Covert Influence in Digital Courtship: Ethical, Behavioral, and Platform-Design Imperatives for Safer Dating Ecosystems
Manipulation, Mental Health, and Modern Matchmaking: A Public-Health Framework for Ethical Dating Apps
From Swipes to Symptoms: How Digital Dating Architectures Shape Trust, Consent, and Relational Well-Being
Dating Apps as Behavioral-Health Environments: Covert Tactics, Algorithmic Harm, and the Case for Bend Dating
The Hidden Psychology of Online Dating: Covert Courtship Tactics, Addictive Design, and an Ethical Alternative
Ghosting, Games, and Gamblers: How Dating Apps Hijack the Brain—and How Bend Dating Rewrites the Rules
Swipe, Reward, Repeat: Inside the Manipulation Economy of Modern Dating Apps and a Blueprint for Reform
Tricked Into “Connection”: Covert Influence, Algorithmic Seduction, and the Fight for Honest Digital Courtship
The Dark Arts of Digital Dating: How Apps and Coaches Teach Manipulation—and How Bend Dating Pushes Back
Addicted to the Match: Exposing the Hidden Tactics of Dating Apps and Building a Safer Way to Fall in Love
Abstract
Swipe-based dating applications have rapidly become a dominant context for modern courtship. While these platforms offer unprecedented access to potential partners, they also create structural and psychological incentives that can undermine trust, emotional safety, and relational authenticity. Concurrently, a growing industry of “dating coaches” and online influencers teaches individuals covert interpersonal tactics to maximize sexual or relational yield, often without transparent disclosure of intent.
This paper, grounded in clinical and behavioral-science perspectives, synthesizes current empirical evidence on the mental health impacts of dating apps and draws on Mentor Research Institute’s 2025 work on dating apps, digital matchmaking, and hormonal feedback loops in intimate relationships. It proposes a typology of covert courtship tactics, analyzes the psychological and biological mechanisms that make these tactics effective, and critiques platform-level design choices that incentivize addictive, manipulative, and low-empathy behavior.
Using Bend Dating, a psychology-informed, community-rooted, value-based dating platform, as a case example, the paper advances a public-health–oriented framework for ethical digital courtship. It argues that dating apps should be conceptualized and regulated as behavioral-health environments and proposes measurement-based relational-health metrics, harm-reduction strategies, and design principles to support safety, trust, and authentic connection.
Introduction
During the last decade, dating applications have transformed how people initiate romantic and sexual relationships. Estimates suggest that tens of millions of adults in the United States and globally have used dating apps, and projections indicate that a majority of future relationships may begin online (Mentor Research Institute [MRI], 2025a). These platforms have become normalized as a primary route to connection for many emerging adults and mid-life adults across diverse demographic groups (MRI, 2025a).
However, the apparent convenience and reach of dating apps obscure a complex set of psychological, social, and ethical problems. Empirical research increasingly documents associations between dating-app use and poorer body image, anxiety, depression, disordered eating, compulsive use, and risky sexual behavior (Bowman & Drummond, 2024; Winter et al., 2025; Gori et al., 2024; Thomas et al., 2025).
In parallel, a thriving industry of dating coaches, influencers, and content creators disseminates scripts and techniques for “getting the girl,” “raising your game,” or “locking down a husband.” These often encourage covert or semi-covert influence strategies: selective self-disclosure, ambiguous intention signaling, rapid emotional escalation, strategic withdrawal, and calculated use of intermittent reinforcement. While not always malicious, these strategies interact with app architectures in ways that can distort consent, erode trust, and deepen emotional harm.
Traditional swipe-based platforms are also structurally misaligned with relational health. They are typically optimized for time-on-app, engagement, and monetization rather than for long-term relationship formation. Design features such as infinite swiping, gamified feedback, pay-to-be-seen boosts, and opaque algorithms create environments that foster addiction-like loops, superficial judgments, and low accountability (MRI, 2025b; MRI, 2025c).
Mentor Research Institute’s Bend Dating initiative proposes a radically different model: a community-anchored, psychology-informed dating ecosystem with multi-tiered screening, independent oversight, a strict code of conduct, and explicit attention to safety, accountability, and member well-being (MRI, 2025b; MRI, 2025c; MRI, 2025d; MRI, 2025e).
This paper has four aims:
To summarize current evidence regarding the mental health and behavioral risks associated with mainstream dating apps.
To articulate a detailed typology of common covert interpersonal tactics used in digital courtship.
To analyze the psychological and biological mechanisms that make these tactics, and app architectures, so influential.
To present Bend Dating as a case example of a public-health, measurement-based approach to ethical digital courtship.
Literature Review
Mental Health Impacts of Dating Apps
A growing empirical literature documents associations between dating-app use and adverse psychological outcomes. A recent systematic review by Bowman and Drummond (2024) analyzed studies published between 2016 and 2023 on dating apps, body image, mental health, and well-being. Over 85% of studies examining body image outcomes reported significant negative effects of dating app use, including increased body dissatisfaction and appearance-based self-criticism; nearly half of the studies examining mental health outcomes found significant negative associations with self-esteem, anxiety, and overall well-being.
Other studies have focused on problematic or addictive patterns of online dating app (ODA) use. Winter and colleagues (2025) found that higher intensity of problematic ODA use was significantly associated with more symptoms of depression, greater impulsivity, and an increased number of sexual partners, as well as higher rates of condomless sex among certain subgroups. Gori et al. (2024) developed and validated the Problematic Online Dating Apps Use Scale (PODAUS), concluding that some users demonstrate addiction-like patterns of engagement: loss of control, salience, conflict, and mood modification linked to app use.
Clinically focused syntheses echo these findings. MRI’s “The Mental Health Impacts of Dating Apps: A Clinician’s Guide” (2025a) reviews evidence that swipe-based platforms exploit paradox of choice, intermittent reinforcement, and visual social comparison, contributing to self-esteem erosion, anxiety, and compulsive engagement. The guide emphasizes that dating apps often become an unrecognized driver of clinical presentations, particularly among younger adults presenting with relationship distress, social anxiety, or body image concerns.
Consent, Ambiguity, and Covert Influence
Research on computer-mediated consent has begun to explore how app-based interactions complicate sexual communication. Zytko and colleagues (2021) conducted an interview study on Tinder users, identifying two primary consent processes: “consent signaling” (indirect, often ambiguous) and “affirmative consent” (explicit verbal agreement). The authors noted that many participants relied heavily on ambiguous cues, such as continued messaging or implied interest, which may be misinterpreted and can contribute to nonconsensual encounters.
These findings align with MRI’s broader critique that both app design and user behavior normalize ambiguity, strategic misrepresentation, and covert influence, making it harder for users to achieve truly informed consent around sexual and relational engagement (MRI, 2025a, 2025f).
Platform Design, Engagement, and Legal Scrutiny
Concerns about manipulative design are not merely theoretical. In 2024, a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed against Match Group, the parent company of Tinder, Hinge, and other platforms, alleging that the company deliberately designed apps to encourage compulsive use through game-like features and pay-to-play mechanics, prioritizing profit over genuine relationship building (Associated Press, 2024). The complaint directly compared the user experience to gambling products, highlighting psychological reward systems and deliberately elusive matches.
MRI’s Bend Dating papers similarly characterize mainstream apps as “profit-focused dating app designs” that maximize engagement rather than relational success, using swipes, boosts, and algorithms to nudge users toward impulsivity, appearance-based sorting, and endless browsing (MRI, 2025b, 2025g).
Taken together, empirical studies and critical analyses point to a convergence: app architectures and covert interpersonal strategies interact to produce environments that are misaligned with psychological safety and relational health.
Typology of Common Covert Tactics in Digital Courtship
The contemporary dating ecosystem is characterized by a proliferation of covert interpersonal behaviors designed to maximize romantic, sexual, or social outcomes without explicit disclosure of intent. These behaviors, frequently taught by dating coaches, influencers, and algorithmically surfaced content, constitute a repertoire of influence strategies that users deploy in digital courtship environments. This typology is not intended as a prescriptive guide for behavior but as a descriptive analysis of observed patterns that have ethical, relational, and public-health consequences.
Selective Self-Disclosure
Selective self-disclosure involves revealing strategically curated personal information to increase perceived intimacy while withholding deeper, more consequential truths. The tactic aims to mimic authentic vulnerability while avoiding relational accountability.
Example. A dating-coach program instructs male clients to disclose a story about personal hardship (e.g., “My last relationship really taught me how to open up”) to create emotional resonance, while intentionally withholding information about a primary interest in casual sex. The disclosure produces asymmetric emotional labor: the receiving partner invests emotionally, while the disclosing partner remains strategically detached.
MRI’s clinical analysis notes that perceived authenticity and vulnerability strongly increase attraction and trust, even when they are simulated or partial (MRI, 2025a). In such cases, selective disclosure becomes an instrument of influence rather than a vehicle for genuine relational mutuality.
Ambiguous Relational Signaling
Ambiguous signaling is a technique in which individuals imply romantic or sexual potential without concretely stating intentions. It leverages the human tendency toward projection, uncertainty tolerance, and cognitive closure.
Common forms include:
Vague statements (“I’m open to whatever feels right”)
Future-oriented hints without commitment (“Let’s see where this goes”)
Emotionally warm but noncommittal communication
Inconsistent language that encourages hopeful interpretation
Ambiguity is not inherently manipulative; people often lack full clarity about their intentions. However, in contexts where one party intentionally cultivates ambiguity to secure sexual access or ongoing attention, it becomes ethically problematic. Zytko et al. (2021) found that such ambiguity in app-based consent can create false assumptions about sexual safety, exclusivity, or emotional reciprocity, particularly when users treat continued messaging or flirting as tacit consent.
Rapid Escalation of Emotional or Physical Intimacy
Many covert strategies focus on accelerating intimacy to bypass rational evaluation. Rapid intimacy interferes with reflective judgment, attachment stability, and the establishment of boundaries.
Examples include:
“Love-bombing” early in communication (excessive compliments, intense expressions of interest)
Expressing exaggerated admiration prematurely (“I’ve never felt this kind of connection so quickly”)
Using physical touch early and often to shift dynamics
Deploying “bridge statements” that pivot quickly from neutral conversation to sexual framing (“We have such good chemistry—imagine what it would be like in person…”)
Digital contexts amplify this tactic because emotional pacing is already distorted—texting allows dense emotional signaling in unrealistically compressed timeframes. MRI’s clinical guide notes that some clients report feeling “emotionally flooded” by rapid intimacy online, only to experience abrupt withdrawal later, which can be destabilizing and retraumatizing (MRI, 2025a).
Intermittent Reinforcement and Variable Reward Schedules
Users deploy inconsistent response times, sporadic warmth, and unpredictable availability to create anticipation and emotional pursuit. This mirrors the variable reinforcement schedules known to produce habit formation and compulsive engagement.
Typical behaviors include:
Delayed replies followed by high-affect engagement
Abrupt emotional shifts (“hot–cold” patterns)
Ghosting followed by reappearance (“zombieing”)
Strategic silence used to amplify attraction or test interest
Neurobehavioral work summarized by MRI (2025d) and popular reports on the “dating app effect” indicate that such intermittent patterns amplify dopamine release and stress-hormone reactivity, contributing to cycles of craving and disappointment similar to gambling products.Mentor
Mirroring and Pseudo-Attunement
Mirroring involves matching the recipient’s emotional tone, interests, or disclosed vulnerabilities to create the illusion of profound compatibility or emotional resonance.
Common manifestations:
Repeating the last emotionally meaningful phrase or sentiment
Superficially aligning values (“I’m also really into mindfulness and emotional growth”)
Adopting similar pace, language style, and affect
Providing enthusiastic validation without substantive engagement
Mirroring is a normal part of human interaction; however, when deployed primarily as a strategic tool—often coached as a “rapport-building” technique—it can create what might be termed pseudo-attunement: a feeling of being deeply seen that does not correspond to genuine understanding or commitment. In digital environments, where nonverbal cues are limited, linguistic mirroring gains disproportionate influence.
Persona Optimization and Profile Manipulation
Digital profiles are highly curated identity constructions. Covert tactics include optimizing profiles not for authentic representation but for maximal attraction or sexual conversion.
Examples include:
Using AI-enhanced or heavily filtered images to increase perceived attractiveness
Adopting persona scripts (e.g., “confident, adventurous, spontaneous”) drawn directly from dating-coach curricula
Omitting or altering key aspects of identity (age, children, relationship goals) to widen appeal
Presenting conflicting intentions across platforms (e.g., “serious only” language on one app; hookups implied on another)
MRI’s critique of “performative profiles” notes that such practices erode authenticity, exacerbate self-esteem problems, and contribute to user cynicism when online personas consistently mismatch offline behavior (MRI, 2025b, 2025g).
Strategic Withdrawal, Ghosting, and Soft-Exit Tactics
Withdrawal behaviors intentionally disrupt emotional continuity to achieve personal goals (sexual or otherwise), avoid accountability, or disengage without social cost.
Patterns include:
“Slow fading” (gradual decrease in responsiveness while maintaining minimal contact)
Sudden disappearance after emotional or physical intimacy (ghosting)
Reappearing when convenient or when alternative options collapse (“benching,” “orbiting”)
Avoidance of conversations that would clarify consent, expectations, or impact
MRI documents that ghosting and related behaviors are not trivial annoyances but catalysts for acute distress, self-doubt, and reactivation of prior attachment wounds, particularly in clients with trauma histories or insecure attachment styles (MRI, 2025a).
Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Covert Courtship Tactics
The effectiveness of covert tactics is grounded in well-established psychological and neurobiological processes. These mechanisms explain how manipulative digital behaviors exploit pre-existing vulnerabilities in cognition, attachment, and reward systems.
Dopaminergic Reward Cycles and Anticipation Conditioning
Online dating apps create reinforcement loops similar to gambling platforms: each match, like, or incoming message functions as a small reward. Bowman and Drummond (2024) and MRI (2025a) note that intermittent, unpredictable rewards—a new match after many rejections, a sudden burst of messages after silence, are especially potent drivers of compulsive engagement.
Covert tactics piggyback on these loops by:
Creating unpredictable messaging patterns (variable reward schedules)
Engineering emotional highs and lows (love-bombing followed by withdrawal)
Prolonging anticipation windows (delayed replies after intimate exchanges)
Generating salient “jackpot” moments (unexpected declarations of attraction)
Recent work on hormonal responses to digital dating suggests that these cycles of anticipation, perceived reward, and rejection can modulate dopamine, testosterone, and cortisol in ways that mirror chronic stress and behavioral addiction (MRI, 2025d; New York Post, 2025).
Cognitive Biases and Projection Mechanisms
Ambiguity invites projection. In contexts of loneliness, desire for connection, or prior relational trauma, individuals are especially prone to filling informational gaps with idealized interpretations.
Key biases include:
Confirmation bias: selectively noticing signs that support the belief that “this person is serious about me.”
Optimism bias: underestimating the probability of deception or misalignment.
Halo effect: inferring positive traits (kindness, reliability) from attractiveness or charisma.
Anchoring and availability: overweighting initial impressions (e.g., early intense connection) even after subsequent contradictory behavior.
MRI’s clinical guidance emphasizes how these biases drive clients to reinterpret inconsistent or evasive behavior as benign, thereby prolonging exposure to unhealthy dynamics (MRI, 2025a). Covert strategists intentionally leave interpretive space, through vague language, mixed signals, or selective disclosure, to harness these biases.
Attachment-System Activation and Insecurity Amplification
Attachment systems are particularly sensitive to cues of availability, responsiveness, and consistency. Rapid intimacy and intermittent engagement can profoundly disrupt attachment regulation.
For individuals with anxious attachment, unpredictable warmth and withdrawal can:
intensify fear of abandonment
heighten preoccupation with the relationship
increase pursuit behaviors and rumination
For those with avoidant attachment, the same patterns may:
reinforce deactivation strategies
justify emotional distance
diminish motivation for secure bonding
MRI’s review of dating apps and mental health notes that swipe environments frequently activate attachment wounds: anxious users overinterpret matches as relational promises; avoidant users treat the app as a buffer against vulnerability (MRI, 2025a). Covert tactics amplify these vulnerabilities by deliberately oscillating between intimacy and distance.
Social Comparison and Identity Disruption
Digital dating exposes users to a continuous stream of curated images and profiles, creating an environment of high social comparison. Chan (2025) and Bowman and Drummond (2024) describe associations between dating-app use and poorer body image, lower satisfaction with appearance, and increased reliance on external validation.
This identity disruption manifests as:
heightened self-consciousness about appearance and desirability
internalized beliefs of being “less than” others on the app
oscillation between inflated and deflated self-concepts
increased susceptibility to external affirmation, including from manipulative partners
Covert tactics, such as idealized persona presentation, selective compliments, and conditional attention, gain power in this context because users’ self-worth is already destabilized.
Emotional Contingency and Hormonal Coactivation
The interplay of oxytocin, vasopressin, cortisol, dopamine, and adrenaline during romantic connection and conflict is central to MRI’s work on biological feedback loops (MRI, 2025d). Oxytocin promotes bonding and trust; dopamine signals reward; cortisol reflects stress and threat; vasopressin relates to territoriality and pair bonding in some models.
In digital relationships characterized by intermittent reinforcement, love-bombing, and ghosting, users may experience:
oxytocin-mediated bonding even with unreliable partners
cortisol spikes during periods of ambiguity or non-response
dopamine surges during matches or intense exchanges, followed by crashes
cyclical hormonal patterns that resemble those seen in chronic stress or addictive relationships
Covert tactics exploit this biology by generating emotional volatility rather than stability, fostering dependence on the relationship drama itself.
Platform Design, Behavioral Incentives, and the Role of Apps
Dating platforms do not merely reflect user behavior; they shape it through design choices aligned with engagement and revenue models rather than relational well-being. Structural incentives determine what behaviors are rewarded, tolerated, or invisibilized.
Swipe Mechanics and Gamification
Traditional apps employ swipe architectures, binary like/dislike decisions on profile cards, that encourage rapid, appearance-based judgments and iterative “tries” for matches. MRI (2025a, 2025b) describes how swipe mechanics:
maximize cognitive ease at the expense of thoughtful consideration
encourage quantity over quality of interactions
normalize superficiality and objectification
create a de facto “slot machine” experience, with matches as intermittent rewards
Gamification elements such as streaks, daily “likes” quotas, and interface animations further reinforce the perception that dating is a game in which users “win” or “lose” based on swiping behavior. Over time, users may internalize a commodified view of both self and others.
Algorithmic Optimization for Engagement
Apps rely on proprietary recommendation algorithms to determine which profiles are shown to which users. These algorithms are optimized primarily for engagement metrics (time-on-app, swipes, messages, subscriptions), not relational success. MRI’s “Fixing Digital Matchmaking” (2025e) notes that opaque algorithms:
can prioritize showing profiles that generate more swipes rather than more compatible connections
can create “hope spikes” by periodically surfacing highly attractive profiles with low probability of reciprocation
may throttle the visibility of some users, prompting them to purchase boosts or premium tiers
The 2024 class-action lawsuit against Match Group alleges that such algorithmic practices intentionally manipulate users into a “pay-to-play loop,” maintaining them in prolonged states of unfulfilled anticipation (Associated Press, 2024).
Monetization Through Emotional Pain Points
Monetization strategies often exploit emotional vulnerabilities such as loneliness, fear of missing out, and insecurity. Common mechanisms include:
charging for “read receipts” and “who liked you” features, monetizing uncertainty
selling boosts to increase profile visibility, monetizing perceived low desirability
introducing “super like” or similar features that signal heightened interest, intensifying social comparison and competitive dynamics
MRI (2025b, 2025g) argues that such designs effectively convert users’ emotional pain points into recurring revenue streams, creating harm-enabling rather than harm-reducing environments.
Platform-Sanctioned Ambiguity
Most dating apps do little to structure or support clarity of intentions. Profile prompts may ask what users are “looking for,” but responses are optional, vague, or easily ignored. Few apps provide mechanisms for:
explicitly defining relationship goals (casual, serious, exploratory, unsure) in a structured, enforceable way
flagging misrepresentation of intentions as a behavioral concern
supporting mutual expectation-setting prior to offline meetings
This platform-sanctioned ambiguity functions as a lubricant for high-volume interactions. When intentions are undefined, users can more easily engage with multiple partners simultaneously, experiment with different relationship scripts, and exit abruptly without facing reputational consequences.
Reinforcement Cycles and Algorithmic Intermittency
Apps often control not only which profiles appear but when matches, likes, or notifications are surfaced. While proprietary details are undisclosed, user reports and industry analysis suggest deliberate timing strategies:
clustering notifications to create bursts of perceived popularity
sending “You have likes waiting” messages gated behind paywalls
spacing out matches to encourage frequent app checks
These tactics mirror variable reward schedules and are consistent with what MRI (2025a) and others describe as addiction-like design (MRI, 2025a; Gori et al., 2024).
The Absence of Consequence for Harmful Behavior
Most mainstream apps provide minimal enforcement of behavioral norms beyond blatant harassment or clear safety threats. Users can ghost, breadcrumb, misrepresent intentions, or serially exploit matches with little risk of sanction. Reporting systems are often opaque and perceived as ineffective.
By contrast, Bend Dating embeds accountability practices into its design.
Policies include:
a code of conduct that explicitly discourages ghosting and nonresponsiveness
a four-day response expectation, with warnings and eventual removal for serial nonresponse
limits on the number of simultaneous conversations to reduce breadth-over-depth behavior
multi-tiered verification and screening to deter catfishing, scams, and dangerous actors (MRI, 2025b, 2025c, 2025f).
These features reflect a shift from “anything goes” marketplaces to regulated, community-anchored relational ecosystems.
Bend Dating as a Public-Health–Oriented Alternative
Bend Dating was explicitly designed as a corrective to the structural, psychological, and ethical harms described above. Developed under the oversight of Mentor Research Institute, it integrates principles from clinical psychology, relationship science, public health, and ethical system design.
Key elements include:
Multi-tiered screening and verification. Five certification levels ranging from profile verification and psychological screening to background checks, interview with a relationship therapist, and optional polygraph, with tier-based access controls (MRI, 2025b).
Strict code of conduct and monitored compliance. Behavior is actively monitored, investigated, and enforced, with consequences for repeated violations (MRI, 2025c).
Limits on concurrent chats and responsiveness expectations. Members may only message a limited number of people at one time, and failure to respond within four days—without permissible reasons—triggers warnings and, after repeated violations, removal (MRI, 2025c).
Community-first, local focus. Emphasis on local community connection, balanced gender ratios, and pathways to real-world events rather than prolonged in-app “textationships” (MRI, 2025b, 2025e).
Nonprofit oversight and evidence-based standards. Independent monitoring by a nonprofit research institute, with policies grounded in empirical literature and clinical practice rather than fads or purely commercial considerations (MRI, 2025b, 2025e).
MRI positions Bend Dating not simply as “another app,” but as an intervention in a broken dating culture, oriented toward public trust, safety, and authentic relationships (MRI, 2025g; MRI, 2025h).
Toward Measurement-Based Relational Health
Borrowing from value-based behavioral health care, Bend Dating’s framework can be extended through measurement-based relational health metrics. Just as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are central to evaluating treatment effectiveness, user-reported relational and psychological outcomes can be deployed to evaluate dating-platform impact.
Potential metrics (proposed) include:
Relational Trust Index (RTI): Items assessing perceived honesty, consistency, and integrity in interactions with other members.
Emotional Safety Score (ESS): Measures of comfort, vulnerability, respect, and freedom from coercion or manipulation.
Relational Fit & Alignment Measure (RFAM): Assessment of value alignment, clarity of intentions, and agreement on relationship goals.
User Well-Being & Satisfaction Metrics (UWSM): Longitudinal tracking of self-esteem, mood, anxiety, and relationship satisfaction across time and app usage phases.
These measures could be administered at key points in the user journey (e.g., onboarding, after several weeks of use, after transitions to offline dates, and after exiting the platform). Aggregate data would allow the platform to iteratively refine policies and features to support better outcomes and to provide evidence for regulators, clinicians, and community stakeholders that the system promotes—not undermines—relational and mental health.
Thomas et al. (2025) call for clearer measurement frameworks to distinguish between healthy, recreational use of dating apps and problematic, risk-laden patterns (Thomas et al., 2025). Bend Dating could operationalize such frameworks, establishing a template for ethical digital courtship.
Public Education and Harm Reduction
Finally, structural reform must be accompanied by public education. Users need language and conceptual tools to recognize manipulative tactics, advocate for themselves, and make informed decisions about their participation in digital dating ecosystems.
MRI’s Real Talk Bend initiative and related educational content already provide accessible explanations of swipe fatigue, manipulation, and the economics of mainstream dating apps (MRI, 2025a, 2025g).
Building on this, a structured podcast or media series could:
name and explain the typology of covert tactics outlined above;
highlight the neurobiological and psychological costs of intermittent reinforcement and ambiguity;
delineate what ethical casual sex, ethical exploration, and ethical long-term relationship seeking look like;
equip users to ask about intentions, negotiate consent, and exit manipulative dynamics;
help clinicians integrate dating-app literacy into assessment and treatment.
Such harm-reduction efforts recognize that many people will continue to use mainstream apps but can be better protected through awareness, self-reflection, and skill building.
Discussion
The current digital dating ecosystem reflects a misalignment between commercial incentives, human vulnerabilities, and relational health. As empirical research accumulates, it becomes increasingly untenable to view dating apps as neutral tools. Instead, they are behavioral-health environments whose design choices influence attachment patterns, stress physiology, self-concept, and sexual risk behavior.
The typology of covert tactics described here is not exhaustive, but it illustrates how user-level behaviors, amplified and rewarded by platform architectures, can undermine informed consent, mutual respect, and emotional safety. These behaviors are often framed in popular discourse as “game,” “strategy,” or “optimization,” but their effects may resemble psychological abuse patterns when repeated or combined.
Bend Dating illustrates a different path:
prioritizing safety, trust, and accountability over engagement volume;
embedding ethical constraints on behavior (e.g., response expectations, limits on concurrent chats);
structuring the environment to discourage ghosting, manipulation, and exploitation;
treating dating as a community and public-health issue rather than a gamified marketplace.
However, challenges remain. Highly structured and screened platforms may appeal disproportionately to users who are already psychologically minded, safety-oriented, or relationship-focused; those seeking purely casual or anonymous experiences may not opt in. Scaling such models beyond local communities raises questions of feasibility, cost, and user acceptance. Rigorous measurement work will be required to validate that these designs indeed produce superior mental-health and relational outcomes.
Nonetheless, the ethical imperative is clear: continuing to normalize platforms optimized for addiction-like engagement and covert influence contradicts contemporary commitments to mental-health promotion, trauma-informed practice, and informed consent.
Conclusion
Digital courtship is now a central site of psychological and relational development for millions of adults. The combination of covert interpersonal tactics and manipulative platform design constitutes a significant, but addressable, public-health concern.
This paper has:
synthesized emerging evidence on the mental health and behavioral risks associated with dating apps;
articulated a detailed typology of covert tactics and the psychological mechanisms that underpin them;
critiqued platform-level design choices that exploit human vulnerabilities;
and presented Bend Dating as a case example of a public-health, measurement-based, ethically grounded alternative.
Future work should focus on formalizing relational-health outcome measures, conducting prospective studies comparing users of different platform types, and developing policy frameworks that treat dating apps as behavioral-health environments subject to ethical standards comparable to those in healthcare, education, and public-health interventions.
If digital dating is to remain a central feature of contemporary courtship, it must be redesigned to respect human dignity, protect mental health, and support genuinely informed, value-aligned connection.
References
Associated Press. (2024, February 14). Tinder, Hinge and other dating apps encourage ‘compulsive’ use, lawsuit claims. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/d07db003fed7ddc4587e58f6c18c1ae9
Bowman, Z., & Drummond, C. (2024). Dating apps and their relationship with body image, mental health and wellbeing: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224003832
Chan, L. S. (2025). The association between dating app usage and body image and relationship outcomes [Doctoral dissertation]. https://d-nb.info/1364584158/34
Gori, A., Topino, E., & Griffiths, M. D. (2024). The Problematic Online Dating Apps Use Scale (PODAUS). Addictive Behaviors Reports, 19, 100551. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352853224000105
Mentor Research Institute. (2025a). The mental health impacts of dating apps: A clinician’s guide. https://www.mentorresearch.org/the-mental-health-impacts-of-dating-apps-1
Mentor Research Institute. (2025b). The Bend Dating difference. https://www.mentorresearch.org/the-bend-dating-difference
Mentor Research Institute. (2025c). Bend Dating: Operational policy for safety and public trust. https://www.mentorresearch.org/bend-dating-operational-policy-for-safety-and-public-trust
Mentor Research Institute. (2025d). Biological feedback loops in intimate relationships and relationship breakdown: Understanding hormonal dynamics in conflict and connection. https://www.mentorresearch.org/biological-feedback-loops-in-intimate-relationships-understanding-hormonal-dynamics-in-conflict-and-connection
Mentor Research Institute. (2025e). Fixing digital matchmaking. https://www.mentorresearch.org/changing-digital-matchmaking
Mentor Research Institute. (2025f). Bend Dating safety, trust & accountability. https://www.mentorresearch.org/bend-dating-safety-trust-accountability
Mentor Research Institute. (2025g). Modern dating is broken: Bend Dating may be the solution. https://www.mentorresearch.org/modern-dating-is-broken-bend-dating-is-the-solution
Mentor Research Institute. (2025h). Bend Dating press release. https://www.mentorresearch.org/bend-dating-press-release
New York Post. (2025, April 9). Dating apps mess with your hormones — and can even send libido levels plunging: Study. https://nypost.com/2025/04/09/lifestyle/dating-apps-mess-with-your-hormones-and-can-even-send-libido-levels-plunging-study
Thomas, M. F., et al. (2025). Problematic online dating: Systematic review and conceptual framework. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e72850. https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e72850
Winter, B. L., Hampel, J., et al. (2025). Problematic online dating app use and its association with mental and sexual health outcomes in a sample of men-who-have-sex-with-men. Journal of Behavioral Addictions. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39883104/
Zytko, D., Furlo, N., Carlin, B., & Archer, M. (2021). Computer-mediated consent to sex: The context of Tinder. Proceedings of the ACM on Human–Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–28. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3449288