The Mental Health Impacts of Dating Apps: A Clinician’s Guide
1. Introduction
Dating apps and swipe-based platforms have transformed modern courtship, connecting millions of users to potential partners with unprecedented ease. In the United States alone, roughly 95.6 million adults have used an online dating site or app at some point[1]. By 2025, about 30% of U.S. adults reported using a dating app, with 14% having used Tinder specifically[1][2]. Globally, the rise of smartphones and social media has rapidly expanded online dating: Tinder, the prototype “swipe” app, claimed over 57 million users worldwide by 2018[3]. This shift has altered how people meet – one survey found that nearly 1 in 5 recently married or engaged couples met online[4], and forecasts suggest that by 2040 up to 70% of relationships will begin via digital platforms[4].
These trends underscore a new cultural norm: many young adults now date first through apps rather than in person. While dating apps offer opportunities for connection (especially for busy or marginalized individuals), a growing body of research suggests possible mental health impacts of their use. Clinicians should be aware that client encounters with dating apps may be linked to self-esteem issues, anxiety, depression, or compulsive behaviors. This guide surveys the current evidence on dating apps and mental health, reviews psychological factors unique to swipe-based designs, and provides clinicians with assessment strategies and intervention ideas. Emphasis is on practical, evidence-based guidance for use in therapy settings.
2. The Rise of Dating Apps in Modern Courtship
Dating apps emerged in the early 2010s as an evolution of online dating websites. Tinder (launched 2012) and similar mobile apps allow users to rapidly approve or reject potential matches by “swiping” on profile pictures. These platforms have since exploded: Tinder is now the most-used global app with millions of matches per day, and other apps like Bumble, Hinge, and OkCupid collectively reach a broad demographic. Unlike traditional sites, swipe apps emphasize quick visual judgments and continuous matching, creating a “gamified” experience.
Statistics highlight the rapid adoption across age groups: in Australia, between 2013 and 2018, app use among 18–24-year-olds grew fastest, but even people aged 45–64 roughly doubled their use over five years[3]. In the U.S., about 19% of internet users engage in online dating[3], and adoption continues to spread. For clinicians, it is important to recognize that dating apps are often a first attempt at meeting partners for many younger and middle-aged adults, effectively normalizing them as a social activity akin to clubbing or mutual friends.
Table: Global Online Dating Statistics
- 57 million: Number of Tinder users worldwide (2018)[3].
- 19%: Proportion of U.S. internet users who have tried online dating[3].
- 1 in 5: Share of recently married couples who met via online dating[4].
- 30%: Recent (2025) percentage of U.S. adults who have ever used a dating app[1].
- 70%: Projected share of new relationships that will begin online by 2040[4].
As these platforms permeate daily life, clinicians increasingly encounter clients whose romantic life is mediated by apps. Understanding the mechanics (e.g., how algorithms suggest matches) and demographics (age, orientation, gender) of dating app use is critical background for assessing client concerns related to these apps.
3. Behavioral Psychology of Swipe-Based Platforms
Swipe-based dating apps tap into well-known psychological processes. The core design – quick binary decisions on images – maximizes cognitive ease but also triggers subtle distortions. One key phenomenon is the paradox of choice: with virtually limitless profiles to browse, users may become overwhelmed. Psychologists have long noted that too many options can increase decision fatigue and regret, making selection harder rather than easier[5]. On dating apps, this can manifest as “analysis paralysis,” where clients feel stuck flipping through profiles without making a choice. In therapy, clinicians should be alert to clients describing frustration with having “too many options” or feeling exhausted by endless swiping.
Apps also exploit the brain’s reward circuitry. Each match or message can produce a small dopamine spike, similar to slot machines or “likes” on social media[6]. For some users this creates a compulsive loop: a client swipes in search of validation, feels brief excitement on a match, and then continues swiping to chase that feeling. As one clinician observed, dating apps can cause an “addictive” dopamine rush – users become hooked on occasional small wins, spending hours on the platform[6]. This intermittent reinforcement can keep clients engaged far beyond their intentions. Clinicians should ask about mood patterns and time spent: if a client reports feeling a rush from new matches or feels compelled to “check the app” repeatedly, these may be signs of reward-driven compulsive use.
Dating apps also encourage social comparison and self-objectification. Because users are judged primarily on limited photos and a brief bio, emphasis is placed on outward appearance and singular traits. Psychologically, this reinforces a message of disposability: when people are reduced to images, clients often feel they must present an “idealized” self or risk rejection. This process can amplify insecurities. Research on Tinder use found that heavy users reported more appearance comparisons and body dissatisfaction[7]. In therapy, clients may describe swiping as validating on good days and crushing on bad ones – hearing terms like “looking ugly,” “not attractive enough,” or “being judged.” Such language reflects underlying cognitive distortions fueled by the platform.
Attachment and emotional needs further color app behavior. Studies suggest that attachment style influences how one uses dating apps. Anxiously attached individuals, who often fear being alone, tend to dive into apps hoping for quick connection. In fact, Chin et al. (2019) found that people with more anxious attachment orientation were significantly more likely to use dating apps[8]. These users often report swiping to ward off loneliness or to reassure themselves of desirability. By contrast, avoidant individuals (who typically distance themselves from intimacy) may either use apps minimally or use apps like OkCupid (which allow more control) rather than Tinder’s hookup-driven format[8]. Understanding a client’s attachment concerns can clarify their motivations: for example, a client who admits to swiping obsessively “to avoid being single” is echoing the anxiously attached pattern.
Finally, the “instant gratification or rejection” paradigm of apps can profoundly affect self-esteem. Each swipe or match gives immediate feedback: a match feels like social approval, while a left swipe (non-match) feels like a real-time rejection. Strubel and Petrie (2017) and others note that this creates a vulnerable psychological state[9]. Clients can internalize many non-matches, believing “everyone else gets liked, but not me,” fueling shame. Therapists should address the risk of this binary validation: clients might start to equate their worth with their match ratio. Helping them reframe these experiences (e.g., recognizing that algorithms and random chance drive matches, not personal worth) is critical.
4. Mental Health Impacts: Empirical Findings
A growing empirical literature links dating app use with various mental health outcomes. A recent systematic review of 45 studies found that most reported negative effects on users’ body image, and nearly half found significant negative impacts on mental health or well-being[10]. In practical terms, dating app users often report higher rates of anxiety, depression, and lowered self-esteem. For example, an Australian study comparing app users to non-users found that users had 2.5 times greater odds of moderate-to-severe psychological distress than non-users[11]. That study also found app users had nearly twice the odds of significant depressive symptoms, even after accounting for age and sexual orientation[11]. Such large effect sizes suggest a meaningful association (though causality cannot be inferred from cross-sectional data).
Many studies have documented related issues. Coyle and colleagues reported that Tinder use in particular is linked to increased body shame and reduced body satisfaction[7]. In a sample of nearly 1,800 American adults, Tran et al. (2019) found dating-app users were significantly more likely to engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors (such as laxative use, induced vomiting, or steroid use) than non-users[12]. This suggests that the image-focused nature of apps can exacerbate eating concerns in vulnerable clients. Therapists should be alert to disordered eating or body dysmorphia that coincides with dating app use.
Other research highlights emotional consequences. The same Australian study noted a trend (though not statistically strong) toward lower self-esteem among app users[9]. Anecdotally, therapists find clients feeling unattractive or defective after repeated swipe-rejections[13]. Clinicians should screen for self-esteem issues when clients present with dating-app-related distress. Social comparison is a likely mediator: peers report spending more time comparing themselves to profiles on apps, which is known to worsen mood[9].
The data on mental health is not uniformly negative, but the preponderance of evidence is concerning. Bowman et al.’s review concluded that apps “have potentially harmful effects on the body image, mental health and wellbeing of their users”[10]. It is important to note that these studies are largely correlational. Many app users may already carry insecurities or social anxiety that lead them to online dating; thus app use could both attract and amplify existing issues. Nevertheless, the association is strong enough that clinicians should consider dating-app use as a relevant factor in clients’ mental health.
Key empirical findings:
- Psychological distress & depression: SBDA (swipe-based) users have higher rates of anxiety and depression than non-users[11].
- Self-esteem & body image: Most studies report dating apps worsen users’ body satisfaction or self-esteem[7][10].
- Unhealthy behaviors: App users show higher incidence of risky eating behaviors and substances for weight control[12].
- Addictive patterns: Many users describe compulsive swiping and “app fatigue,” akin to behavioral addiction[6][14].
- Mixed findings: Some small studies find minimal effects on self-esteem[15], underscoring that outcomes vary by individual and usage style.
Clinicians should integrate these findings by asking about app use alongside mood and anxiety screens. For clients presenting with depression or body image concerns, consider exploring whether dating apps are contributing factors.
5. Attachment Patterns and Dating Apps
Attachment theory offers a useful lens for understanding clients’ app behaviors and responses. As noted, anxious attachment (characterized by fear of abandonment and hypervigilance to rejection) is strongly associated with heavier dating app use[8]. In therapy, such clients may describe compulsively checking apps for new matches or constantly messaging as a way to relieve loneliness. They often admit using apps out of fear of being single or unloved. For example, one client might say, “I feel like I have to meet someone online or I’ll never find love,” reflecting the anxious attachment motive. Interventions may then focus on building internal security and reducing reassurance-seeking behaviors.
Avoidant attachment (marked by discomfort with closeness) tends to predict less dating-app engagement[8]. Avoidantly attached individuals may dislike the intimacy even implied by matches and messaging. Clinically, these clients might minimize or even resent dating app conversations and may prefer brief hookups or none at all. For some avoidant clients, discovering oneself on apps (perhaps through a spouse’s profile) can cause confusion or anger about honesty in the relationship. Therapists should respect that avoidant clients might push back on discussing emotional content of app dating, focusing instead on practicalities (e.g. safety, boundaries).
Secure attachment individuals often use apps in balanced ways; they report dating app use similar to offline dating, without extreme emotional swings. However, even securely attached clients can become desensitized by app culture over time. Clinicians should assess attachment style via standard measures (e.g. Experiences in Close Relationships Scale) and observe how it colors app experiences. For instance, an anxiously attached client might interpret a few non-matches as catastrophic proof of unlovability, whereas a securely attached client may shrug these off more easily. Addressing these patterns in therapy – for example, by fostering self-soothing for anxious clients or exploring intimacy fears in avoidant clients – can help normalize dating app use rather than letting it compound attachment-related distress.
6. Gendered and Identity-Based Experience Differences
Dating app experiences vary significantly across gender and identity groups. Gender differences: Research on middle-aged users found that men tend to use more apps, use them for longer periods, and pursue casual sexual encounters more than women[16]. A Spanish survey (25–50 years old) reported men spent more time per day on apps and were more likely to seek short-term flings, whereas women used them less intensely[16]. Clinicians might note that male clients report frustration with low match rates (often due to large male competition), and female clients often report receiving many unwanted messages. Women on apps also report more body scrutiny and pressure to appear attractive. For example, a female client might say, “Guys on Tinder don’t even read my profile, they just comment on my looks,” highlighting gendered objectification.
Sexual orientation and gender identity: LGBTQ+ individuals often have unique experiences on dating apps. On one hand, apps can provide access to a community that may be small locally (e.g. Grindr or Her). On the other hand, studies show that sexual minority daters face higher rates of online harassment and dating abuse. In one large U.S. survey, gay men and bisexual women had the highest odds of encountering psychological or sexual abuse on dating apps[17]. Bisexual women also had high risk of offline abuse. Another study of LGBTIQA+ daters in Europe found that cyberbullying and deception on apps were linked to increased anxiety and lowered self-confidence among queer users[18]. For instance, LGBTIQA+ clients often report fear of violence or being outed via apps, which heterosexual clients may not face. In some cases, clients described “rape threats” or catfishing attempts as a result of app use. These experiences compound the general stress of online dating.
Clinicians should therefore inquire about identity when discussing app use. Transgender and nonbinary clients may face misgendering or fetishization on some apps; bisexual clients sometimes experience exclusion (being told they “don’t belong” on gay or straight apps). Cultural background also matters: clients from more conservative cultures may feel guilt or shame about using dating apps, or worry about family disapproval. When treating diverse clients, clinicians must be sensitive to these identity-based factors. In practice, questions about dating should allow open identification: for example, asking “Which app do you use for dating?” and “How do people on there treat you as [gender/sexual identity]?” can uncover relevant issues.
In sum, expect that men, women, LGBTQ+, and other identity groups will report differing motivations and challenges on dating apps. Tailoring assessment and therapy to these differences—such as addressing harassment trauma for queer clients, or appearance pressure for women—will increase intervention relevance.
7. Clinical Assessment Strategies
A thorough psychosocial assessment should include discussion of online dating for any client of dating age. Clinicians can integrate the following strategies:
Ask Directly About App Use: In intake or follow-up, include questions like: “Do you use any dating apps or sites? Which ones? How often?” This normalizes the topic and opens the door to deeper inquiry. Frame it neutrally (e.g. “Many people use apps like Tinder, Bumble, OKCupid – have you tried any?”).
Evaluate Frequency and Patterns: Determine how much time is spent on apps daily, and whether usage feels compulsive. Frequent check-ins (e.g. “I wake up and open the app first thing”) may indicate an unhealthy pattern. Note if app use interferes with work, sleep, or daily routines.
Assess Emotional Impact: Ask about feelings related to app interactions. Does the client feel upset after swiping? Do they use apps when lonely or anxious? For example, a client might admit, “When I don’t get matches, I feel unlovable.” Such responses can reveal cognitive distortions and low mood associated with use.
Screen for Mental Health Symptoms: Use standard measures to quantify current distress. For instance, brief scales such as the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6), GAD-2 (anxiety), PHQ-2 (depression), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale are helpful baselines[19]. These tools were used in research on dating apps[19] and can flag clinically significant anxiety, depression or self-esteem issues.
Identify Maladaptive Beliefs: Listen for app-related cognitions (e.g. “I have to look perfect to get a date,” or “No one will ever talk to me”). These indicate areas for cognitive intervention. Inquire about social comparison (e.g. “How do you feel when you see others’ profiles or dating successes?”) as this can fuel hopelessness.
Explore Behaviors and Consequences: Screen for risky behaviors that might accompany app use, such as impulsive sex or substance use before dates. Also check for practical safety behaviors (meet in public places, tell a friend).
Check Attachment Factors: Evaluate attachment style if relevant (through clinical interview or formal measure). An anxiously attached client might admit using apps to avoid loneliness, whereas an avoidant client might report annoyance with “forced intimacy.” This can guide the therapeutic stance.
Consider Cultural/Personal Context: Ask how the client’s cultural background or identity influences their use. For example, do they feel any stigma about dating online? Has family or community ever mentioned it? In some cultures, meeting online may be frowned upon, so clients could conceal use or feel shame.
An overall goal is to determine whether dating app use is a contextual factor in the client’s life or a trigger for maladaptive thoughts/behaviors. For clients reporting mood or self-esteem problems, linking these issues to app experiences can provide insight. If the client has no mental health complaints, still noting dating app habits is worthwhile as part of a holistic assessment. Documentation should note app usage and any reported emotional effects.
8. Treatment Interventions
Once assessment identifies problems related to dating apps, clinicians can employ several strategies. Interventions often borrow from general frameworks (CBT, mindfulness, motivational interviewing) but target app-specific issues. Below are practical recommendations, many of which clinicians can tailor in therapy.
Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT): Help clients identify and restructure distorted thoughts about dating apps. For example, challenge black-and-white thinking (“If he hasn’t liked me, I’m unlovable”) by examining evidence. Introduce balanced thoughts (“It only means he wasn’t interested, not that I’m worthless”). Use behavioral experiments: if a client fears rejection, one can role-play swiping and observe that a non-match is unpleasant but survivable. CBT can also address perfectionism (e.g. “I must look flawless in my photo to succeed”) by setting realistic standards.
Mindfulness and Distress Tolerance: Teach mindfulness exercises to help clients tolerate anxiety or boredom without compulsively opening apps. For instance, urge clients to notice craving urges (“I feel the urge to swipe”) without acting on them, or to sit quietly for 5 minutes when tempted. Grounding techniques (deep breathing, counting, or sensory focus) can reduce the emotional intensity of rejection or “ghosting” episodes. Mindfulness helps break the autopilot of endless scrolling.
Psychoeducation about App Mechanics: Educate clients on how dating apps are designed to be engaging (e.g. intermittent rewards, algorithm-driven matching). Explain the paradox of choice: having hundreds of profiles can impair decision-making[5]. Emphasize that swiping is not a true measure of attractiveness or compatibility. Clients often find it freeing to learn that the app’s structure is partly responsible for their frustrations. For example, a therapist might say, “No matter what, the app always shows you more people to keep you scrolling – it’s designed that way.” This externalizing can reduce self-blame.
Behavioral Boundaries and ‘Slow Dating’: Encourage clients to set healthy limits on app use. This may include: deciding to use only specific apps, scheduling offline time, or setting a daily time limit on swiping. Adopt a “slow dating” approach: focusing on a few quality matches rather than mass swiping[20][21]. For instance, suggest the client only pursues two profiles at a time (a tip from experts on slow dating)[21]. Limiting the number of dates (e.g. two per week maximum) can help them pay better attention and avoid confusion[21]. Clients can turn off notifications when busy, or designate “app-free” hours (e.g. during meals or the first hour after waking). These boundaries create structure and reduce compulsive checking.
Digital Detox and Self-Compassion Breaks: If a client shows signs of “burnout” (anxiety, irritability, or mood dips from app use), counsel them on taking temporary breaks. As one therapist recommends, a brief social media hiatus can reset compulsive patterns[22]. For example, instruct the client: “If you feel overwhelmed, delete the app for a week or take weekends off. Use that time to engage in hobbies or in-person socializing.” Reinforce self-compassion during this process: encourage the client not to judge themselves for taking a break, but to see it as mental health care.
Social Skills and Offline Dating Preparation: For some clients, the problem may be anxiety about transitioning to real-life dates. Role-play conversations, eye contact, and respectful boundaries in session. Plan small real-world social steps (like joining a club or attending a meetup) to build confidence outside apps. This can reduce reliance on virtual validation and remind clients that many fulfilling relationships start offline.
Couples and Relationship Therapy: If one or both partners use dating apps in a committed relationship (e.g. during separation or as “micro-cheating”), address trust and communication. Ethical guidelines suggest handling such discoveries delicately[23]. A therapeutic goal might be establishing clear boundaries (e.g. deleting apps after a breakup is officially communicated). If discovering an app profile is contentious, therapists should facilitate open discussion in a supportive manner.
Specialized Interventions: For clients with compulsive use resembling an addiction, techniques from addiction treatment may apply (e.g. addiction-focused CBT, contingency management, or 12-step techniques adapted for behavioral addictions). If body image is a central issue, incorporate interventions from eating-disorder treatment (mirror exposure, cognitive restructuring around appearance).
Throughout treatment, maintain an empathic stance: acknowledge the client’s feelings of rejection, loneliness, or fatigue as valid while guiding them toward change. Reinforce that it is common to feel discouraged by app dating, and that positive outcomes (real connections) can take time. Celebrate small successes (e.g. improving one’s profile, having one good conversation). This strengths-based approach helps counteract the often-critical self-talk that dating apps can provoke.
9. Case Examples
Case 1: Sarah, a 26-year-old woman with social anxiety. Sarah reports using Tinder nightly. She describes anxiety and sadness when matches don’t message back. In therapy she reveals that she uses Tinder to “prove” she’s attractive because she feels lonely. An attachment history reveals anxious tendencies. Assessment shows mild depression (PHQ-9 score 10) and low self-esteem. Intervention involved CBT: challenging her belief “if he doesn’t message, I’m ugly,” and assigning her to take a 3-day app break each week. She also committed to one offline social activity (a photography class) per week. Over sessions, Sarah practices mindfulness when feeling app cravings. Within 2 months, her depressive symptoms lessen and she reports feeling less panicked when swiping, noting “I’m less obsessed with the app.”
Case 2: Mike, a 47-year-old divorced male. Mike uses multiple apps (Tinder, Bumble, OkCupid) for hours daily, seeking casual dates. He speaks of “app fatigue” and difficulty concentrating at work. His therapists notes mild alcohol overuse tied to app frustrations (drinking after bad dates). Mike scored high on impulsivity and moderate on depression scales. Intervention focused on setting boundaries: limiting himself to one app and 30 minutes per day, and abstaining from apps after 9pm. CBT addressed his all-or-nothing thinking (“Either I get a date this weekend or nothing”). He began exercising and met two women through a running club (an offline “slow dating” approach). Over time, Mike reduced app use significantly and reported feeling more in control of his life.
Case 3: Alex, a 30-year-old nonbinary (they/them) person. Alex uses Hinge and Grindr to meet partners in a small city. They report frequent harassment (“people call me slurs or send unsolicited photos”) and feel “unsafe” on apps. Alex also feels pressure to present unrealistically in photos. In therapy, they show moderate anxiety and low self-confidence. The clinician provides psychoeducation about common negative experiences in LGBTQ+ dating. The treatment plan includes safety strategies (only communicating with verified profiles, meeting in public places, not sharing personal info online) and building self-esteem in other domains (work, friends). The therapist also connects Alex to an LGBTQ+ support group for community and reduces feelings of isolation. Alex begins to rely less on apps for validation and reports a slight improvement in mood as they feel more supported offline.
These examples illustrate how diverse clients might use dating apps and how clinicians can intervene. Each case was addressed by identifying the app-related belief or behavior driving distress, then applying tailored CBT, behavioral, and support strategies.
10. Ethical and Cultural Considerations
Therapist boundaries and confidentiality: The integration of dating apps into clients’ lives raises new ethical nuances. Therapists should not seek out clients on dating apps or social media in general, as this can breach professional boundaries. Conversely, if a therapist’s own profile is discovered by a client, it must be handled with care. For example, therapists should avoid glamorizing their personal dating lives on public forums, and some experts recommend telling clients they may come across information online (and to discuss it openly)[23]. Importantly, if a therapist learns about a client’s dating app use indirectly (e.g. “While doing couples work I saw John’s profile”), the guidelines caution that confronting the client abruptly can damage trust[23]. The therapist might instead invite dialogue (e.g. “I noticed a profile, is that yours? Let’s talk about what’s happening”) in a non-judgmental way. Protecting confidentiality remains paramount – clients often fear judgment about their app use, so clinicians should reinforce that app disclosure will be met with understanding and help, not scorn.
Cultural sensitivity: Clinicians must be aware of cultural differences in attitudes toward online dating. In some cultures or religious communities, using dating apps is frowned upon or taboo. A client from such a background may use apps secretly and feel guilty or ashamed. Others may interpret app behaviors through cultural lenses (e.g. a client from a collectivist culture might emphasize meeting family approval rather than relying solely on an app match). Clinicians should inquire about cultural or religious values around dating and consider how these influence the client’s feelings.
Identity and power dynamics: Ethnic and racial minority clients may face additional biases on dating apps (such as fetishization or rejection based on race). Cultural competence means understanding these realities. Similarly, gender dynamics (like men’s greater comfort with casual sex on apps) can affect therapy goals. For example, a heterosexual female client with an app profile must navigate different social scripts than a male client. For LGBTQ+ clients, cultural competence includes awareness of minority stress and potential risks (e.g. legal issues for same-sex dating in some regions).
Safety and consent: Clinicians should remind all clients about basic safety: use real name verification, meet in safe public settings, inform a friend of plans, and maintain personal privacy. This is especially important for minors or vulnerable adults (e.g. clients with cognitive impairments) who should not use dating apps at all, as this violates platform age rules and can expose them to risks. The therapist has a duty of care to advise against any harmful behaviors (such as minors dating online, or clients disclosing too much personal information too quickly).
Ethics of online relationships: If a client’s online dating intersects with issues like infidelity or stalking, standard ethical guidelines apply. For instance, discovering a partner’s secret dating profile can blur boundaries in couples therapy; therapists should manage this information carefully, focusing on clients’ emotions rather than moralizing.
In all cases, the guiding principle is respect for client autonomy and context. Clinicians should adopt a curious, nonjudgmental stance about dating app use, understanding its personal meaning for each client. Documenting clients’ self-disclosed experiences with apps (including positive uses such as supportive communities found online) also ensures a well-rounded view.
11. Conclusion
Dating and courtship have entered the digital age, and apps like Tinder and Bumble are now common elements of clients’ love lives. The evidence to date suggests that while these platforms can facilitate connections, they also carry notable psychological risks: heightened anxiety, depression, self-esteem issues, and compulsive behaviors have all been observed more in app users than non-users[11][10]. Clinicians working with dating-age adults should therefore incorporate questions about online dating into assessments and remain alert to its emotional impact.
This review underscores that dating-app related distress is multifaceted – influenced by cognitive factors (e.g. social comparison), attachment style, and identity-related stressors. Fortunately, many therapeutic tools (CBT, mindfulness, social skills training, etc.) can be applied to this context. Clinicians can promote healthier app use through cognitive restructuring, behavioral boundaries, and even introducing “slow dating” practices[20][22]. Case examples show that even clients deeply entangled in the dating-app world can find relief and regain control with structured intervention.
As researchers continue to study this evolving technology, clinicians should stay informed. Emerging interventions may include app-based self-help modules or community support networks. Ethical practice will require adapting to new issues (such as data privacy concerns or novel forms of online harm). Ultimately, the clinician’s role is to help clients navigate modern courtship without losing sight of their well-being: balancing openness to new forms of connection with the boundaries and self-awareness that foster healthy relationships. Future research should refine our understanding (for example, which personality traits predict problematic use) and develop targeted therapies. For now, clinicians can offer evidence-based guidance, grounded in empathy and cultural competence, to assist clients in the age of swipes and clicks.
References (APA 7th ed. with URLs):
Bowman, Z., Drummond, M., Church, J., Kay, J., & Petersen, J. M. (2025). Dating apps and their relationship with body image, mental health and wellbeing: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 165, 108515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108515[10]
Chadwick, S. B., Woerner, J., & Schrimshaw, E. W. (2024). Risk for experiencing psychological and sexual abuse on- and offline: A comparison of bisexual, gay/lesbian, and heterosexual women and men. American Journal of Epidemiology, 193(12), 1741–1749. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae126[17]
Chern, C. (2024). Swipe‑based dating applications use and its association with mental health outcomes: A cross-sectional study. BMC Psychology, 8(1), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-0373-1[11][3] (Holtzhausen et al. in text)
Chesler, C. (2025, June 7). Dating apps might be messing with your mental health. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/06/07/online-dating-depression-addiction-anxiety/[1][6]
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157918770696[8]
Cohen, M. T. (2018, September 27). Does slow equal better? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-love-the-scientific-take/201809/does-slow-equal-better[20]
Jiménez-Muro, A., Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J., & Castro, Á. (2024). Dating app users: Differences between middle-aged men and women. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 24(4), 100505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2024.100505[16]
Lannin, D. G., & Scott, J. (2014). Therapist self-disclosure on social networking sites. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(3), 135–142.
Perić, L., Rabar, M., & Orehovački, T. (2025). The impact of dating apps on the mental health of the LGBTIQA+ population. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 9(4), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9040030[18]
Strubel, J., & Petrie, T. A. (2017). Love me Tinder: Body image and psychosocial functioning among women using a popular online dating app. Body Image, 22, 148–154.
Yoon, S., Kleinman, M., Mertz, J., & Brannick, M. (2019). Is social network site usage related to depression? A meta-analysis of Facebook–depression relations. Journal of Affective Disorders, 248, 65–72.[10]
(Additional references cited within the text are included in the embedded citations above.)
[1] [6] [13] [22] Dating apps can fuel anxiety. A little emotional distance can help. - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/06/07/online-dating-depression-addiction-anxiety/
[2] [3] [4] [7] [9] [11] [14] Swipe-based dating applications use and its association with mental health outcomes: a cross-sectional study - PMC
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7055053/
[5] The Paradox of Choice - The Decision Lab
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/economics/the-paradox-of-choice
[8] (PDF) Attached to dating apps: Attachment orientations and preferences for dating apps
[10] Dating apps and their relationship with body image, mental health and wellbeing: A systematic review - ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224003832
[12] [15] [19] Swipe-based dating applications use and its association with mental health outcomes: a cross-sectional study | BMC Psychology
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40359-020-0373-1
[16] Dating app users: Differences between middle-aged men and women - ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S169726002400070X
[17] Risk for Experiencing Psychological and Sexual Abuse On- and Offline: A Comparison of Bisexual, Gay/Lesbian, and Heterosexual Women and Men | Request PDF
[18] The Impact of Dating Apps on the Mental Health of the LGBTIQA+ Population
https://www.mdpi.com/2414-4088/9/4/30
[20] Does Slow Equal Better? | Psychology Today
[21] Slow Dating: the Best Way to Find Love Is to Go on Fewer Dates - Business Insider
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-slow-dating-the-best-way-to-find-love-2019-10
[23] To swipe or not to swipe? Contemplating Mental Health Professionals’ Use of Online Dating Services - Society for the Advancement of Psychotherapy