Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40608479›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Problematic Online Dating: Systematic Review of Definitions, Correlates, and Study Designs.

Marina F Thomas, Sylvia Dörfler, Gloria Mittmann, Verena Steiner-Hofbauer

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marina F ThomasResearch Centre Transitional Psychiatry, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Dr. Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, Krems, 3500, Austria, 43 2732 720904.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7967-2165
Sylvia DörflerResearch Centre Transitional Psychiatry, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Dr. Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, Krems, 3500, Austria, 43 2732 720904.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-5058-3443
Gloria MittmannResearch Centre Transitional Psychiatry, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Dr. Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, Krems, 3500, Austria, 43 2732 720904.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2750-7779
Verena Steiner-HofbauerResearch Centre Transitional Psychiatry, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Dr. Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, Krems, 3500, Austria, 43 2732 720904.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4949-9589

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Users describe mobile dating apps as addictive, and researchers have attempted to formalize compulsive dating app use as a behavioral addiction. However, the concept of online dating addiction remains debated. Objective: This systematic literature review synthesized quantitative research on problematized online dating behaviors with a specific focus on (1) definitions and measurement of problematic dating app use, (2) the examined adverse correlates, and (3) study designs. Methods: From 16 databases, we identified 263 reports related to problematic online dating. Twenty-nine papers-published between 2009 and 2024-met inclusion criteria. They covered 32 quantitative studies investigating problematic dating app use. Sample sizes varied between 64 and 4057, and participant ages ranged between 13 and 80 years, while many participants were aged between 18 and 35 years. Results: Researchers problematized the following online dating behaviors (in descending order of frequency): use for certain motives (in 10 reports), problematic use in the sense of behavioral addiction (n=9), specific activities or experiences (n=9), compulsive use (n=6), a disbalance between offline and online interactions (too many or too few online interactions, n=4), and mere use or frequency (n=4). Even using dating apps for sexual motivations and relationship-seeking was linked to adverse correlates. Scholars have examined adverse correlates, including (1) mood and emotional issues (n=11), (2) anxieties (n=9), (3) user motives and other media variables (n=9), (4) undesired behaviors (n=8), (5) personality (n=8), (6) self-attitudes (n=7), (7) partner choice (n=5), (8) sexuality (n=5), and (9) interpersonal correlates (n=4). Methodologically, the most common scales (measuring use for certain motives and the 6-component behavioral addiction items) include life problems within their measurement of problematic dating app use (eg, use to forget problems and conflict due to use). Of 32 studies, only 3 were randomized experiments. All surveys measured dating app variables only at a single time point (cross-sectionally) and focused on between-person effects rather than within-person dynamics. Conclusions: Research on user motives dominates the field. To understand harmful media effects, researchers should measure media use and harmful consequences separately. However, motives are often worded as coping with an undesired state (eg, use to forget problems) or enhancing a desired state (eg, use for self-esteem enhancement). Similarly, behavioral addiction scales include life problems (eg, conflict due to use). These scales thus conflate predictor and outcome. Future literature reviews or meta-analyses that examine associations should include only results of scales that validly distinguish media use from its adverse outcomes. Overall, research on internet dating addiction-and internet addiction in general-requires theoretically grounded definitions as well as experimental and longitudinal studies modeling between- and within-person effects.

Indexed as

Behavior, AddictiveCourtshipInternetInternet Addiction DisorderMobile ApplicationsAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleResearch DesignYoung Adultbehavioral addictioncompulsive behaviorinternet addictioninterpersonal relationsmobile appsonline datingproblematic internet usepsychological distresssmartphone addictionsocial media

Identifiers

PMID40608479
PMCPMC12244275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.