Swiping for trouble: Problematic dating application use among psychosocially distraught individuals and the paths to negative outcomes

Abstract

More and more individuals hunt for information on and reach out to potential romantic partners through mobile dating applications available on their smartphones. Although these emerging technologies offer social benefits, certain individuals become overly dependent on such applications and suffer from negative outcomes. Relatively little research in online dating to date has investigated what predicts problematic use of such social technologies. Building upon the cognitive-behavioral model of problematic Internet use and the social skill model, we examined the relationship between social anxiety, the problematic use of dating applications, and the possible moderating role of loneliness with an online survey (N = 269) conducted with a college student sample. The data did not provide support for serial mediation predicted by the social skills model (social anxiety influencing negative outcomes serially through preference for online social interaction (POSI) and compulsive use) but provided support for moderated serial mediation. Specifically, the serial mediation predicted by the social skills model was significant only among those high in loneliness, with the positive association between POSI and compulsive use being significant among those high in loneliness. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Dating apps loneliness mobile dating applications online dating preference for online social interaction problematic Internet use social anxiety

Mobile dating applications are continuously growing in popularity among numerous types of users. No longer relegated to computer screens and desktop dating options, those individuals looking for potential partners can download applications to their smartphones and swipe through a large dating pool anywhere at any time (Meyer, 2016). As mobile dating applications continue to be readily adopted by more users, a growing body of research has explored how these mobile dating applications are used and to what end. Recent investigations include understanding profile construction and image management on Tinder (Ward, 2017), as well as authenticity claims within Tinder (Duguay, 2016). Much of this research focuses on affordances of the applications, such as an emphasis on photographs over text-based self-presentational information (Carpenter & McEwan, 2016), the ability to quickly see and swipe through potential partners, and the importance of geotargeted locations (Blackwell, Birnholtz, & Abbott, 2015). Some have noted mobile dating applications have resulted in gamification—application of game mechanics to non-gaming contexts (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011)—of dating, considering that dating applications’ playful interfaces, rules, and feedback mechanisms engage users to fulfill their goals (i.e., finding romantic partners) as they navigate through the profiles of potential romantic matches (Tziallas, 2015).

Yet as these questions are tackled, researchers have started to question if and how this use might become problematic for individuals. When users are engaging with an interface that is gamified and allows for hundreds of potential matches to be swiped by (e.g., Tziallas, 2015), might this result in problematic use of the applications? Existing research includes development of the Problematic Tinder Use Scale, an investigation which focuses specifically on compulsive use of the dating application Tinder (Orosz, Tóth-Király, Bőthe, & Melher, 2016), as well as the Tinder Motives Scale (Timmermans & De Caluwe, 2017). A large body of research exists related to Tinder, as it is the leading mobile application for those seeking a variety of romantic relationships in Western countries (Stampler, 2014). Tinder debuted in 2012 and, since its introduction, has inspired numerous other dating applications to follow its lead (Carr, 2016).

The research presented here seeks to understand the role of psychosocial ailments such as social anxiety and loneliness in problematic use of dating applications. In doing so, we draw primarily from Caplan’s (2005) social skill model of problematic Internet use (PIU) as well as Caplan’s (2003) concept of preference for online social interaction (POSI). As these constructs have been demonstrated in desktop website settings and broader Internet use, it is worth further investigating how they translate to behaviors enacted when individuals seek a romantic partner via mobile platforms. The social skills model may also explain how individuals who are fearful of or lacking confidence in face-to-face (FtF) interactions substitute mobile interactions for in-person romantic endeavors.

Specifically, extending the social skills model to dating applications would allow us to understand how socially anxious individuals may engage in a variety of romantic pursuits in a setting that promotes a greater sense of safety, comfort, and control relative to FtF contexts, which would contribute to developing a POSI via dating applications. Application of the social skills model would also allow us to examine whether POSI via dating applications would lead to compulsive use of the applications, given that individuals can access a relatively safe and accessible dating environment at any time with just a few swipes (LeFebvre, 2017; Sumter, Vandenbosch, & Ligtenberg, 2017). While research certainly suggests that individuals can start relationships in desktop environments (Fox & Warber, 2013), desktop platforms do not provide the same usability that mobile applications provide. Mobile applications are made to work on portable smart devices, allowing users to engage in romantic pursuits “on the go.”

Building upon previous research on the social skills model of PIU that had largely been focused on Internet use bound to desktop environments, the present research has made an initial attempt to examine possible consequences of romantic pursuits afforded by mobile platforms. It will be important to understand how the use of mobile technologies may become problematic in those interpersonal contexts that lie in the core of social fabric—initiation and formation of romantic relationships.

Affordances of mobile dating applications

According to Chan (2017), five technological affordances of dating applications that are not offered by dating websites are “mobility, proximity, immediacy, authenticity, and visual dominance” (p. 247). Some of these affordances unique to dating applications may encourage compulsive use beyond what might be expected in a desktop dating environment. Installed on smartphones, dating applications can be used with little restriction to time and location. This affordance of mobility aligns with the affordance of accessibility, which is defined by Fox and McEwan (2017) as “the capability of easily achieving or reaching communication, regardless of time, place, structural limitations, technological literacy, or other constraints” via that channel (p. 304). In a 2015 Pew Research study, 94% of smartphone owners reported carrying their smartphones with them “frequently” and 82% said they rarely or never turn their phones off (Rainie & Zickhur, 2015). As of January 2018, according to additional data published by Pew Research (2018) AC7, 95% of Americans have cellphones, and more than 75% of cellphones are smartphones. The portable nature of dating applications installed on smartphones (Schrock, 2015), which enables the users to experience “perpetual contact” (Mascheroni & Vincent, 2016, p. 312), may make it difficult for certain users to self-regulate their use of the applications.

Relatedly, proximity and immediacy may promote problematic use. As Chan (2017) notes, dating applications allow individuals to be connected to potential partners “in the immediate vicinity (p. 247),” fostering the expectation that the applications would enable the users to have immediate romantic encounters. This anticipation of immediate rewards may further lead users to become dependent on their smartphones and dating applications for communication with individuals they are interested in.

Online dating has often been compared to a marketplace for daters (Heino, Ellison, & Gibbs, 2010). In the marketplace metaphor, individuals can act as “buyers” and “sellers” as they seek potential partners. As “sellers,” individuals take advantage of impression management techniques, trying to deliver the best possible version of themselves. As “buyers,” they evaluate potential mates, determining who is worthy of contact (Fiore & Donath, 2004; Heino et al., 2010). A desktop dating website often contains profiles that contain a great deal of text-based self-presentational information, requiring buyers to read deeply into what a seller is offering. Yet in a mobile dating application, less textual information is provided and there is a greater emphasis on pictures (Carpenter & McEwan, 2016; Chan, 2017), with individuals focusing on visuals before making a judgment on whether or not they want to show interest in a potential partner. Chan (2017) refers to this phenomenon as “visual dominance,” given that most dating applications include photographs of individuals that take up entire phone screens (p. 247). Coupled with the game mechanics incorporated into the interface (Tziallas, 2015; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011), such photographic images may powerfully engage users in their goal pursuit (i.e., finding romantic matches) and make it challenging for certain users to exercise self-regulation and stop swiping.

Additionally, dating applications offer a sense of exploring the unknown. Individuals who seek romantic partners on mobile dating applications can see others’ content and can reach out to each other through shared interests or social ties (Chan, 2017). This sense of exploration extends from what Fox and McEwan (2017) refer to as network association, or the ability for individuals to find common friends and acquaintances through a channel. For example, as noted by Timmermans and De Caluwe (2017), Tinder users’ profiles are linked to their Facebook accounts, and this connectivity to Facebook accounts enables Tinder to run a matching mechanism that can display information on common Facebook friends and shared interests. Such a feature represents high levels of the network association affordance (Fox & McEwan, 2017) and allows Tinder users who are interested in seeing “who is out there” (LeFebvre, 2017) to make interaction choices based on interests and social ties in common (Timmermans & De Caluwe, 2017).

All of the aforementioned functionalities offered by dating applications, coupled with the affordances that mobile applications provide, may encourage problematic use of the applications. In the sections to follow, we present our conceptual framework drawn from the social skills model and the predicted relationships among the key variables: social anxiety, POSI, compulsive use, negative outcomes, and loneliness.

POSI and social anxiety

The POSI concept (Caplan, 2003) explores why certain individuals choose online interactions over FtF interactions. Caplan (2003) explains that “preference for online social interaction is a cognitive individual-difference construct characterized by beliefs that one is safer, more efficacious, more confident, and more comfortable with online interpersonal interactions and relationships than with traditional FtF social activities” (p. 629). Those individuals who are less confident in their FtF skills may develop a preference for online interaction instead of trying to improve their FtF skills. This may be the result of a social skill deficit, whereby individuals are concerned they will struggle or become isolated in a given social environment due to their lack of interpersonal skill (Segrin, 1990). Extending the cognitive-behavioral model of PIU and the social skill model, Caplan (2005) articulates how individuals with higher social anxiety (and thus lower confidence in their FtF social skills) may develop greater POSI, which in turn may result in compulsive use, and, ultimately, negative outcomes related to their Internet use. Negative outcomes include behaviors such as choosing the Internet over offline social gatherings and getting into trouble at work or school for overuse of the Internet.

As noted by Fox and McEwan (2017), social interactions mediated by social media platforms have affordances such as conversational control (i.e., determining how and when to respond) and editability (i.e., rewriting responses before sending them). These affordances may allow individuals who feel they are lacking in social skills to communicate more effectively with others. For those individuals who experience social anxiety, these affordances may be especially important. Individuals experience social anxiety as a result of fears related to their self-presentation and others’ evaluation of that self-presentation (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). A POSI could stem from the greater sense of control socially anxious individuals could have over their self-presentation to others in these settings. Users can edit messages before sending or posting them online; they can delay posting or sending a message at all (Fox & McEwan, 2017).

The situation described above is particularly true in dating activities based in online and mobile platforms, where users can determine how long they wait before responding within an application and can choose those individuals with whom they interact with in the first place (Ramirez, Sumner, Fleuriet, & Cole, 2015). Therefore, there is little real-time evaluation and subsequent judgment that a socially anxious individual needs to experience when engaging in social activities in an online space. In addition, accessibility (Schrock, 2015) is a key affordance that can serve socially anxious individuals looking for romantic partners (Stevens & Morris, 2007), as they can gain access to and safely explore potential relationships (Shaw & Gant, 2004). Given this, we predicted:
H1: Individuals higher in social anxiety will show greater POSI through dating applications.

POSI, compulsive use, and negative outcomes

POSI has been found as a mechanism underlying PIU, which refers to uncontrollable and time-consuming Internet use that results in negative outcomes such as disruptions in one’s academic, social, and work-related activities (Caplan, 2005). According to Caplan’s research based on the social skills model of PIU, those suffering from social anxiety in particular developed greater POSI and devoted a greater amount of resources to stay online while their offline lives “quickly become secondary priorities” (Caplan, 2005, p. 725).

Although POSI may not in itself be necessarily detrimental, previous research has demonstrated that this preference can lead to negative outcomes through compulsive use, particularly when the POSI tendency was developed from the need to address social anxiety (Caplan, 2005). Meta-analytic work has shown that socially anxious individuals may be subject to “deficient self-regulation” when engaging in online activities (Tokunaga & Rains, 2010, p. 530). When applied to users of dating applications, the social skills model would guide us to predict that socially anxious individuals who feel safer online and thus develop POSI via dating applications (as predicted in H1) may be more susceptible to unregulated, compulsive use of the technology. Analogous to how individuals who developed POSI would become compulsive Internet users (Caplan, 2005) as they increasingly “confine themselves to virtual communications and reduce time spent engaging in FtF interactions” (Davis, Flett, & Besser, 2002, p. 332), compulsive use of dating applications would occur when individuals who develop POSI from using the applications become dependent on the applications for an increasing number of interpersonal interactions in their romantic pursuits. These individuals, feeling more comfortable, confident, and competent in their interpersonal abilities through repeated use of dating applications, would dedicate more time and resources to the interactions mediated by the applications in their romantic pursuits. Guided by this rationale, we hypothesized:
H2: Individuals with greater POSI will engage in higher levels of compulsive use of dating applications.

Further, as predicted in the social skills model on PIU (Caplan, 2005, 2007), compulsive use of dating applications in turn would render users more likely to experience tangible negative outcomes, which include being negligent in offline social engagements and work-related (academic and/or professional) commitments (Caplan, 2005). Those who lack social skills and are thus motivated to develop POSI and fall for unregulated dependence on dating applications are likely to become oblivious of their responsibilities and commitments of daily living beyond the romantic pursuits facilitated by the dating applications that may seem to offer immediate relief or reward. Thus, we posited the following hypothesis:
H3: Higher levels of compulsive use of dating applications will in turn result in greater negative outcomes.

The role of loneliness

One variable that has yielded inconsistent findings in the PIU literature is loneliness. The “defining characteristic of loneliness is an unpleasant or unacceptable discrepancy between what individuals want in terms of relationships and what they believe they have” (Daly, 2011, p. 140). The key to loneliness is not the number of relationships that an individual has but the individual’s perception of those relationships and their quality (Duck, 1986; Spitzberg & Canary, 1985). Loneliness has been found to have elements of social contagion, in which loneliness spreads among lonely individuals and their social networks (Cacioppo, Fowler, & Christakis, 2010). Those who are lonely tend to have networks that include other lonely individuals (Cacioppo et al., 2010).

As for its relevance to problematic use of online media, loneliness has often been studied as one of the psychosocial predictors that ultimately leads to compulsive Internet use and negative outcomes (Caplan, 2003; Kim, LaRose, & Peng, 2009). On the other hand, the lonely-drawn-to-the-Internet hypothesis has been challenged in that loneliness can be attributed to many different factors (particularly those factors that the individual has little control over, such as frequent travel or relocating for work) other than those directly associated with individuals’ attitudes toward interpersonal behavior (Caplan, 2007). Further, empirical research has demonstrated that loneliness has failed to significantly predict POSI or problematic use when social anxiety was considered as a predictor as well (Caplan, 2007; Reid & Reid, 2007). Thus, Caplan (2007) concluded that social anxiety may be a stronger predictor than loneliness at predicting POSI, both theoretically and empirically.

Although loneliness is not a more powerful predictor of POSI compared to social anxiety (Caplan, 2007), we predict that loneliness may serve an integral role in problematic use of dating applications for two reasons. First, research on social exclusion and loneliness has shown that individuals perceiving themselves as socially excluded struggle with self-regulation (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005) and even merely thinking about being alone could reduce willpower (Uzial, 2016). With affordances unique to mobile dating applications such as mobility, proximity, and immediacy (Chan, 2017), as well as “perpetual contact” that allows romantic pursuits “anywhere, anytime” (Mascheroni & Vincent, 2016), individuals higher in loneliness would more likely be subject to problematic use. Second, previous research has suggested that lonely individuals are more likely to engage in ritualistic behavior related to mobile phones, and one possible motive underlying such a tendency was the desire to escape from their current social settings (Park, 2005). The aforementioned affordances (i.e., mobility, proximity, and immediacy) coupled with a tendency toward ritualistic behavior might encourage problematic use for those who are lonely. Furthermore, individuals who report high levels of loneliness tend to feel that their social networks are not sufficient to meet their social needs (Peplau & Perlman, 1979) and are typically more likely to experience disappointment in their romantic relationships (Daly, 2011). POSI often develops as a way to compensate for in-person relationships that do not meet social needs (Chung, 2013). Thus, lonely individuals may exhibit high levels of reliance on dating applications in hopes of finding a satisfying romantic relationship and seeking to expand their social networks via the network association affordance offered by the platforms.

Extending the social skills model of PIU to problematic use of dating applications, we expect loneliness would moderate the path between POSI and compulsive use. As noted earlier in our review of the research on PIU, among socially anxious individuals who develop POSI and thus invest a great deal of time and attention to their interactions on the Internet, some of them may particularly be vulnerable to compulsive use (Kim et al., 2009). Compulsive use is a form of self-regulation failure (LaRose, Lin, & Eastin, 2003), and, as noted earlier, the state of feeling lonely or being socially excluded can impair one’s ability to self-regulate (Baumeister et al., 2005); given this, people high in loneliness may be subject to problematic use. Thus, we hypothesized:
H4: Loneliness will moderate the proposed serial mediation between social anxiety and negative outcomes of dating application use via compulsive use and negative outcomes. Specifically, loneliness will moderate the path between POSI and compulsive use, such that the positive association between POSI and compulsive use will be more pronounced among individuals high in loneliness than those low in loneliness.

The proposed moderated serial mediation model is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
The proposed moderated serial mediation model.

Method

Participants

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted at a large public university in the U.S. Prior to the administration of the survey, its protocol was reviewed and approved by the Internal Review Board of the authors’ institution. The sample was 269 undergraduate students with some experience with one or more dating applications (62.1% female; 82.8% non-Hispanic White; 91.1% heterosexual; age M = 20.85, SD = 2.45). Albeit a convenience sample, emerging adults (18–24 years old) have shown a dramatic increase in using dating applications in the past few years (i.e., 5% in 2013 to 22% in 2016) and have been noted as an age group that is more likely to use mobile dating applications than other groups (Smith, 2016). Participants received extra course credit for their participation in the survey.

Measures

Variables for the serial mediation model

The proposed serial mediation included four variables: (1) social anxiety, (2) POSI via dating applications, (3) compulsive use of dating applications, and (4) negative outcomes of dating application use. The items measuring POSI, compulsive use, and negative outcomes were all adapted from Caplan’s (2005) original scale items.

Social anxiety was measured with the 18-item Social Phobia and Anxiety Index scale (Vente, Majdandžić, Voncken, Beidel, & Bögels, 2014); the items (e.g., “I am constantly nervous around other people”) were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree” vs. 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .92) and were averaged (M = 2.92, SD = 1.00). POSI via dating applications was measured with 4 items adapted from Caplan (2005); these items (e.g., “I feel safer starting a conversation with someone in a dating application rather than face-to-face”) were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree” vs. 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .80) and were averaged (M = 3.04, SD = 1.29). Compulsive use of dating applications was measured with 3 items adapted from Caplan (2003); the items (e.g., “I have made unsuccessful attempts to control my use of dating applications”) were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree” vs. 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .74) and were averaged (M = 1.68, SD = .95). Negative outcomes were measured with 4 items adapted from Caplan (2005); these items (e.g., “I missed class or work because of dating apps”) were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree” vs. 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .70) and were averaged (M = 2.93, SD = .73). The complete set of items adapted from Caplan (2005) is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.
Measurement items adapted from Caplan (2005).

Original items from Caplan’s scale Items adapted for the context of dating applications

POSI

“I am more confident socializing online than offline.” “I am more confident socializing on dating apps than offline”

“I’m treated better online than offline.” “I’m treated better on dating apps than offline.”

“I feel safer starting a conversation with someone online rather than face-to-face.” “I feel safer starting a conversation with someone in a dating application rather than face-to-face.”

“I’m treated better online than I am in face-to-face situations.” “I’m treated better on dating apps than I am in face-to-face dating or romantic situations.”

Compulsive use of dating applications

“I have made unsuccessful attempts to control my use of the Internet.” “I have made unsuccessful attempts to control my use of dating apps.”

“I compulsively use the Internet.” “I compulsively use dating apps.”

“I am unable to reduce the amount of time I spend on the Internet.” “I am unable to reduce the amount of time I spend on dating apps.”

Negative outcomes

“I have gotten in trouble at work or school for being on the Internet.” “I have gotten in trouble at work or school for being on my phone using a dating app.”

“I have missed class or work because of online activities.” “I have missed class or work because of dating apps.”

“I have missed a social event because of online activities.” “I have missed a social event because of being on a dating app.”

“I feel worthless offline, but I am someone online.” “I feel worthless offline, but I am someone online.”

Note. POSI = preference for online social interaction.

Moderating variable: Loneliness

Our proposed moderator, loneliness, was measured with a 20-item scale by Russell, Peplau, and Cutrona (1980); the items (e.g., “I feel left out”) were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree” vs. 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .94) and were averaged (M = 2.56, SD = 1.02).

Control variables

We controlled for variables to address their possible confounding effects. These variables included demographic variables such as participants’ age (in years), biological sex (1 = female vs. 0 = male), current relationship status (1 = currently in a relationship vs. 0 = not in a relationship), and sexual orientation (1 = heterosexual vs. 0 = other). As for individual difference variables, we controlled for trait self-esteem, which has shown significant associations with both social anxiety (Duck, 1986; Harman, Hansen, Cochran, & Lindsey, 2005) and PIU variables (Caplan, 2005). Trait self-esteem was measured with 10 items (e.g., “I take a positive attitude toward myself”) from Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem scale, which were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .86) and were averaged (M = 3.34, SD = 1.04). We also controlled for four personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, and conscientiousness) that have been found to significantly predict PIU (Stead & Bibby, 2017). The four traits were assessed on a 7-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”) with items from the 10-item Big Five Personality Inventory (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003), which has demonstrated adequate levels of validity and reliability; scores were averaged across 2 items for each category. Additionally, we controlled for variables of dating application use behaviors. First, we controlled for the number of dating applications used (M = 1.44, SD = .75) by asking participants to indicate which dating applications they had used in the last 3 months; response options included Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, Grindr, OkCupid’s application, Match’s application, Plenty of Fish, and Coffee Meets Bagel. Second, we controlled for how much time participants spent on dating applications by assessing perceived dating applications usage, using an item adopted from Caplan (2005). Participants were asked to rate their agreement (1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”) to the statement, “I spend a great deal of time on dating applications” (M = 1.76, SD = 1.10).

Results

Correlational coefficients of the measured variables are presented in Table 2. H1 through H3 and the proposed serial mediation paths were tested with ordinary least squares regression based on the PROCESS macro Model 6; full regression results of this analysis are presented in Table 3.

Table 2.
Bivariate correlations among measured variables (N = 269).

Variable ANX POS COM NEG LON AGE BSX REL EST DAP EXT AGR EMO CON USE SXO

POS .386* —

COM .204 .274* —

NEG .435* .371* .595* —

LON .691* .275* .166 .472* —

AGE .030 .014 .062 −.056 −.006 —

BSX −.093 −.077 −.272* −.215* −.188 −.060 —

REL −.001 −.022 −.036 −.021 −.084 .061 .033 —

EST −.597* −.300* −.107 −.392* −.694* .077 .087 .024 —

DAP .013 .114 .242* −.018 −.030 .227* −.249* −.093 −.013 —

EXT −.720* −.264* −.082 −.316* −.582* −.133* .090 −.023 .437* .061 —

AGR −.237* −.138* −.178 −.233* −.305* .019 .316* .008 .268* −.086 .181 —

EMO −.491* −.232* −.088 −.222* −.446* .154* −.008 −.005 .481* −.075 .253* .137* —

CON −.241* −.185 −.194 −.251* −.262*** .096 .125* .063 .277* −.080 .103 .178 .191 —

USE .102 .334* .505* .461* .169 .045 −.238* −.002 −.144* .177** −.087 −.134* −.048 −.111 —

SXO −.054 −.121* −.123* −.121* −.117 −.030 .078 −.035 .162 −.161 .019 .053 .119 .044 −.186** —

Note. ANX = social anxiety; POS = preference for online social interaction via dating applications; COM = compulsive use; NEG = negative outcomes; LON = loneliness; AGE = age (in years); BSX = biological sex; REL = current relationship status; EST = self-esteem; DAP = number of dating applications used; EXT = extraversion; AGR = agreeableness; EMO = emotional stability; CON = conscientiousness; USE = perceived dating application usage; SXO = sexual orientation.

p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

Table 3.
OLS regression analysis results of the serial mediation test (N = 269).

POSI Compulsive use of dating applications Negative outcomes

b (SE) p b (SE) p b (SE) p

Constant 1.96 (1.21) .109 −0.37 (0.91) .684 1.77 (0.49) .0004

Social anxiety 0.40 (0.13) .002 0.25 (0.09) .005 0.11 (0.06) .048

POSI — — 0.04 (0.05) .363 0.04 (0.03) .144

Compulsive use of dating applications — — — — 0.35 (0.06) < .001

Age −0.01 (0.05) .964 0.01 (0.02) .764 −0.02 (0.01) .292

Biological sex 0.13 (0.16) .415 −0.21 (0.11) .061 −0.06 (0.07) .350

Relationship status −0.04 (0.16) .811 −0.03 (0.11) .784 −0.01 (0.07) .850

Self-esteem −0.05 (0.08) .514 0.10 (0.06) .082 −0.12 (0.04) .003

Number of dating applications used 0.10 (0.11) .358 0.14 (0.10) .193 −0.17 (0.08) .028

Extroversion 0.01 (0.07) .900 0.08 (0.05) .118 −0.02 (0.03) .392

Agreeableness −0.01 (0.07) .844 −0.04 (0.05) .401 −0.01 (0.03) .630

Emotional stability −0.02 (0.06) .723 0.01 (0.04) .783 0.01 (0.03) .715

Conscientiousness −0.06 (0.06) .346 −0.07 (0.04) .110 −0.03 (0.03) .371

Perceived dating application usage 0.33 (0.06) < .001 0.36 (0.07) < .001 0.12 (0.04) .007

Sexual orientation −0.15 (0.29) .600 −0.05 (0.26) .857 −0.03 (0.14) .816

Model summary F (12, 256) = 7.60 F (13, 255) = 7.85 F (14, 254) = 15.25

R ² = .25 R ² = .34 R ² = .55

p < .001 p < .001 p < .001

Note. POSI = preference for online social interaction; OLS = ordinary least squares.

H1 predicted that individuals higher in social anxiety would show greater POSI through dating applications. Social anxiety showed a positive association with POSI via dating applications (b = .40, SE = .13, p = .002), supporting H1. H2 predicted that individuals with greater POSI would engage in higher levels of compulsive use of dating applications. POSI via dating applications showed a positive association with compulsive use of dating applications, but it did not reach significance (b = .04, SE = .05, p = .363); thus, H2 was not supported. H3 predicted that higher levels of compulsive use of dating applications would in turn result in greater negative outcomes. As predicted, compulsive use of dating applications had a positive association with negative outcomes of using dating applications (b = .35, SE = .06, p < .001); thus, H3 was supported.

We examined the significance of indirect effects of social anxiety on negative outcomes through POSI and compulsive use, using 10,000 bootstrap samples to generate a 95% confidence interval (CI). If the 95% CI does not include zero, the indirect effect would be considered statistically significant. The indirect effect of social anxiety on negative outcomes mediated by compulsive use alone was significant (point estimate = .09, boot SE = .04, 95% bootstrap CI from .0214 to .1642). However, the indirect effect of social anxiety on negative outcomes mediated by POSI alone was not significant, with the 95% CI including zero (point estimate = .02, bootstrap SE = .01, 95% bootstrap CI from −.0051 to .0442). Also, the serial mediation (social anxiety → POSI via dating applications → compulsive use → negative outcomes) was not significant, with the 95% CI including zero (point estimate = .01, boot SE = .01, 95% bootstrap CI from −.0062 to .0221).

H4 predicted that loneliness would moderate the proposed serial mediation between social anxiety and negative outcomes of dating application use via compulsive use and negative outcomes. Specifically, it was predicted that loneliness would moderate the relationship between POSI and compulsive use. This hypothesis entailing moderated serial mediation (Hayes, 2018) was tested with Model 91, using 10,000 bootstrap samples to generate a 95% CI. The two variables in the interaction term (loneliness and POSI) were mean centered. The full results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.
OLS regression analysis results of the moderated serial mediation test (N = 269).

POSI Compulsive use of dating applications Negative outcomes

b (SE) p b (SE) p b (SE) p

Constant −1.09 (1.21) .372 −0.02 (0.94) .985 1.90 (0.49) .0001

Social anxiety 0.40 (0.13) < .001 0.30 (0.09) .014 0.11 (0.06) .048

POSI — — 0.05 (0.04) .280 0.04 (0.03) .144

LON — — −0.02 (0.08) .760 — —

POSI × LON — — 0.09 (0.05) .043 — —

Compulsive use of dating applications — — — — 0.35 (0.06) < .001

Age −0.01 (0.05) .964 0.01 (0.02) .735 −0.01 (0.01) .292

Biological sex .013 (0.16) .415 −0.22 (0.11) .057 −0.06 (0.07) .350

Relationship status −0.04 (0.16) .810 −0.04 (0.11) .697 −0.01 (0.07) .849

Self-esteem −0.05 (0.08) .514 0.08 (0.07) .236 −0.12 (0.04) .003

Number of dating applications used 0.10 (0.11) .358 0.14 (0.10) .167 −0.17 (0.08) .028

Extroversion 0.01 (0.07) .900 0.07 (0.05) .185 −0.02 (0.03) .392

Agreeableness −0.01 (0.07) .844 −0.05 (0.05) .334 −0.01 (0.03) .630

Emotional stability −0.02 (0.06) .723 0.01 (0.04) .910 0.01 (0.03) .715

Conscientiousness −0.06 (0.06) .346 −0.07 (0.04) .095 −0.02 (0.03) .371

Perceived dating application usage 0.33 (0.06) < .001 0.36 (0.07) < .001 0.12 (0.03) .007

Sexual orientation −0.15 (0.29) .600 −0.03 (0.26) .898 −0.03 (0.14) .816

Model summary F (12, 256) = 7.60 F (15, 253) = 8.12 F (14, 254) = 15.25

R² = .25 R² = .36 R² = .55

p < .001 p < .001 p < .001

Note. POSI = preference for online social interaction; OLS = ordinary least squares; LON = loneliness. POSI and LON were mean centered.

As hypothesized, the analysis showed that the interaction between loneliness and POSI was a significant predictor of compulsive use (b = .09, SE = .05, p = .043). When this significant interaction was probed, we found that the association between POSI and compulsive use was significant only for those high in loneliness (1 SD above the mean; b = .14, SE = .06; p = .018), but not for those low (1 SD below the mean; b = −.04, SE = .07; p = .537) and moderate in loneliness (at the mean; b = .05, SE = .05; p = .280).

Further, the analysis yielded a significant index of moderated mediation (Hayes, 2015): index = .01, bootstrap SE =.01, 95% bootstrap CI [.0010, .0305]. When this significant moderated mediation was probed, the serial mediation entailed in H1–H3 (i.e., social anxiety → POSI via dating applications → compulsive use → negative outcomes), which was not significant when the moderating role of loneliness was not considered, turned out to be significant among individuals high in loneliness (1 SD above the mean; point estimate = .02, bootstrap SE = .01, 95% bootstrap CI [.0035, .0459]). The serial mediation did not reach significance among those low (1 SD below the mean; point estimate = −.01, bootstrap SE = .01, 95% bootstrap CI [−.0284, .0132]) and moderate in loneliness (at the mean; point estimate = .01, bootstrap SE = .01, 95% bootstrap CI [−.0049, .0234]). As indicated by the significant index of moderated mediation reported earlier, these indirect effects were significantly different from one another (Hayes, 2015).

Discussion

Theoretical and practical implications

Social anxiety was found to predict POSI via mobile dating applications in an extension of Caplan’s (2005) cognitive-behavioral framework of PIU. We specifically found that social anxiety predicted POSI via mobile dating applications. However, the path from POSI to compulsive use hypothesized in H2, albeit in the predicted direction, did not reach significance. Also, when indirect effects of social anxiety on negative outcomes via POSI and compulsive use were examined, only the indirect effect via compulsive use was significant and the overall serial mediation model was not significant. With respect to these results, the nonsignificant path between POSI and compulsive use may be due in part to the significant moderation by loneliness. Namely, as demonstrated in our test of the moderated mediation model (H4), the interaction between loneliness and POSI was a significant predictor of compulsive use, and the path between POSI and compulsive use turned out to be significant only for those high in loneliness and not for those moderate and low in loneliness. Alternatively, it is possible that the mediation between social anxiety and compulsive use could have been better explained by other variables than POSI. For example, positive metacognitions about the use of the dating applications when one attempts to cope with social anxiety in their romantic pursuits via the applications, such as beliefs that the applications can be useful in the regulation of negative emotions (Casale, Caplan, & Fioravanti, 2016), might have been more influential than POSI. This possibility, although beyond the scope of the current research which focused on POSI in the social skills model, clearly opens an avenue for future research.

Although the serial mediation based on the social skills model was not significant, a more intriguing pattern was uncovered when the moderating role of loneliness was considered. The relationship between POSI and compulsive use was significantly moderated by loneliness, and the serial mediation reflecting the social skill deficit account of problematic use was significant for those with high levels of loneliness, adding the much needed clarity to loneliness’s role within this framework.

This research sheds light on how the social skills model may be applied to social contexts mediated by emerging mobile communication, going beyond simply replicating the original model tested for problematic use of the Internet in general. The original model explicated that socially anxious individuals develop preference for online communication largely because of the sense of safety and efficacy provided by the online context. This preference in turn predicts compulsive use of the Internet and negative outcomes related to that use (Caplan, 2005). The current research contributes to the social skills perspectives on problematic use of social technologies by shedding light on the role of loneliness. We found that those individuals who considered themselves highly lonely were the ones who were most likely to experience negative outcomes as a result of the development of POSI and compulsive use, with loneliness moderating the relationship between POSI and compulsive use. Research has shown that individuals use their phones regularly, even when they are not supposed to (Bianchi & Phillips, 2005). Most U.S. adults have their smartphones on them almost always, and lonely individuals are unlikely to be an exception (Rainie & Zickhur, 2015). In line with past research showing people who perceive themselves as socially excluded are likely to experience impairment of self-regulation and willpower (Baumeister et al., 2005; Uzial, 2016), our research demonstrates that lonely individuals may be at risk when it comes to unregulated use of dating applications.

Loneliness is an individual’s perceived isolation from others (Cacioppo et al., 2010; Duck, 1986). Previous findings have demonstrated that lonely individuals tend to connect with and have a social network that consists of other lonely individuals (Cacioppo et al., 2010). Considering this potential manifestation of loneliness in FtF relationships, it may make sense for lonely individuals to turn to dating applications and other online spaces to make connections that do not continue to extend their feelings of loneliness. Lonely individuals tend to be more discriminating in their evaluations of others’ social skills, even favoring those who seem highly skilled compared to themselves (Segrin, 1993). Thus, lonely people may persistently hunt for partners who they think are more socially skilled than they are, which they may infer from elements of a potential partner’s profile (Carpenter & McEwan, 2016). This ongoing search may in turn explain the resulting negative outcomes, such as use of dating applications in professional settings or choosing dating applications consistently over FtF interactions. In attempting to avoid perpetuating a lonely network, lonely individuals may in fact further isolate themselves as they search for a romantic partner.

Affordances specific to dating applications may further impact the likelihood of compulsive use of applications among those who experience social anxiety and who feel lonely. The large and geographically targeted dating pool, ability to selectively choose potential matches, and to manipulate the timing of messages sent and received may all aid socially anxious individuals in feeling greater control in their online interactions (Fox & McEwan, 2017; Schrock, 2015). The added emphasis on pictures, instead of relying on textual information, may also encourage compulsive use (Carpenter & McEwan, 2016), as socially anxious individuals can readily judge others the way they feel they are often judged in FtF interactions. The increased sense of control that applications provide may especially lead to a greater preference for connecting through these channels and ultimately lead to compulsive use. An important next step in this research will be to investigate how specific affordances may lead to both POSI via dating applications and compulsive use of dating applications.

There are also important practical implications for mobile online daters from this research. Individuals should be aware of their use of dating applications and attempt to limit use of the applications if they start on a road to compulsion. Particularly for those individuals who feel lonely or have social anxiety, being aware of their compulsive use can help them to avoid such use that may ultimately be unproductive. By monitoring and limiting use, these individuals could avoid feelings of guilt and other negative emotional outcomes related to the constant and unregulated use of their dating applications. Further, individuals seeking romantic partners via dating applications should be aware of the potential negative outcomes of overuse, including those outcomes that can harm their professional or academic lives. Knowing that these outcomes, such as getting in trouble during class or missing important social events, are possible is a first step in avoiding them. Regular, limited use of the applications can lead to healthy interpersonal contact and evolve into a variety of positive romantic involvements.

Limitations and future directions

This research has limitations that should be noted. First, our sample is limited to college students. College students or young adults in the age range are among the most active users of dating applications (Meyer, 2016) and thus have been studied frequently in research on dating applications (e.g., Sumter et al., 2017; Weiser et al., 2018). These emerging adults are also noted as an age-group that is more likely to use dating applications than any other age groups (Smith, 2016). However, it will be important to explore how other age groups use dating applications. According to the 2016 Pew Research Center Report (Smith, 2016), 22% of 18–24 years old, 13% of 25–34 years old, 11% of 35–44 years old, 5% of 45–54 years old, and 4% of 55–64 years old reported they used mobile dating applications. Also, from 2013 to 2016, the number of adults between the ages of 55 and 64 who had used online dating or mobile dating applications doubled (Smith, 2016). Given this trend, older adults’ use of dating applications will also need to be further studied.

Second, given that most self-reported measures in our model commonly share the conventional 7-point scale, methodological concerns associated with the common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012) could be raised. To address the methodological concern, we conducted a post hoc statistical test to account for the problem of common method variance based on the single latent method factor approach (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This post hoc test yielded results virtually identical to those reported in our results (see Tables S1 and S2 in the Online Supplementary). Although our findings are quite robust regardless of the legitimate concern for common method bias, methodologically more sound approaches (e.g., using unobtrusive measures or merging separately measured data) would be helpful in addressing potential problems inherent in self-reported measures.

Future research should also investigate the social skills model, including POSI, related to dating applications using other research methods. There are limitations that come with a cross-sectional survey, including respondents who may answer in socially desirable ways. In this sample, we also saw relatively low scores in compulsive use and negative outcomes, as with past research that studied the social skills model of PIU (e.g., Caplan, 2005, 2007). Future research can make a greater effort to understand those who are more severely problematic in their use, as they are much more likely to experience greater negative results (Tokunaga, 2015). Additionally, longitudinal approaches may reveal important underpinnings of problematic use of dating applications as well as providing an opportunity to explore causality issues not addressed in the present study.

This research also focuses specifically on mobile dating applications. Given the ready and ever-growing availability of mobile applications, future research should further investigate specific technological affordances of dating applications that may influence POSI, compulsive use, and possible negative outcomes that happen, particularly in comparison with the applications’ desktop counterparts. Previously mentioned affordances offer many opportunities for this research, including editability and accessibility, as well as affordances not discussed in this article, such as synchrony (Fox & McEwan, 2017). For instance, might the ability to edit one’s profile on a whim through a user-friendly interface like Tinder make someone more likely to prefer that channel? With that, how important is controlling one’s photographic self-presentation? Or does the fact that individuals can respond quickly—or slowly—aggravate the compulsive use one may experience (Fox & McEwan, 2017)? These and other questions related to affordances may offer greater depth in our understanding of both mobile dating applications and PIU related to them.

Understanding user behaviors of dating applications is a rich area of research that will only continue to grow as more mobile dating applications become available. Future research will be able to continue to clarify how romantic relationships are initiated and developed through the use of this technology, as well as advocate for healthy use of these tools for a variety of individuals with a variety of relational desires.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, JSPR-18-285.R2_Supplementary_Document - Swiping for trouble: Problematic dating application use among psychosocially distraught individuals and the paths to negative outcomes

Supplemental Material, JSPR-18-285.R2_Supplementary_Document for Swiping for trouble: Problematic dating application use among psychosocially distraught individuals and the paths to negative outcomes by Kathryn D. Coduto, Roselyn J. Lee-Won and Young Min Baek in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Original items from Caplan’s scale	Items adapted for the context of dating applications
POSI
“I am more confident socializing online than offline.”	“I am more confident socializing on dating apps than offline”
“I’m treated better online than offline.”	“I’m treated better on dating apps than offline.”
“I feel safer starting a conversation with someone online rather than face-to-face.”	“I feel safer starting a conversation with someone in a dating application rather than face-to-face.”
“I’m treated better online than I am in face-to-face situations.”	“I’m treated better on dating apps than I am in face-to-face dating or romantic situations.”
Compulsive use of dating applications
“I have made unsuccessful attempts to control my use of the Internet.”	“I have made unsuccessful attempts to control my use of dating apps.”
“I compulsively use the Internet.”	“I compulsively use dating apps.”
“I am unable to reduce the amount of time I spend on the Internet.”	“I am unable to reduce the amount of time I spend on dating apps.”
Negative outcomes
“I have gotten in trouble at work or school for being on the Internet.”	“I have gotten in trouble at work or school for being on my phone using a dating app.”
“I have missed class or work because of online activities.”	“I have missed class or work because of dating apps.”
“I have missed a social event because of online activities.”	“I have missed a social event because of being on a dating app.”
“I feel worthless offline, but I am someone online.”	“I feel worthless offline, but I am someone online.”

Variable	ANX	POS	COM	NEG	LON	AGE	BSX	REL	EST	DAP	EXT	AGR	EMO	CON	USE	SXO
POS	.386***	—
COM	.204**	.274***	—
NEG	.435***	.371***	.595***	—
LON	.691***	.275***	.166**	.472***	—
AGE	.030	.014	.062	−.056	−.006	—
BSX	−.093	−.077	−.272***	−.215***	−.188**	−.060	—
REL	−.001	−.022	−.036	−.021	−.084	.061	.033	—
EST	−.597***	−.300***	−.107	−.392***	−.694***	.077	.087	.024	—
DAP	.013	.114	.242***	−.018	−.030	.227***	−.249***	−.093	−.013	—
EXT	−.720***	−.264***	−.082	−.316***	−.582***	−.133*	.090	−.023	.437***	.061	—
AGR	−.237***	−.138*	−.178**	−.233***	−.305***	.019	.316***	.008	.268***	−.086	.181**	—
EMO	−.491***	−.232***	−.088	−.222***	−.446***	.154*	−.008	−.005	.481***	−.075	.253***	.137*	—
CON	−.241***	−.185**	−.194**	−.251***	−.262***	.096	.125*	.063	.277***	−.080	.103	.178**	.191**	—
USE	.102	.334***	.505***	.461***	.169**	.045	−.238***	−.002	−.144*	.177**	−.087	−.134*	−.048	−.111	—
SXO	−.054	−.121*	−.123*	−.121*	−.117	−.030	.078	−.035	.162**	−.161**	.019	.053	.119	.044	−.186**	—

	POSI	Compulsive use of dating applications	Negative outcomes
Constant	1.96 (1.21)	.109	−0.37 (0.91)	.684	1.77 (0.49)	.0004
Social anxiety	0.40 (0.13)	.002	0.25 (0.09)	.005	0.11 (0.06)	.048
POSI	—	—	0.04 (0.05)	.363	0.04 (0.03)	.144
Compulsive use of dating applications	—	—	—	—	0.35 (0.06)	< .001
Age	−0.01 (0.05)	.964	0.01 (0.02)	.764	−0.02 (0.01)	.292
Biological sex	0.13 (0.16)	.415	−0.21 (0.11)	.061	−0.06 (0.07)	.350
Relationship status	−0.04 (0.16)	.811	−0.03 (0.11)	.784	−0.01 (0.07)	.850
Self-esteem	−0.05 (0.08)	.514	0.10 (0.06)	.082	−0.12 (0.04)	.003
Number of dating applications used	0.10 (0.11)	.358	0.14 (0.10)	.193	−0.17 (0.08)	.028
Extroversion	0.01 (0.07)	.900	0.08 (0.05)	.118	−0.02 (0.03)	.392
Agreeableness	−0.01 (0.07)	.844	−0.04 (0.05)	.401	−0.01 (0.03)	.630
Emotional stability	−0.02 (0.06)	.723	0.01 (0.04)	.783	0.01 (0.03)	.715
Conscientiousness	−0.06 (0.06)	.346	−0.07 (0.04)	.110	−0.03 (0.03)	.371
Perceived dating application usage	0.33 (0.06)	< .001	0.36 (0.07)	< .001	0.12 (0.04)	.007
Sexual orientation	−0.15 (0.29)	.600	−0.05 (0.26)	.857	−0.03 (0.14)	.816
Model summary	F (12, 256) = 7.60	F (13, 255) = 7.85	F (14, 254) = 15.25
	R ² = .25	R ² = .34	R ² = .55
	p < .001	p < .001	p < .001

	POSI	Compulsive use of dating applications	Negative outcomes
Constant	−1.09 (1.21)	.372	−0.02 (0.94)	.985	1.90 (0.49)	.0001
Social anxiety	0.40 (0.13)	< .001	0.30 (0.09)	.014	0.11 (0.06)	.048
POSI	—	—	0.05 (0.04)	.280	0.04 (0.03)	.144
LON	—	—	−0.02 (0.08)	.760	—	—
POSI × LON	—	—	0.09 (0.05)	.043	—	—
Compulsive use of dating applications	—	—	—	—	0.35 (0.06)	< .001
Age	−0.01 (0.05)	.964	0.01 (0.02)	.735	−0.01 (0.01)	.292
Biological sex	.013 (0.16)	.415	−0.22 (0.11)	.057	−0.06 (0.07)	.350
Relationship status	−0.04 (0.16)	.810	−0.04 (0.11)	.697	−0.01 (0.07)	.849
Self-esteem	−0.05 (0.08)	.514	0.08 (0.07)	.236	−0.12 (0.04)	.003
Number of dating applications used	0.10 (0.11)	.358	0.14 (0.10)	.167	−0.17 (0.08)	.028
Extroversion	0.01 (0.07)	.900	0.07 (0.05)	.185	−0.02 (0.03)	.392
Agreeableness	−0.01 (0.07)	.844	−0.05 (0.05)	.334	−0.01 (0.03)	.630
Emotional stability	−0.02 (0.06)	.723	0.01 (0.04)	.910	0.01 (0.03)	.715
Conscientiousness	−0.06 (0.06)	.346	−0.07 (0.04)	.095	−0.02 (0.03)	.371
Perceived dating application usage	0.33 (0.06)	< .001	0.36 (0.07)	< .001	0.12 (0.03)	.007
Sexual orientation	−0.15 (0.29)	.600	−0.03 (0.26)	.898	−0.03 (0.14)	.816
Model summary	F (12, 256) = 7.60	F (15, 253) = 8.12	F (14, 254) = 15.25
	R² = .25	R² = .36	R² = .55
	p < .001	p < .001	p < .001

Footnotes

Authors’ note

This work was first presented as a conference paper at the 68th meeting of the International Communication Association in the Information Systems division.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kathryn D. Coduto

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing Kathryn Coduto at coduto.1@osu.edu.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Baumeister

R. F.

DeWall

C. N.

Ciarocco

N. J.

Twenge

J. M.

(2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 589–604. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589

Bianchi

Phillips

J. G.

(2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 8, 39–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.39

Blackwell

Birnholtz

Abbott

(2015). Seeing and being seen: Co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media and Society, 17, 1117–1136. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814521595

Cacioppo

J. T.

Fowler

J. H.

Christakis

N. A.

(2010). Alone in the crowd: The structure and spread of loneliness in a large social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 977–991. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016076

Carpenter

C. J.

McEwan

(2016). The players of micro-dating: Individual and gender differences in goal orientations toward micro-dating apps. First Monday, 21, 387–403. doi:https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i5.6187

Caplan

S. E.

(2003). Preference for online social interaction. Communication Research, 30, 625–648. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203257842

Caplan

S. E.

(2005). A social skill account of problematic Internet use. Journal of Communication, 55, 721–736. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03019.x

Caplan

S. E.

(2007). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic Internet use. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 234–242. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9963

Carr

(2016, January 11). I found out my secret internal Tinder rating and now I wish I hadn’t. Fast Company. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3054871/whats-your-tinder-score-inside-the-apps-internal-ranking-system

10.

Casale

Caplan

S. E.

Fioravanti

(2016). Positive metacognitions about Internet use: The mediating role in the relationship between emotional dysregulation and problematic use. Addictive Behaviors, 59, 84–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.03.014

11.

Chan

L. S.

(2017). Who uses dating apps? Exploring the relationships among trust, sensation-seeking, smartphone use, and the intent to use dating apps based on the integrative model. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 246–258. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.053

12.

Chung

J. E.

(2013). Social interaction in online support groups: Preference for online social interaction over offline social interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1408–1414. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.019

13.

Daly

J. A.

(2011). Personality and interpersonal communication. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 131–168). New York, NY: SAGE.

14.

Davis

R. A.

Flett

G. L.

Besser

(2002). Validation of a new scale for measuring problematic Internet use: Implications for pre-employment screening. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 5, 331–345. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102760275581

15.

Duck

(1986). Human relationships: An introduction to social psychology. London, UK: SAGE.

16.

Duguay

(2016). Dressing up Tinderella: Interrogating authenticity claims on the mobile dating app Tinder. Information, Communication & Society, 3, 351–367. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1168471

17.

Fiore

A. T.

Donath

J. S.

(2004, April). Online personals: An overview. In CHI ‘04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1395–1398). New York, NY: ACM. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.986073.

18.

Fox

McEwan

(2017). Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs, 84, 298–318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1332418

19.

Fox

Warber

(2013). Romantic relationship development in the age of Facebook: An exploratory study of emerging adults’ perceptions, motives, and behaviors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 3–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0288

20.

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Swann

W. B

. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1

21.

Harman

J. P.

Hansen

C. E.

Cochran

M. E.

Lindsey

C. R.

(2005). Liar, liar: Internet faking but not frequency of use affects social skills, self-esteem, social anxiety, and aggression. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 8, 1–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089.cpb.2005.8.1

22.

Hayes

A. F

. (2018). PROCESS for SPSS and SAS (Version 3). Retrieved from http://processmacro.org/download.html.

23.

Hayes

A. F.

(2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 1–22. doi:http://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962683

24.

Heino

R. D.

Ellison

N. B.

Gibbs

J. L.

(2010). Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 427–447. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510361614

25.

Kim

LaRose

Peng

(2009). Loneliness as the cause and the effect of problematic Internet use: The relationship between Internet use and psychological well-being. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12, 451–455. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0327

26.

LaRose

Lin

C. A.

Eastin

M. S

. (2003). Unregulated Internet usage: Addiction, habit, or deficient self-regulation? Media Psychology, 5, 225–253. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0503_01

27.

LeFebvre

L. E.

(2017). Swiping me off my feet: Explicating relationship initiation on Tinder. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 1205–1229. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517706419

28.

Mascheroni

Vincent

(2016). Perpetual contact as a communicative affordance: Opportunities, constraints, and emotions. Mobile Media and Communication, 4, 310–326. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157916639347

29.

Meyer

(2016, February 11). College-aged adults are now the most likely online daters. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/college-aged-adults-are-now-the-most-likely-online-daters/462384/

30.

Orosz

Tóth-Király

Bőthe

Melher

(2016). Too many swipes for today: The development of the Problematic Tinder Use Scale (PTUS). Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5, 518–523. doi:https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.5.2016.016

31.

Park

W. K.

(2005). Mobile phone addiction. In Ling

Pedersen

P. E.

(Eds.), Mobile communications: Re-negotiation of the social sphere (pp. 253–272). London, UK: Springer.

32.

Peplau

L. A.

Perlman

(1979). Blueprint for a social psychological theory of loneliness. In Cook

Wilson

(Eds.), Love and attraction: Proceedings of an International Conference (pp. 101–110). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

33.

Pew Research. (2018). Mobile fact sheet. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/

34.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

35.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

36.

Rainie

Zickhur

(2015, August). Americans’ views on mobile etiquette. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/26/chapter-1-always-on-connectivity/

37.

Ramirez

Sumner

E. M.

Fleuriet

Cole

(2015). When online dating partners meet offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication between online daters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 99–114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12101

38.

Reid

D. J.

Reid

F. J. M.

(2007). Text or talk? Social anxiety, loneliness, and divergent preferences for cell phone use. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 424–435. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9936

39.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

40.

Russell

Peplau

L. A.

Cutrona

C. E.

(1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472–480. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472

41.

Schlenker

B. R.

Leary

M. R.

(1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641–669. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.641

42.

Schrock

A. R.

(2015). Communication affordances of mobile media: Portability, availability, locatability, and multimediality. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1229–1246.

43.

Segrin

(1990). A meta-analytic review of social skill deficits in depression. Communication Monographs, 57, 292–308. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759009376204

44.

Segrin

(1993). Effects of dysphoria and loneliness on social perceptual skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 1315–1329. doi:https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1993.77.3f.1315

45.

Shaw

L. H.

Gant

L. M.

(2004). In defense of the Internet: The relationship between Internet communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 5, 157–171. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102753770552

46.

Smith

. (2016). 15% of American adults have used online dating sites or mobile dating apps. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/02/11/15-percent-of-american-adults-have-used-online-dating-sites-or-mobile-dating-apps/

47.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Canary

D. J.

(1985). Loneliness and relationally competent communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 387–402. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407585024001

48.

Stampler

(2014, February 6). Inside Tinder: Meet the guys who turned dating into an addiction. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4837/tinder-meet-the-guys-who-turned-dating-into-an-addiction/

49.

Stead

Bibby

P. A.

(2017). Personality, fear of missing out and problematic internet use and their relationship to subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 534–540. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.016

50.

Stevens

S. B.

Morris

T. L.

(2007). College dating and social anxiety: Using the Internet as a means of connecting to others. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 680–688. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9970

51.

Sumter

S. R.

Vandenbosch

Ligtenberg

(2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 67–78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.009

52.

Timmermans

De Caluwe

(2017). Development and validation of the Tinder motives scale (TMS). Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 341–350. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.028

53.

Tokunaga

R. S.

(2015). Perspectives on Internet addiction, problematic Internet use, and deficient self-regulation: Contributions of communication research. In Cohen

E. L.

(Ed.), Communication Yearbook 39 (pp. 131–161). New York, NY: Routledge.

54.

Tokunaga

R. S.

Rains

S. A.

(2010). An evaluation of two characterizations of the relationships between problematic Internet use, time spent using the Internet, and psychosocial problems. Human Communication Research, 36, 512–545. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01386.x

55.

Tziallas

(2015). Gamified eroticism: Gay male “social networking” applications and self-pornography. Sexuality and Culture, 19, 759–775. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9288-z

56.

Uzial

(2016). Alone, unhappy, and demotivated: The impact of an alone mind-set on neurotic individuals’ willpower. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 818–827. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616657597

57.

Vente

W. D.

Majdandžić

Voncken

M. J.

Beidel

D. C.

Bögels

S. M.

(2014). The SPAI-18, a brief version of the social phobia and anxiety inventory: Reliability and validity in clinically referred and non-referred samples. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28, 140–147. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.05.003

58.

Ward

(2017). What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app. Information, Communication and Society, 11, 1644–1659. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1252412

59.

Weiser

D. A.

Niehuis

Flora

Punyanunt-Carter

N. M.

Arias

V. S.

Baird

H. R.

(2018). Swiping right: Sociosexuality, intentions to engage in infidelity, and infidelity experiences on Tinder. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 29–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.025

60.

Zichermann

Cunningham

(2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.35 MB

	POSI		Compulsive use of dating applications		Negative outcomes
	b (SE)	p	b (SE)	p	b (SE)	p
Constant	1.96 (1.21)	.109	−0.37 (0.91)	.684	1.77 (0.49)	.0004
Social anxiety	0.40 (0.13)	.002	0.25 (0.09)	.005	0.11 (0.06)	.048
POSI	—	—	0.04 (0.05)	.363	0.04 (0.03)	.144
Compulsive use of dating applications	—	—	—	—	0.35 (0.06)	< .001
Age	−0.01 (0.05)	.964	0.01 (0.02)	.764	−0.02 (0.01)	.292
Biological sex	0.13 (0.16)	.415	−0.21 (0.11)	.061	−0.06 (0.07)	.350
Relationship status	−0.04 (0.16)	.811	−0.03 (0.11)	.784	−0.01 (0.07)	.850
Self-esteem	−0.05 (0.08)	.514	0.10 (0.06)	.082	−0.12 (0.04)	.003
Number of dating applications used	0.10 (0.11)	.358	0.14 (0.10)	.193	−0.17 (0.08)	.028
Extroversion	0.01 (0.07)	.900	0.08 (0.05)	.118	−0.02 (0.03)	.392
Agreeableness	−0.01 (0.07)	.844	−0.04 (0.05)	.401	−0.01 (0.03)	.630
Emotional stability	−0.02 (0.06)	.723	0.01 (0.04)	.783	0.01 (0.03)	.715
Conscientiousness	−0.06 (0.06)	.346	−0.07 (0.04)	.110	−0.03 (0.03)	.371
Perceived dating application usage	0.33 (0.06)	< .001	0.36 (0.07)	< .001	0.12 (0.04)	.007
Sexual orientation	−0.15 (0.29)	.600	−0.05 (0.26)	.857	−0.03 (0.14)	.816
Model summary	F (12, 256) = 7.60		F (13, 255) = 7.85		F (14, 254) = 15.25
	R ² = .25		R ² = .34		R ² = .55
	p < .001		p < .001		p < .001