affair. This aligns with psychological theories suggesting that dependent individuals may tolerate unhealthy behaviors to maintain a close bond.
Conversely, anxious attachment was linked to different emotional responses. Participants with lower levels of anxious attachment were slightly more inclined to forgive an imagined emotional infidelity. Women with lower self-esteem also reported a slightly higher likelihood of forgiving an imagined emotional affair, potentially because individuals lacking self-worth are more prone to accepting the blame for their partner’s actions.
Past relationship experiences shaped the women’s expectations of their own future behavior. Women who had been cheated on in real life predicted a slightly higher likelihood of forgiving and staying after a hypothetical sexual infidelity compared to women who had never been cheated on. Because 43 percent of the betrayed women in this sample actually stayed with their partners, their hypothetical predictions mirrored their lived reality.
When comparing the two types of hypothetical affairs, the researchers noticed a small difference. The participants indicated they were slightly more willing to forgive an emotional affair than a sexual affair. The women largely found both scenarios inexcusable, but the thought of a physical transgression elicited a slightly harsher predicted penalty.
The researchers advise interpreting these discoveries cautiously. The statistical effect sizes detected in the models were quite small, meaning that personality and attachment only explain a minor portion of a person’s reaction to infidelity. As highlighted by the researchers regarding a quote from a previous methodological paper in the field: “no effect can be classified as small or large without taking its contextual factors into account.” Human relationships involve countless variables, and no single trait can predict behavior with absolute certainty.
The study’s demographic makeup also places limits on the conclusions. The participants were predominantly young, white, and unmarried. Reactions to infidelity might differ greatly among older populations, married couples with children, or individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds. Men might also process betrayal through entirely different psychological mechanisms.
Understanding how broad personal characteristics influence a person’s willingness to forgive can help mental health professionals tailor their treatments. While some people immediately terminate a relationship after a betrayal, others attempt reconciliation. Recognizing the underlying traits that drive these choices is an important step forward in aiding recovery from romantic deception.
The study, “Finding Forgiveness: Links Between Personality, Self-Esteem, Attachment, and Commitment on Women’s Actual and Anticipated Reactions to Infidelity,” was authored by Grace White, Alejandra Medina Fernandez, and Adrianna J. Valencia.
-------------------------------------------------
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 #infidelity #womenandrelationships #attachmenttheory #personalitytraits #selfesteem #relationshipcommitment #psychologyresearch #forgiveness #emotionalinfidelity #sexualinfidelity
-
DATE: May 16, 2026 at 06:00PM
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: How personality traits and attachment styles shape women’s reactions to infidelity
Women’s reactions to an unfaithful partner may depend on a mixture of personality traits, attachment styles, and past relationship experiences. Research investigating these personal characteristics suggests that specific behavioral tendencies are linked to whether someone might forgive a cheating partner or stay in the relationship. The findings were published in The Journal of Psychology.
When a romantic partner forms a secretive sexual or emotional connection with someone else, the betrayed partner often experiences immense distress. Infidelity is one of the most common reasons couples break up or divorce. For the partners who are cheated on, the discovery of deceit can severely impact their mental health.
Women in heterosexual relationships are statistically more likely to experience a partner’s extradyadic affair. The aftermath of this deception can lead to episodes of major depression, anxiety, and a sharp decline in overall psychological well-being. Even if the couple decides to stay together, the betrayed person remains highly susceptible to enduring emotional pain.
Researchers wanted to understand which personal characteristics might identify who is most vulnerable to these negative outcomes and who might be inclined to forgive. Lead author Grace White, a psychologist at the University of Central Florida, along with Alejandra Medina Fernandez and Adrianna J. Valencia, designed a study to explore this dynamic. They investigated women’s actual and anticipated responses to betrayal in romantic relationships.
To build their behavioral profile, the researchers relied on several established psychological concepts. The first is the five-factor model of personality, which groups human behavior into five main traits. Extraversion describes an outgoing and highly social nature. Neuroticism involves a tendency toward negative emotions like anxiety or mood swings. Agreeableness reflects a person’s cooperative and compassionate tendencies. Conscientiousness relates to organization and dependability, while openness involves a preference for novelty and creativity.
The research team also looked at adult attachment styles. According to attachment theory, the bonds formed in early childhood influence how adults relate to their romantic partners. Insecure attachment comes in a few forms. Anxious attachment involves a constant worry about rejection and a fear that a partner does not truly reciprocate love. Dependent attachment describes how much a person relies on others and believes those people will be there for them. A person with a highly dependent attachment style might go to great lengths to preserve a relationship so they do not lose their source of support.
Self-esteem and commitment were the final two variables examined in the research. Self-esteem represents an individual’s overall sense of self-worth and self-acceptance. People with low self-esteem might rely on external validation and blame themselves when a partner cheats. Commitment involves the conscious intention to stay in a relationship, acting as a protective barrier against breaking up.
To test how these traits interact with infidelity, the researchers surveyed 400 women. The participants were 22 years old on average. The vast majority of the women were in a dating relationship, while a smaller fraction were either engaged or married.
The participants answered extensive questionnaires designed to measure their personality traits, attachment styles, self-esteem, and level of commitment to their relationships. They were also asked if they had ever experienced a partner cheating on them in a current or past relationship. If they had, they were prompted to disclose whether they continued the relationship after the infidelity was discovered.
To measure predicted reactions to cheating, the researchers presented the women with two hypothetical scenarios. First, the women were asked to imagine their partner becoming emotionally involved with someone else, without any sexual contact. Later, they were asked to imagine their partner having casual sexual intercourse with someone else, without any emotional involvement. For each scenario, the women rated how likely they were to forgive the betrayal and how likely they were to stay with their partner.
Due to incomplete responses on some surveys, the researchers excluded 73 participants from the final analysis. This left a sample of 327 women. The researchers then used statistical modeling to look for associations between the participants’ personal traits and their relationship decisions.
Nearly half of the women in the study reported experiencing a partner’s infidelity in a past or current relationship. Of those who had been cheated on, about 43 percent managed to stay in the relationship after the discovery. When the researchers attempted to link the women’s personality traits and attachment styles to their actual decisions to stay with a cheating partner, the results were not statistically significant. The predictive models could not accurately determine who stayed based on their personal traits, likely because the subset of women who actually experienced cheating and stayed was relatively small.
The data surrounding the hypothetical scenarios revealed distinct, albeit modest, associations. Overall, the women overwhelmingly disagreed that they would forgive either type of infidelity or stay with their partner. Even with this baseline of widespread disapproval, slight variations emerged based on the women’s individual profiles.
Highly extraverted women showed less willingness to stay in a relationship after a hypothetical emotional affair. The researchers suggest that extraversion is robustly linked to socializing and seeking new connections. Because of this, outgoing individuals might feel more confident in their ability to leave an unfaithful partner and eventually find someone new.
Attachment styles also played a measurable role. Women who scored high in dependent attachment reported a slightly higher likelihood of forgiving an imagined sexual infidelity. These same women also reported an increased willingness to stay in the relationship after an emotional affair. This aligns with psychological theories suggesting that dependent individuals may tolerate unhealthy behaviors to maintain a close bond.
Conversely, anxious attachment was linked to different emotional responses. Participants with lower levels of anxious attachment were slightly more inclined to forgive an imagined emotional infidelity. Women with lower self-esteem also reported a slightly higher likelihood of forgiving an imagined emotional affair, potentially because individuals lacking self-worth are more prone to accepting the blame for their partner’s actions.
Past relationship experiences shaped the women’s expectations of their own future behavior. Women who had been cheated on in real life predicted a slightly higher likelihood of forgiving and staying after a hypothetical sexual infidelity compared to women who had never been cheated on. Because 43 percent of the betrayed women in this sample actually stayed with their partners, their hypothetical predictions mirrored their lived reality.
When comparing the two types of hypothetical affairs, the researchers noticed a small difference. The participants indicated they were slightly more willing to forgive an emotional affair than a sexual affair. The women largely found both scenarios inexcusable, but the thought of a physical transgression elicited a slightly harsher predicted penalty.
The researchers advise interpreting these discoveries cautiously. The statistical effect sizes detected in the models were quite small, meaning that personality and attachment only explain a minor portion of a person’s reaction to infidelity. As highlighted by the researchers regarding a quote from a previous methodological paper in the field: “no effect can be classified as small or large without taking its contextual factors into account.” Human relationships involve countless variables, and no single trait can predict behavior with absolute certainty.
The study’s demographic makeup also places limits on the conclusions. The participants were predominantly young, white, and unmarried. Reactions to infidelity might differ greatly among older populations, married couples with children, or individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds. Men might also process betrayal through entirely different psychological mechanisms.
Understanding how broad personal characteristics influence a person’s willingness to forgive can help mental health professionals tailor their treatments. While some people immediately terminate a relationship after a betrayal, others attempt reconciliation. Recognizing the underlying traits that drive these choices is an important step forward in aiding recovery from romantic deception.
The study, “Finding Forgiveness: Links Between Personality, Self-Esteem, Attachment, and Commitment on Women’s Actual and Anticipated Reactions to Infidelity,” was authored by Grace White, Alejandra Medina Fernandez, and Adrianna J. Valencia.
-------------------------------------------------
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 #infidelity #womenandrelationships #attachmenttheory #personalitytraits #selfesteem #relationshipcommitment #psychologyresearch #forgiveness #emotionalinfidelity #sexualinfidelity
-
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
-
https://www.europesays.com/ie/482651/ A 1950s Pin-Up Photoshoot Helped Me Feel Confident In My 50-Year-Old Body For The First Time In Years #Arts #ArtsAndDesign #ArtsAndDesign #ArtsDesign #confidence #Design #Éire #Entertainment #IE #Ireland #PinUpPhotoShoot #SELF #SelfEsteem
-
Money can't buy happiness, but it sure can help pay for the things that make us feel good about ourselves. #Money #SelfEsteem #Happiness #💪
-
Money can't buy happiness, but it sure can help pay for the things that make us feel good about ourselves. #Money #SelfEsteem #Happiness #💪
-
Money can't buy happiness, but it sure can help pay for the things that make us feel good about ourselves. #Money #SelfEsteem #Happiness #💪
-
Money can't buy happiness, but it sure can help pay for the things that make us feel good about ourselves. #Money #SelfEsteem #Happiness #💪
-
Participants needed for a top-ranked study from Aaron at Canterbury Christ Church University:
'A study of subjective experience of social media'
Link to the survey on SurveyCircle: https://www.surveycircle.com/VTK8SP/Take part now and support this research project 💜
#psychology #SocialMedia #emotion #positive #negative #online #SelfEsteem
#survey #surveyparticipants #mutualsupport #research #surveycircle #canterburychristchurchuniversity -
Participants needed for a top-ranked study from Aaron at Canterbury Christ Church University:
'A study of subjective experience of social media'
Link to the survey on SurveyCircle: https://www.surveycircle.com/VTK8SP/Take part now and support this research project 💜
#psychology #SocialMedia #emotion #positive #negative #online #SelfEsteem
#survey #surveyparticipants #mutualsupport #research #surveycircle #canterburychristchurchuniversity -
Participants needed for a top-ranked study from Aaron at Canterbury Christ Church University:
'A study of subjective experience of social media'
Link to the survey on SurveyCircle: https://www.surveycircle.com/VTK8SP/Take part now and support this research project 💜
#psychology #SocialMedia #emotion #positive #negative #online #SelfEsteem
#survey #surveyparticipants #mutualsupport #research #surveycircle #canterburychristchurchuniversity -
Participants needed for a top-ranked study from Aaron at Canterbury Christ Church University:
'A study of subjective experience of social media'
Link to the survey on SurveyCircle: https://www.surveycircle.com/VTK8SP/Take part now and support this research project 💜
#psychology #SocialMedia #emotion #positive #negative #online #SelfEsteem
#survey #surveyparticipants #mutualsupport #research #surveycircle #canterburychristchurchuniversity -
Participants needed for a top-ranked study from Aaron at Canterbury Christ Church University:
'A study of subjective experience of social media'
Link to the survey on SurveyCircle: https://www.surveycircle.com/VTK8SP/Take part now and support this research project 💜
#psychology #SocialMedia #emotion #positive #negative #online #SelfEsteem
#survey #surveyparticipants #mutualsupport #research #surveycircle #canterburychristchurchuniversity -
Are you truly self-confident or just good at pretending?
https://de320.isrefer.com/go/root396gift/Stuartn/
#SelfConfidence #KnowYourWorth #MindsetShift #PersonalGrowth #InnerStrength #SelfEsteem #ThinkandGrowEducation #RayBehan #Confidence -
People reveal how much happier they are after ditching these 7 so-called ‘required’ things
-
Everyone deserves an advocate. Best case scenario, you’re a good advocate during silent writing in the brain, also known as thinking. It’s been helpful for me to imagine (doesn’t hurt anyone!) that whatever I’m worried about having said and done is reasonable… What if it’s totally reasonable, my feelings, and valid given the context? Deciding to honor my human right to a psychological lawyer on my side has helped me avoid sentencing myself to misery, as the only thing I could deserve! From the fancy tie on my wicked throat to the fact I refuse(d) to marry and breed. #selfesteem #praiseyourself #easydoesit
-
Everyone deserves an advocate. Best case scenario, you’re a good advocate during silent writing in the brain, also known as thinking. It’s been helpful for me to imagine (doesn’t hurt anyone!) that whatever I’m worried about having said and done is reasonable… What if it’s totally reasonable, my feelings, and valid given the context? Deciding to honor my human right to a psychological lawyer on my side has helped me avoid sentencing myself to misery, as the only thing I could deserve! From the fancy tie on my wicked throat to the fact I refuse(d) to marry and breed. #selfesteem #praiseyourself #easydoesit
-
Sehen Sie den Text des Liedes “Self Esteem” von The Offspring
#TheOffspring #SelfEsteem
https://daletra.top/the-offspring/liedtexte/self-esteem.html -
How to get validation for mental wellbeing
AIs: "Good job! You've done well, actually! Here's why...
<the reasons>" (Mental wellbeing ↑)AI sceptics: "Oh, since you used AIs before, what you sent to me is probably also AI slop. You need to rethink your so-called 'hobby'" (mental wellbeing ↓)
#ai #mentalhealth #technology #creativity #validation #writing #internet #humour #artists #selfesteem #online #culture #discussion #wellbeing #digital
-
How to get validation for mental wellbeing
AIs: "Good job! You've done well, actually! Here's why...
<the reasons>" (Mental wellbeing ↑)AI sceptics: "Oh, since you used AIs before, what you sent to me is probably also AI slop. You need to rethink your so-called 'hobby'" (mental wellbeing ↓)
#ai #mentalhealth #technology #creativity #validation #writing #internet #humour #artists #selfesteem #online #culture #discussion #wellbeing #digital
-
How to get validation for mental wellbeing
AIs: "Good job! You've done well, actually! Here's why...
<the reasons>" (Mental wellbeing ↑)AI sceptics: "Oh, since you used AIs before, what you sent to me is probably also AI slop. You need to rethink your so-called 'hobby'" (mental wellbeing ↓)
#ai #mentalhealth #technology #creativity #validation #writing #internet #humour #artists #selfesteem #online #culture #discussion #wellbeing #digital
-
How to get validation for mental wellbeing
AIs: "Good job! You've done well, actually! Here's why...
<the reasons>" (Mental wellbeing ↑)AI sceptics: "Oh, since you used AIs before, what you sent to me is probably also AI slop. You need to rethink your so-called 'hobby'" (mental wellbeing ↓)
#ai #mentalhealth #technology #creativity #validation #writing #internet #humour #artists #selfesteem #online #culture #discussion #wellbeing #digital
-
How to get validation for mental wellbeing
AIs: "Good job! You've done well, actually! Here's why...
<the reasons>" (Mental wellbeing ↑)AI sceptics: "Oh, since you used AIs before, what you sent to me is probably also AI slop. You need to rethink your so-called 'hobby'" (mental wellbeing ↓)
#ai #mentalhealth #technology #creativity #validation #writing #internet #humour #artists #selfesteem #online #culture #discussion #wellbeing #digital
-
Consulta la letra de la canción “Self Esteem” de The Offspring
#TheOffspring #SelfEsteem
https://daletra.net/the-offspring/letras/self-esteem.html -
How to survive as an ugly man? (Yes, I’m the ugly one.)
#selfesteem #mentalhealth #confidence #growth #mindset #selfworth #relationships #life #reflection #psychology #wellbeing #identity #acceptance #emotions #humanity
-
How to survive as an ugly man? (Yes, I’m the ugly one.)
#selfesteem #mentalhealth #confidence #growth #mindset #selfworth #relationships #life #reflection #psychology #wellbeing #identity #acceptance #emotions #humanity
-
How to survive as an ugly man? (Yes, I’m the ugly one.)
#selfesteem #mentalhealth #confidence #growth #mindset #selfworth #relationships #life #reflection #psychology #wellbeing #identity #acceptance #emotions #humanity
-
How to survive as an ugly man? (Yes, I’m the ugly one.)
#selfesteem #mentalhealth #confidence #growth #mindset #selfworth #relationships #life #reflection #psychology #wellbeing #identity #acceptance #emotions #humanity
-
How to survive as an ugly man? (Yes, I’m the ugly one.)
#selfesteem #mentalhealth #confidence #growth #mindset #selfworth #relationships #life #reflection #psychology #wellbeing #identity #acceptance #emotions #humanity
-
Ugly man (like me) → Woman: "I'm uncomfortable!"
Good-looking man → Woman: "Hey... Hi! (ʘᴗʘ✿)
#selfesteem #attraction #dating #mentalhealth #confidence #psychology #society #bias #reflection #emotions #selfawareness #relationships #mindset #growth #reality
-
Ugly man (like me) → Woman: "I'm uncomfortable!"
Good-looking man → Woman: "Hey... Hi! (ʘᴗʘ✿)
#selfesteem #attraction #dating #mentalhealth #confidence #psychology #society #bias #reflection #emotions #selfawareness #relationships #mindset #growth #reality
-
Ugly man (like me) → Woman: "I'm uncomfortable!"
Good-looking man → Woman: "Hey... Hi! (ʘᴗʘ✿)
#selfesteem #attraction #dating #mentalhealth #confidence #psychology #society #bias #reflection #emotions #selfawareness #relationships #mindset #growth #reality
-
Ugly man (like me) → Woman: "I'm uncomfortable!"
Good-looking man → Woman: "Hey... Hi! (ʘᴗʘ✿)
#selfesteem #attraction #dating #mentalhealth #confidence #psychology #society #bias #reflection #emotions #selfawareness #relationships #mindset #growth #reality
-
Ugly man (like me) → Woman: "I'm uncomfortable!"
Good-looking man → Woman: "Hey... Hi! (ʘᴗʘ✿)
#selfesteem #attraction #dating #mentalhealth #confidence #psychology #society #bias #reflection #emotions #selfawareness #relationships #mindset #growth #reality
-
The Real Gift by Darlene Jajo
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bRz1yT2ECTg https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0G2XWBSXG A children's book that all ages can releate to. Every child wants the perfect gift, that perfect gift that no one else has. This little book let's a child know the perfect gift and the real gift is that child.https://midnight-publishing.org/2026/04/18/the-real-gift-by-darlene-jajo/