Skip to content
Delete Learn

2.4 Online Dating

Online dating has fundamentally transformed how people meet. In 2017, it became the most common way heterosexual couples in the U.S. meet, surpassing meeting through friends.[1]

But has this transformation been good for us? The research reveals a complicated picture—new opportunities mixed with new problems.

The Rise of App-Based Dating

The shift has been dramatic. Research tracking how couples meet shows:[1]

  • Pre-1995: Meeting through friends, family, work, school, church dominated
  • 1995-2010: Online dating grew steadily, mostly via websites
  • 2012-present: Mobile apps (Tinder launched 2012) accelerated the shift
  • 2017: Online/app became the #1 way heterosexual couples meet
  • Same-sex couples: Online has been dominant since 2000

By 2022, approximately 30% of U.S. adults had used a dating site or app, with higher rates among younger adults and LGBTQ+ individuals.[2]

The question isn’t whether online dating matters—it clearly does. The question is how it changes the experience of finding a partner.

How People Behave on Dating Apps

Large-scale analyses of actual user behavior reveal consistent patterns:

The selectivity gap

Both men and women are highly selective, but women more so. Analysis of messaging behavior shows:[3]

  • Women “like” approximately 5-15% of profiles they view
  • Men “like” approximately 40-60% of profiles they view
  • This creates asymmetric matching dynamics

The attractiveness distribution problem

A study of Tinder-like swiping found that the top 10-15% of men receive the majority of female interest, while distribution of male interest across women is more even.[4]

This creates a challenging dynamic:

  • Average men receive very few matches
  • Average women receive many matches, mostly from men they don’t find attractive
  • Attractive men receive overwhelming attention
  • Everyone feels the market is broken from their perspective

Message patterns

When people do match, messaging behavior follows patterns:[5]

  • Most matches never exchange messages
  • Initial messages are short and formulaic
  • Response rates to first messages average 20-30%
  • Women receive far more messages than they send
  • Men send far more messages than they receive

The Paradox of Choice

With potentially thousands of options, you might expect people to find better partners. Research suggests the opposite may occur.

Choice overload

A study of online dating decisions found that having more options led to:[6]

  • Lower satisfaction with the dating process
  • More time spent searching, less time connecting
  • Tendency to reject good-enough options waiting for “better”
  • Decision fatigue leading to worse choices

The “shopping” mindset

Dating apps encourage evaluation of people as products—quickly assessing a profile image and bio to decide yes/no. This promotes:[7]

  • Emphasis on easily evaluated traits (appearance, demographics)
  • Devaluation of harder-to-assess qualities (character, compatibility)
  • “Maximizing” (seeking the best) rather than “satisficing” (finding good enough)

Research shows people with maximizing tendencies report lower satisfaction with their choices and more regret—even when their choices are objectively good.[7]

Comparison shopping continues

Even after finding a partner, the “market” remains visible. Research finds that relationship commitment is lower when alternatives are perceived as plentiful and attractive.[8] Dating apps keep alternatives perpetually visible.

What Profiles Don’t Tell You

People are remarkably bad at predicting attraction from profiles.

Stated preferences vs. actual choices

A landmark speed-dating study found that people’s stated preferences didn’t predict their actual choices.[9] Someone who claimed to want “intelligence” wasn’t more attracted to intelligent people they met. Someone who said “sense of humor” wasn’t more drawn to funny partners.

What did predict attraction? Physical attractiveness—even for people who said looks didn’t matter to them.

The profile-to-person gap

Online profiles present a curated, static version of a person. But attraction develops through:[10]

  • Dynamic interaction
  • Nonverbal communication
  • Voice, humor, warmth in real-time
  • Context-dependent behavior

A study comparing online profile impressions to in-person meeting impressions found substantial differences—people changed their evaluations significantly after meeting face-to-face.[10]

The photo problem

Profile photos are the dominant factor in swipe decisions. But photos are:

  • Often outdated or highly edited
  • Taken in optimal conditions
  • Misleading about day-to-day appearance
  • A poor proxy for attraction in person

Research shows that photo attractiveness ratings correlate only modestly with in-person attractiveness ratings—the person you meet may be more or less attractive than their best photo suggests.[10]

Online-to-Offline Transition

The transition from messaging to meeting is where many potential connections fail.

Timing matters

Research suggests an optimal window for moving from online to in-person:[11]

  • Meeting too quickly: Not enough information to filter incompatibilities
  • Waiting too long: Building unrealistic expectations, losing momentum

The sweet spot appears to be 1-3 weeks of messaging, then meeting. Extended online-only communication builds expectations that reality rarely meets.

First meeting realities

Studies find that most first dates from apps don’t lead to second dates:[11]

  • Approximately 30-40% of first dates lead to second dates
  • Physical chemistry often doesn’t match online chemistry
  • “Dealbreakers” emerge that weren’t apparent online

This high attrition rate is normal—not a sign that something is wrong. Apps are a discovery mechanism, not a matching algorithm.

Mental Health and Dating Apps

The relationship between dating app use and mental health is concerning.

Correlational findings

Multiple studies find associations between dating app use and:[12][13]

  • Lower self-esteem
  • Higher depression and anxiety
  • Greater body dissatisfaction
  • More loneliness

Important caveat: Correlation doesn’t prove causation. People with lower self-esteem might be drawn to dating apps, rather than apps causing low self-esteem.

The rejection machine

Dating apps involve high-volume rejection. Each swipe left is a micro-rejection. Each unanswered message is rejection. Each unmatch is rejection.

Research shows rejection activates the same brain regions as physical pain.[14] Dating apps expose users to far more rejection events than traditional dating—the psychological toll may accumulate.

Appearance-based self-worth

Apps emphasize appearance-based evaluation. Research finds that after using appearance-focused apps, users show:[13]

  • Increased appearance anxiety
  • More social comparison
  • Decreased self-esteem related to appearance

These effects are particularly strong for users who already have appearance-related insecurities.

What Dating Apps Get Right

It’s not all negative. Research also shows benefits:

Expanded access

Dating apps dramatically expand the pool of potential partners, particularly for:[1]

  • LGBTQ+ individuals (historically harder to identify partners)
  • People with niche interests or preferences
  • Those in small social networks
  • Older adults re-entering dating

Weak-tie connections

Apps facilitate meeting people outside your existing social network. Research shows these “weak tie” connections often lead to more demographically diverse relationships.[1]

Efficiency

For people with limited time or social opportunities, apps provide a way to screen potential partners efficiently. The high rejection rate is partly a feature—quickly filtering incompatibilities.

Success rates

Despite the challenges, many relationships do form through apps. Studies of relationship quality find:[15]

  • Couples who met online report similar or slightly higher relationship satisfaction than those who met offline
  • Online-initiated relationships have similar breakup rates to offline-initiated ones
  • The “how you met” matters less than what you build together

Strategies for Better App Experience

Research suggests several approaches to improve outcomes:

Limit time and exposure

Set boundaries on app usage. Endless swiping produces diminishing returns and may increase negative psychological effects.[12]

Move offline quickly

Don’t let online conversation substitute for meeting. The sooner you meet in person, the sooner you have real information about compatibility.[11]

Be honest in profiles

Deceptive profiles backfire. One study found that profile honesty predicted relationship success—lying delays but doesn’t prevent rejection.[16]

Focus on deal-breakers, not wish lists

Research shows deal-breakers (things you can’t accept) predict relationship outcomes better than wish lists (things you want). Screen for incompatibilities rather than optimizing for preferences.[17]

Satisfice, don’t maximize

Choose someone who meets your needs rather than endlessly searching for the “best” option. Maximizers are less happy with their choices.[7]

Maintain self-worth externally

Don’t let app outcomes define your value. Match rates reflect algorithm mechanics and demographics, not your worthiness of love.

The Future of Online Dating

Research and industry trends point toward several developments:

  • Video features: Reducing the photo-to-person gap
  • Slower matching: Some apps (Hinge, Bumble) encourage quality over quantity
  • AI matching: More sophisticated compatibility prediction (though current algorithms show limited effectiveness)
  • Niche platforms: Apps for specific interests, values, or demographics

Whether these changes will address fundamental challenges remains to be seen.

The Bottom Line

Online dating has become a dominant way people meet. The research reveals both opportunities and pitfalls:

The challenges:

  • Choice overload may impair rather than improve decisions
  • Profile-based selection poorly predicts in-person attraction
  • High rejection volume may affect mental health
  • The “shopping” mindset may undermine connection

The opportunities:

  • Expanded access to potential partners
  • Efficient discovery mechanism
  • Relationships formed online are as stable as those formed offline

Dating apps are a tool. Like any tool, outcomes depend on how you use them. The people who succeed aren’t those who find the perfect app—they’re those who quickly move from swiping to meeting, maintain realistic expectations, and don’t let the rejection inherent in the process define their self-worth.

The app can introduce you. But the relationship happens after you put the phone down.

References

  1. Rosenfeld, M. J., Thomas, R. J., & Hausen, S. (2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(36), 17753-17758. PubMed

  2. Pew Research Center. (2023). From Looking for Love to Swiping the Field: Online Dating in the U.S. Pew Research

  3. Tyson, G., Perta, V. C., Haddadi, H., & Seto, M. C. (2016). A first look at user activity on Tinder. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, 461-466. IEEE

  4. Bruch, E. E., & Newman, M. E. J. (2018). Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Science Advances, 4(8), eaap9815. PubMed

  5. Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review, 100(1), 130-163. AEA

  6. Wu, P. L., & Chiou, W. B. (2009). More options lead to more searching and worse choices in finding partners for romantic relationships online: An experimental study. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 315-318. PubMed

  7. Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178-1197. PubMed

  8. Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357-387. Wiley

  9. Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245-264. PubMed

  10. Sharabi, L. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2017). What predicts first date success? A longitudinal study of modality switching in online dating. Personal Relationships, 24(2), 370-391. Wiley

  11. Ramirez, A., Sumner, E. M., Fleuriet, C., & Cole, M. (2015). When online dating partners meet offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication between online daters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(1), 99-114. Oxford

  12. Strubel, J., & Petrie, T. A. (2017). Love me Tinder: Body image and psychosocial functioning among men and women. Body Image, 21, 34-38. PubMed

  13. Coduto, K. D., Lee-Won, R. J., & Baek, Y. M. (2020). Swiping for trouble: Problematic dating application use among psychosocially distraught individuals and the paths to negative outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(1), 212-232. Sage

  14. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290-292. PubMed

  15. Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(25), 10135-10140. PubMed

  16. Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023-1036. PubMed

  17. Jonason, P. K., Garcia, J. R., Webster, G. D., Li, N. P., & Fisher, H. E. (2015). Relationship dealbreakers: Traits people avoid in potential mates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1697-1711. PubMed