Healthy Dating App Use: How Apps Can Build And Break Self-Confidence

We recently published our large-scale study on dating, where 31,676 active dating app users shared the hidden motives and psychological patterns that sit behind their dating app use.

In this article we share more insights from our dating study, including an analysis of over 5,500 text responses to the question: What do you like vs dislike about dating apps? Bringing together findings from both datasets, we explore how dating apps can both meet and trigger self-esteem needs, and share our tips on how apps can be used to build (rather than break) your self-confidence while dating.

When we go to use a dating app, we are aiming to get a need met. Some needs may be clearly linked to the original reason we downloaded the app – most likely to either find love or a short-term hookup (or both). Indeed dating apps are pitched as relationship tools which can help you date quicker and more easily than offline. However studies have found that people are using dating apps for more than love-seeking and connection-building, including social approval or confidence-boosting.¹,²

We found that, although most users are driven by connection-building motives such as seeking love (80.6%) and/or having casual sex (34%), many users acknowledge they use apps for mood-regulating motives – such as feeling excitement (35.8%), escaping boredom (45.4%), and boosting their self-confidence (36.4%). It is important to note that in our study, users could select more than one motive, and we found many users selecting both connection-building and mood-regulating motives at the same time. As such, dating apps are mixed-motive ecosystems and this can contribute to dating app experiences feeling confusing or chaotic.

When we’re getting matches and active responses, the positive attention can feel reassuring and encouraging. But when our ‘match rate’ starts to dwindle or our messages go unread, we may be triggered into feelings of insecurity. Dating apps are a feedback environment where we receive many signals about how desirable we are to other users. And these bits of feedback (matches, messages, silences) inevitably go some way to shape how we might feel – both about the person we’re interacting with, and also ourselves.

Psychology of Self-Esteem & Dating

Self-esteem is our overall sense of “I am worthy” and “I am good enough” – regardless of what others might think or say about us. From a psychological perspective, there are two types of self-esteem:

• Trait self-esteem: a stable baseline of how we see our worth and ability, affected by early experiences, genetics, and temperament.
• State self-esteem: short-term fluctuations in evaluations of worth and ability affected by daily experiences.

Trait-based self-esteem is influenced by genetics and early experiences that come together to shape our overall personality. You can think of this form of self-esteem as your ‘reserve tank of confidence’. Trait self-esteem is relatively stable, though it can be built up or knocked down throughout life based on the experiences we have, and how we generally appraise ourselves e.g., seeing Self as worthy, deserving of love, and capable of achieving challenging things.

In contrast, state-based self-esteem is more fluctuating. We may wake up in the morning feeling good about ourselves, then encounter an unexpected setback at lunch that leads us to judgments that we’ve failed, made a terrible mistake, or are being rejected by others. After a call with a friend or loved one, we may start to feel better, and end the day thinking more positively about the situation and ourselves. This form of self-esteem is more unstable and can go up or down on a regular basis, depending on what life may throw our way.

Dating can really test our levels of state-based self-esteem, because we are putting ourselves in situations where we are seeking (as well as risking) feelings of acceptance, desirability, and belonging.³ In the early stages of dating, a bond is still forming, the relationship is still developing, and it is not uncommon for “false starts” to happen. Everything can seem to be going in the right direction, but intentions become misaligned or preferences may start to seem incompatible, and the hope of a long-term ‘relationship’ fades away.

Bringing this tension onto apps, we enter a dating ecosystem designed to make users assess compatibility and make superficial judgments in a matter of seconds. With so much exposure to potential matches, research suggests we can experience feelings of rejection more frequently than we would offline.⁴,⁵

However, studies suggest that higher levels of trait-based self-esteem may provide a protective buffer against these regular knocks while dating. Individuals with higher trait self-esteem are more likely to interpret rejection as “incompatibility” or “wrong timing” rather than an evaluation of their self-worth. By contrast, lower levels of trait self-esteem are more predictive of self-defensive reactions when things do not work out. This can include devaluing the relationship (“I never liked them anyway!”), withdrawing, internalizing rejection.⁶,⁷

Self-Esteem and Attachment Styles

Morris Rosenberg, a professor of sociology, developed a measure of self-esteem called Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). This self-report measure is designed to assess an individual’s levels of trait self-esteem – overall and also broken down across sub-dimensions of self-competence (e.g., confidence in skill or ability) and self-liking (e.g., feeling worthy or deserving).

Research has shown a link between attachment styles and self-esteem. A meta-analysis from 2014 found a common pattern: secure attachment is more predictive of higher levels of self-esteem, while insecure attachment (anxiety and avoidance) was more associated with lower levels of self-esteem.⁸ Attachment orientations have also been found to predict dating app preferences and usage patterns.⁹

Our Large-Scale Dating Study — What We Found

We undertook a large-scale study on dating app use, motives, attachment, self-esteem, and emotion regulation patterns. Over 31,000 dating app users indicated their favorite dating app, and selected the different motives behind their dating app use. We found that beyond the standard connection-building motives (love or sex) a large minority of users selected mood-regulating motives, with 36.4% selecting “to get validation / boost confidence”.

This validation / boost confidence motive can reflect at least two possibilities:

• Reassurance-seeking (situational) e.g., “I want to feel seen / desirable again after a breakup or dry spell.”
• Mood management (coping) e.g., “I’m using matches to regulate insecurity, loneliness, stress, or self-doubt.”

Our data cannot tell which of these motives were at play for people who took part in our survey, but we are able to describe the psychological profiles of respondents who selected this motive.

Who Is Seeking Validation Most?

Our demographic data indicates that the most validation-seeking motives were selected by younger women:

• On average 68% of those who selected the validation motive were female, compared with 48% for sex/hookups which is nearly gender-balanced.
• Overall, validation seekers skewed significantly younger: 76% were under 30 and 40% were aged 18–24, compared to 63% under 30 and 27% aged 18–24 among love seekers.

It is important to note that respondents could select multiple motives. As such, each motive group below reflects the psychological profile of all respondents who selected that dating motive:

Love / serious relationship seekers:

• Attachment: 35.8% secure, 45.6% anxious, 14.8% disorganized, 3.9% avoidant
• Trait self-esteem: 34.7% high, 31.7% medium, 33.4% low

Validation / confidence-boosting seekers:

• Attachment: 29.9% secure, 47.7% anxious, 18.2% disorganized, 4.3% avoidant
• Trait self-esteem: 24.8% high, 32.9% medium, 42.2% low

Casual sex / hookup seekers:

• Attachment: 37.9% secure, 42.4% anxious, 14.8% disorganized, 5.0% avoidant
• Trait self-esteem: 32.3% high, 31.1% medium, 36.4% low

*Data note: using the subgroup counts as weights. Demographic breakdowns are based on those who used the three most popular apps in our dataset (Hinge, Bumble, and Tinder). These apps account for the majority of active dating app users in our sample.

What Does This Mean?

These findings suggest that users who selected validation / confidence-boosting motives were less likely to be secure (29.9%) and more likely to report low self-esteem levels (42.2%). This stands in contrast to long-term love seekers who showed higher levels of self-esteem (34.7%) and more secure attachment patterns (35.8%). Casual sex seekers showed higher rates of secure attachment (37.9%) and slightly higher self-esteem levels than validation seekers (32.3% vs 24.8% in the high self-esteem category).

It’s important to remember these findings do not suggest that using dating apps will lower your self-esteem. Instead this points to a pattern where people with lower levels of trait self-esteem may be more likely to turn to dating apps to boost their confidence or get validation.

Do Users Get What They Want From Dating Apps?

We wanted to know whether dating apps actually met the needs of and offered the experiences users are looking for. To do so, we analyzed over 5,500 text responses to a very broad and open question: What do you like versus dislike about dating apps? We identified recurring language patterns (keywords and phrases) across these responses, which were then clustered into key themes. We first examined the patterns of these themes across all users, then against respondents’ attachment styles, and explored whether there were any themes linked to validation / confidence boosting benefits.

Common Dating App Likes vs Dislikes

Overall, respondents shared a greater number of ‘dislikes’ compared to ‘likes’ when it came to their dating app experiences. 32% of respondents discussed ‘convenience and reach‘ as the main benefit of using dating apps. These respondents valued having the opportunity to meet people outside of their usual social circles, with less effort and greater choice when compared to dating offline.

Nevertheless, this efficiency was felt to come at a cost. The same features that respondents valued for convenience and reach were also found to dampen their dating app experiences. The following are the top ten common dating app ‘dislike’ themes (% of all respondents mentioning this theme):

1. Intention mismatch (hookup vs. serious) (37%)
2. Conversation quality & connection difficulty (34%)
3. Superficiality & appearance-first selection (32%)
4. Overload & time drain (24%)
5. Trust & authenticity concerns (23%)
6. Ghosting & non-responsiveness (21%)
7. Offline preference (face-to-face) (21%)
8. Addictive nature of gamification, validation & algorithms (18%)
9. Gendered dynamics (13%)
10. Emotional costs & self-esteem impact (10%)

Let’s Explore These Themes by Attachment Style

Secure

Respondents with secure attachment styles offered relatively balanced views of dating apps. 43% of respondents liked the ‘convenience and reach‘ that dating apps offer, but 38% were put-off by the emphasis on ‘appearance-first‘ decisions, superficiality, and the tendency for there to be mismatched intentions (36%). 27% acknowledged the time drain of dating apps, although there were no responses which explicitly referred to the emotional cost or self-esteem impact (0%).

Anxious-Preoccupied

Respondents from this group also described valuing convenience / reach (32%) and disliked the tendency for intention mismatch (30%), but less so than secure attachers. Anxious attachers shared the greatest concerns about superficiality (40%) and felt this reduced the quality of conversation and meaningful connection (46%) with those they interacted with. They were explicit about how this heightened their experience of rejection, and were more likely to discuss the negative impact on their self-esteem (19.1%) when compared with secure attachers.

Fearful-Avoidant/Disorganized

Respondents in this group tended to present a polarity in their responses. On the one hand, a large number of respondents acknowledged the convenience and high-choice environment that dating apps offer (41%). While at the same time highlighting the friction this convenience creates in having meaningful connection-building conversations (44%). Respondents with a fearful-avoidant attachment style had the highest frequency of respondents mentioning the overwhelm / time drain (37%), and linked this to the negative impacts on their well-being and self-esteem (23%).

Dismissive-Avoidant*

This was the smallest group in our sample, but echoed similar dissatisfaction with convenience at the cost of superficiality, as the other groups. A notable theme in this group was blaming the ‘gamification‘ nature of apps for creating ‘inauthentic‘ connections, and discussing the challenges they face in having meaningful conversations with other dating app users.

*Data note: a greater number of responses from dismissive-avoidant attachers were excluded from analyses due to not meeting the minimum word count threshold. Given the smaller sample size, we do not report %s for this attachment style category.

What Does This Mean?

These open-text responses suggest that overall, dating apps are delivering what they are set out to primarily do. They offer users greater access and broader reach to a dating pool, with more convenience and less effort required than offline dating. Nevertheless, they do not reliably bring about the emotional outcomes that many users are seeking. Across all 5,500+ responses, many dislikes clustered around themes of not feeling genuinely seen, responded to, judged based on physical appearances, experiencing issues with trust, depleting time and emotional resources. Considering the large minority of respondents who selected “validation / confidence-boosting” as a motive for using apps, this was scarcely mentioned in text responses. When it was mentioned, it was associated with the negative impact that dating apps have on users’ emotional well-being and self-esteem.

Dating apps have the potential to create a greater number of connecting opportunities, but can also create a high-feedback environment which fuels user tendencies to engage in social comparison and experience feelings of rejection on a more frequent (and potentially harmful) basis. While this is a risk to all dating app users, it is more so in the case of individuals who already have lower levels of trait self-esteem.

References

1. Orosz, G., Benyó, M., Berkes, B., et al. (2018). The personality, motivational, and need-based background of problematic Tinder use. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 301–316.
2. Sumter, S. R., & Vandenbosch, L. (2019). Dating gone mobile: Demographic and personality-based correlates of using smartphone-based dating applications among emerging adults. New media & society, 21(3), 655-673.
3. Pass, J. A., Lindenberg, S. M., & Park, J. H. (2010). All you need is love: Is the sociometer especially sensitive to one’s mating capacity? European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 221–234.
4. Bonilla-Zorita, G., Griffiths, M. D., & Kuss, D. J. (2021). Online dating and problematic use: A systematic review. International journal of mental health and addiction, 19(6), 2245-2278.
5. Kim, M., Kwon, K.-N., & Lee, M. (2009). Psychological characteristics of Internet dating service users: The effect of self-esteem, involvement, and sociability on the use of Internet dating services. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 445–449.
6. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 478–498.
7. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 641–666.
8. Hao, J., & Wilkinson, R. B. (2014). Adult attachment and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences.
9. Chin, K., Edelstein, R. S., & Vernon, P. A. (2019). Attached to dating apps: Attachment orientations and preferences for dating apps. Mobile Media & Communication, 7(1), 41-59.