online dating research paper

Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science

Read the Full Text

Although the authors find that online dating sites offer a distinctly different experience than conventional dating, the superiority of these sites is not as evident. Dating sites provide access to more potential partners than do traditional dating methods, but the act of browsing and comparing large numbers of profiles can lead individuals to commoditize potential partners and can reduce their willingness to commit to any one person. Communicating online can foster intimacy and affection between strangers, but it can also lead to unrealistic expectations and disappointment when potential partners meet in real life. Although many dating sites tout the superiority of partner matching through the use of “scientific algorithms,” the authors find that there is little evidence that these algorithms can predict whether people are good matches or will have chemistry with one another.

The authors’ overarching assessment of online dating sites is that scientifically, they just don’t measure up. As online dating matures, however, it is likely that more and more people will avail themselves of these services, and if development — and use — of these sites is guided by rigorous psychological science, they may become a more promising way for people to meet their perfect partners.

Hear author Eli J. Finkel discuss the science behind online dating at the 24th APS Annual Convention .

About the Authors

Editorial: Online Dating:  The Current Status —and Beyond

By Arthur Aron

I agree wholeheartedly that so-called scientific dating sites are totally off-base. They make worse matches than just using a random site. That’s because their matching criteria are hardly scientific, as far as romance goes. They also have a very small pool of educated, older men, and lots more women. Therefore they often come up with no matches at all, despite the fact that women with many different personality types in that age group have joined. They are an expensive rip-off for many women over 45.

Speaking as someone who was recently “commoditized” by who I thought was a wonderful man I met on a dating site, I find that the types of people who use these services are looking at the wrong metrics when they seek out a prospective love interest. My mother and father had very few hobbies and interests in common, but because they shared the same core values, their love endured a lifetime. When I got dumped because I didn’t share my S.O.’s interests exactly down the line, I realized how dangerous this line of thinking truly is, how it marginalizes people who really want to give and receive love for more important reasons.

I met a few potential love interests online and I never paid for any matching service! I did my own research on people and chatted online within a site to see if we had things in common. If we had a few things in common, we exchanged numbers, texted for a while, eventually spoke on the phone and if things felt right, we’d meet in a public place to talk. If that went well, we would have another date. I am currently with a man I met online and we have been together for two years! We have plans to marry in the future. But there is always the thought that if this doesn’t work out, how long will it take either of us to jump right back online to find the next possible love connection? I myself would probably start looking right away since looking for love online is a lengthy process!

I knew this man 40 years ago as we worked in the same agency for two years but never dated. Last November 2013 I saw his profile on a dating site. My husband had died four years ago and his wife died 11 years ago. We dated for five months. I questioned him about his continued online search as I had access to his username. Five months into the friendship he told me he “Was looking for his dream women in cyberspace”. I think he has been on these dating sites for over 5 years. Needless to say I will not tolerate this and it was over. I am sad, frustrated and angry how this ended as underneath all of his insecurities, unresolved issues with his wife’s death he is a good guy. I had been on these dating sties for 2 and 1/2 years and now I am looking at Matchmaking services as a better choice in finding a “Better good guy”.

I refer to these sites as “Designer Dating” sites. I liken the search process to ‘Window Shopping’. No-one seems very interested in making an actual purchase or commitment. I notice that all the previous comments are from women only. I agree with the article that says essentially, there are too many profiles and photos. Having fallen under this spell myself…”Oh, he’s nice but I’m sure there’s something better on the next page…” Click. Next. And on it goes. The term Chemistry gets thrown around a lot. I don’t know folks. I sure ain’t feelin’ it. Think I’ll go hang out with some friends now.

Stumbling upon this article during research for my Master thesis and I am curious: Would you use an app, that introduces a new way of dating, solely based on your voice and who you are, rather than how you look like? To me, we don’t fall in love with someone because of their looks (or their body mass index for that matter) or because of an algorithm, but because of the way somebody makes you feel and the way s.o. makes you laugh. At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter if someone has blue or brown eyes and my experience is, that most people place fake, manipulated or outdated pictures online to sell someone we don’t really are. And we are definitely more than our looks. I found my partner online and we had no picture of each other for three months – but we talked every night for hours…. fell in love and still are after 10 years… We met on a different level and got aligned long before we met. So, the question is, would you give this way of meeting someone a chance… an app where you can listen in to answers people give to questions other user asked before and where you can get a feeling for somebody before you even see them?

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

New Report Finds “Gaps and Variation” in Behavioral Science at NIH

A new NIH report emphasizes the importance of behavioral science in improving health, observes that support for these sciences at NIH is unevenly distributed, and makes recommendations for how to improve their support at the agency.

APS Advocates for Psychological Science in New Pandemic Preparedness Bill

APS has written to the U.S. Senate to encourage the integration of psychological science into a new draft bill focused on U.S. pandemic preparedness and response.

APS Urges Psychological Science Expertise in New U.S. Pandemic Task Force

APS has responded to urge that psychological science expertise be included in the group’s personnel and activities.

Privacy Overview

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.11(1); 2010 Jan

The science of online dating

Giovanni frazzetto.

1 BIOS Centre, London School of Economics, London, UK

Can the application of science to unravel the biological basis of love complement the traditional, romantic ideal of finding a soul mate?

As the saying goes, “love defies all calculation”. Yet, this apparently obvious assertion is challenged by the intrusion of science into matters of love, including the application of scientific analysis to modern forms of courtship. An increasing number of dating services boast about their use of biological research and genetic testing to better match prospective partners. Yet, while research continues to disentangle the complex factors that make humans fall in love, the application of this research remains dubious.

…while research continues to disentangle the complex factors that make humans fall in love, the application of this research remains dubious

With the rise of the internet and profound changes in contemporary lifestyles, online dating has gained enormous popularity among aspiring lovers of all ages. Long working hours, increasing mobility and the dissolution of traditional modes of socialization mean that people use chat rooms and professional dating services to find partners. Despite the current economic downturn, the online dating industry continues to flourish. With subscription prices between €20 and €30 per month, romance-seekers are turning away from the traditional—and often expensive—strategies of meeting people casually in bars and restaurants, and are instead opting for less spontaneous, but practical, cheap online services that allow them to find a soul mate from the comfort of their desk.

EasyDate.biz, one of the most popular websites that match people according to their hobbies, preferences and interests, has increased annual profits 30-fold since 2006 and has made around £6 million in revenues this year ( Espinoza, 2009 ). Large metropolitan cities boast the highest number of active online dating accounts, with New York totalling a greater number of subscriptions on Match.com than any other city in the USA—accounting for 8% of the company's active members ( Sherman, 2009 ).

Most dating services match subscribers based on metrics that include education and professional background, personal interests, hobbies, values, relationship skills and life goals. These websites use a range of personality tests and psychological assessments to build lists of traits that individuals seek in an ideal partner. Yet, in this modern era of personalized genomes and DNA-based crime fighting, the new generation of online dating services has added one more parameter: biology. “Love is no coincidence”, they proclaim, promising to provide longer-lasting matches based on the science of attraction and romantic love.

Indeed, biological anthropologists and neuroscientists are already dissecting the chemical ingredients of love, from the basic sex drive to romantic love, including the feeling of security that we achieve when we are attached to a specific mate for the long term ( Bartels & Zeki, 2000 ; 2004 ; Fisher et al , 2002 ; Zeki, 2007 ). Such studies aim to unravel both the genetic factors and the neural circuits that underlie love. So far, scientists have revealed that the relevant regions of the brain are mainly those involved in motivational and reward systems and are orchestrated by hormones and neurotransmitters ( Aaron et al , 2005 ). Love has accordingly been described as a chemical phenomenon and compared with a state of addiction ( Meloy & Fisher, 2005 ).

…the real question remains as to whether the use of genetics is proving more effective than traditional matching methods

“We fall in love with someone who has a different chemical profile for dopamine, serotonin, estrogen and testosterone that complements our own,” explained Helen Fisher, professor of anthropology at Rutgers University (New York, NY, USA) and chief scientific advisor to Chemistry.com. She created a test for the website—used by about eight million people to date—in which questions are designed to establish a range of basic information about brain and body chemistry associated with specific aspects of temperament and personality. For instance, measuring the ratio between the length of the index finger and the ring finger of the right hand, which is a marker for testosterone levels in the prenatal brain, is assumed to provide information about assertive, verbal, musical or analytical capabilities ( Wilson, 1983 ). Other questions determine a propensity to be curious or a tendency to seek novel experiences, supposedly based on dopamine levels in the brain.

Science-based dating services such as ScientificMatch.com or GenePartner.com promise lasting relationships on the basis of genetic information and match people based on differences between their imm-une systems. This approach draws on a study performed by Claus Wedekind and colleagues at the University of Bern in Switzerland, who asked female volunteers to smell T-shirts that had been worn by men for three consecutive days and to rank them by attractiveness ( Wedekind et al , 1995 ). It turned out that the majority of the women were attracted to men whose immune systems differed most from their own—fulfilling the maxim that ‘opposites attract'. What accounted for the immune system differences at the genetic level were sequences in the genes encod-ing the human leukocyte antigen (HLA).

HLA genes control the activation of the immune response and are crucial for acquiring immunity; the greater the variety in the HLA genes, the greater the variety and success of the immune response. From an evolutionary point of view, it makes sense that individuals with opposite varieties would attract each other as this would lead to offspring with a broader range of HLA genes.

The customers of online dating services seem to buy the ‘hard science' sell. “We are receiving requests from a lot of customers who wish to know whether they can test their genetic compatibility with other subscribers in the same area where they live,” commented Tamara Brown, chief scientific officer at GenePartner.com, a company affiliated with the Swiss Institute for Behavioural Genetics (Adliswil, Switzerland). “Right now, the number of established couples willing to know whether their compatibility is confirmed genetically equals the number of singles who ask us to match them with other subscribers in our database.” Brown emphasised that the company uses biological compatibility to complement social, psychological and intellectual information, which, she said, will continue to play an important role in the formation of lasting relationships.

Some of the claimed advantages of having genetically compatible partners are a more satisfying sex life, a higher fertility rate and healthier children. Members of the gay community have complained about their exclusion from these benefits. However, research is already underway to find specific pheromone-induced brain responses in both homosexual men and women ( Berglund et al , 2006 ; Savic et al , 2005 ).

Although sequencing DNA to find a soul mate might sound like a ludicrous application of genetics, investigating the genetic compatibility of couples is already routine practice for groups or populations that have a high risk of specific severe genetic diseases. For instance, genetic tests are available in many Mediterranean countries that have a high prevalence of β-thalassaemia, a heritable disease of the blood that affects the body's ability to produce haemoglobin. To avoid having a child afflicted with this disease, β-thalassaemia carrier detection is mandatory for couples in Iran and several other Arab countries and is required by the religious authorities in Cyprus ( Zlotogora, 2009 ). The couples have to be informed of the test results before their marriage, but the choice is theirs of whether or not to marry. Genetic screening is also common among Ashkenazi Jews, who have a higher risk of suffering from one of several monogenetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Tay–Sachs or Bloom syndrome. These screening programmes have reduced considerably the number of babies affected by these diseases ( Kronn et al , 1998 ).

There is a kind of irony in online dating in that courtship and romantic love are profoundly physical experiences that manifest with symptoms including sweaty palms, reddened cheeks or tied tongues; but internet dating, owing to its virtual nature, is utterly disembodying. For Eva Illouz, professor of sociology and anthropology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, this rearticulates the relationship between corporeality and emotions: in the absence of the body, emotions are supposed to flow freely between authentic aspects of the core self ( Illouz, 2007 ). Knowledge of another person therefore precedes the bodily attraction.

Websites such as ScientificMatch.com or GenePartner.com would thus include a ‘physical' factor by making genetic information the starting point for finding a match. Illouz pointed out that although online platforms are supposed to give subscribers the chance to highlight their own uniqueness, their self-representation frequently follows established canons of ‘conformity, standardization and reification'. By contrast, genetic information on biological compatibility is not standardized and genuinely represents an individual's uniqueness.

The use of biological information seems to reassure customers that they will find a better match. Nevertheless, the real question remains as to whether the use of genetics is proving more effective than traditional matching methods. Indeed, there is a good deal of skepticism concerning the reliability of DNA-based dating services. For example, there is some debate about the extent to which HLA diversity is actually reflected in a person's scent, and therefore whether such differences can genuinely be picked up by the body's olfactory bulbs.

Deciphering the genetics and neurochemistry of love might, therefore, cast a disenchanting shadow over some cultural practices

“I think that matching people by personality types or interests may be very useful. However, I do not believe that any service that claims to use genetic information, or any estimation of neurochemistry (based on personality or genotype) has any basis in reality,” argued Larry J. Young, a principal investigator in the Laboratory of Social Neurobiology at Emory University (Atlanta, GA, USA). Young, who investigates the genetics and molecular mechanisms behind social attachment, pointed out that although we might be beginning to understand how some genes contribute to social relationships, or how certain neuropeptides or transmitters are involved in the formation of relationships in rodents, “the situation is far, far too complex to begin to think we can pick ‘the perfect match' based on this information. These companies are taking advantage of a public who have been educated by the media.”

Courtship, seduction and romantic love are complex phenomena that involve many genes and a multitude of social and cultural factors. Deciphering the genetics and neurochemistry of love might, therefore, cast a disenchanting shadow over some cultural practices. In this regard, a Shakespearean sonnet, or other works of classical romance might still prove more instructive and interesting for anyone desirous to understand the rules and excitement of courtship and love than would taking a genetic test.

Haunted by the inherent uncertainties of life, people are drawn to any service or person that promises to predict the future…

“You can know any single ingredient in a piece of chocolate cake and still find it delicious. You can know every single part of an engine in a Bentley or a Ferrari, and still feel the rush and joy of driving it. The same applies to love,” Fisher said. “The more you know about the brain circuitry of romantic love, the more you can operate with innate natural wisdom to make better decisions.” She also suggested that finding the chemical or genetic basis for why love sometimes fails might well be more effective than spending years trying to decipher intangible psychoanalytical reasons. “The primordial ways by which men and women flirt and fall in love will just continue. A little bit of knowledge about the relevant brain mechanisms just refines this ancient process. So, I don't think that you can equate knowledge with lack of magic,” Fisher said.

More serious concerns have been raised about the possible misapplication of the growing knowledge of emotional chemistry to manipulate the brain and enhance or diminish emotions for others—in essence, the creation of love potions. The idea is not too far-fetched: experiments have shown that a squirt of the hormone oxytocin enhances trust in other people ( Kosfeld et al , 2005 ), and internet drugs sellers are already marketing products such as ‘Enhanced Liquid Trust', which claims to “boost the dating and relationship area of your life” ( www.verolabs.com ).

“I don't think that these kinds of science-based approaches are going to become any more popular than the many other approaches out there designed to find a match. People will always be selling the ‘new' way to find true love,” Young commented. “Regarding the manipulation of feelings with drugs, I am not sure how this will turn out in the public in the long term. We already try that by buying our prospective partners flowers, candy, romantic settings, hugging and kissing, all of which stimulate the chemistry of love, such as dopamine or oxytocin.”

More generally, the use of genetic knowledge and technology to predict intimate aspects of our lives confirms the persistence of naive biological determinism among the public. Indeed, it is the belief in the informative value of such tests that evokes the simplistic talk of a ‘gene for' a given human trait. In the case of finding the perfect mate, modern changes to contemporary lifestyles and social connectedness, as well as the difficulty of actually finding the right partner, mean that this simplistic view of the role of genes is driving would-be lovers to services that claim to offer science-based fixes.

But love is ambiguous, unpredictable and hardly respectful of laws

In addition to the potentially disenchanting effect of using science to prescribe romance, emotional compatibility and loving relationships, the increasing tendency to apply genetics to multiple areas of social interaction and behaviour raises more general issues about the growing encroachment of genetics and neuroscience into personal lives. The use of technologies that read whole genomes and profile brain activities in order to provide people with an assessment of their chances of finding love with a certain person might be a part of what sociologist Sir Anthony Giddens at the London School of Economics in the UK has called the ‘colonisation' of the future ( Giddens, 1991 ). Haunted by the inherent uncertainties of life, people are drawn to any service or person that promises to predict the future—from tarot cards to palm readers, and even to genetic tests. Perhaps it was therefore only a matter of time before biology became entangled in attempting to predict the budding of love and the outcome of relationships. But love is ambiguous, unpredictable and hardly respectful of laws. As the Roman poet Horace said to one of his lovers: “Don't ask (it's forbidden to know) what final fate the gods have given to me and you, Leuconoe, and don't play with Babylonian horoscopes.”

• Aaron A, Fisher H, Mashek DJ, Strong G, Li H, Brown LL (2005) Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love . J Neurophysiol 94 : 327–337 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartels A, Zeki S (2000) The neural basis of romantic love . Neuroreport 11 : 3829–3834 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartels A, Zeki S (2004) The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love . Neuroimage 21 : 1155–1166 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berglund H, Lindstrom P, Savic I (2006) Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103 : 8269–8274 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Espinoza J (2009) Online dating sites flirt with record growth . Forbes [online] 6 Jan [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher H, Aaron A, Mashek D, Li H, Brown LL (2002) Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment . Arch Sex Behav 31 : 413–419 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age . Cambridge, UK: Polity [ Google Scholar ]
• Illouz E (2007) Cold Intimacies. The Making of Emotional Capitalism . Cambridge, UK: Polity [ Google Scholar ]
• Kosfeld M, Heinrichs M, Zak PJ, Fischbacher U, Fehr E (2005) Oxytocin increases trust in humans . Nature 435 : 673–676 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kronn D, Jansen V, Ostrer H (1998) Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis, Gaucher disease, and Tay–Sachs disease in the Ashkenazi Jewish population: the first 1,000 cases at New York University Medical Center, New York, NY . Arch Intern Med 158 : 777–781 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meloy JR, Fisher H (2005) Some thoughts on the neurobiology of stalking . J Forensic Sci 50 : 1472–1480 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savic I, Berglund H, Lindstrom P (2005) Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 : 7356–7361 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman L (2009) Best cities for singles 2009 . Forbes [online] 27 Jul [ Google Scholar ]
• Wedekind C, Seebeck T, Bettens F, Paepke AJ (1995) MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans . Proc Biol Sci 260 : 245–249 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson G (1983) Finger-length as an index of assertiveness in women . Pers Individ Dif 4 : 111–112 [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeki S (2007) The neurobiology of love . FEBS Lett 581 : 2575–2579 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zlotogora J (2009) Population programs for the detection of couples at risk for severe monogenic genetic disease . Hum Genet 126 : 247–253 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Read our research on: Abortion | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Online dating, for valentine’s day, facts about marriage and dating in the u.s..

Overall, 69% of Americans say they are married (51%), living with a partner (11%), or otherwise in a committed romantic relationship (8%).

Dating at 50 and up: Older Americans’ experiences with online dating

One-in-six Americans ages 50 and older (17%) say they have ever used a dating site or app.

About half of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults have used online dating

Lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans are far more likely than those who are straight to say they have ever used a dating site or app (51% vs. 28%).

About half of never-married Americans have used an online dating site or app

36% of Americans who are divorced, separated or widowed say they have ever used a dating site or app; 16% of married adults say the same.

For Valentine’s Day, 5 facts about single Americans

The percentage of single Americans who are looking for a relationship or casual dates is lower than in 2019, especially among men.

Key findings about online dating in the U.S.

Three-in-ten U.S. adults say they have ever used an online dating site or app, and Tinder tops the list of dating apps the survey studied.

From Looking for Love to Swiping the Field: Online Dating in the U.S.

Tinder is the most widely used dating platform in the U.S. About half of those who have used dating sites or apps have had positive experiences, and some have met their partners on one; however, safety and harassment remain issues.

About half of recent online daters in U.S. say it’s important to see COVID-19 vaccination status on profiles

Online dating users who are Democrats are far more likely their Republican counterparts to say someone’s vaccination status is important for them to see.

Most Americans who are ‘single and looking’ say dating has been harder during the pandemic

Seven-in-ten U.S. adults who are single and looking for a relationship or dates say their dating lives are not going well.

Where Americans find meaning in life has changed over the past four years

Here are six facts about where Americans find meaning in life and how those responses have shifted over the past four years.

Refine Your Results

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Dating on Apps, and the Old-Fashioned Way

More from our inbox:, donald trump and louis xiv, at stake in the election, the music business: tough for new talent, killing animals: avoid the euphemisms, memo to liberals.

To the Editor:

Re “ It’s Not You: Dating Apps Are Getting Worse ,” by Magdalene J. Taylor (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, March 16):

With more people on online dating platforms than ever, we have entered a new era rife with hot takes and opinions based on a narrow set of experiences. Recent surveys say that dating apps are the No. 1 way people meet today, and nearly 70 percent of individuals who met someone on a dating app said it led to a romantic, exclusive relationship.

I am not here to question individual experiences, or pretend that every date will lead to success. Matching two people is an imperfect science and rests on shared interests, complex personalities, timing and more. It’s an age-old axiom for a reason: You have to kiss a few frogs before you find your prince or princess.

But lately, we’ve been building to an environment where critiques of apps are presented as a monolith and pessimism over a bad date is taken to signal the end to a generation’s romantic future. There’s this false notion suggesting that dating apps don’t work. The numbers tell us that broadly speaking and for more people than ever: They work.

Bernard Kim Los Angeles The writer is chief executive officer of Match Group.

Re “ With Lackluster Growth, Dating Apps Are in Need of a Spark ” (front page, March 13):

There was a time when finding a partner was an adventure that played out in public spaces: the park while walking your dog, the bar while calming down from a hectic week, the art class that opened you up to new experiences and people.

Now apps let you sit on your sofa in your slippers and shop, viewing only what the app reveals. Are they kind? Would their smile make you look twice?

We used to live somewhere, interact with people we found there who had our approach to life — and would actually move if we found no synergy (why live somewhere that is like that?). These were all actions that led to personal connections.

So unless you are forced to live somewhere totally out of sync with your values, stop playing the game the apps have created and get off the sofa!

Susan Fraser Jacksonville, Fla.

Re “ Trump Seeks Full Immunity From 2020 Election Charges ” (news article, March 20):

Not even French kings in the pre-revolutionary Old Regime had the absolute immunity that Donald Trump believes he deserves.

In 1709 the French bishop and theologian Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet’s tract on royal absolutism, “Politics Derived From the Words of Holy Scripture,” was published posthumously.

Bossuet affirmed that the king is a sacred being who represents the divine majesty; he is God’s “lieutenant on earth.” But Bossuet also underscored that the king “is not exempt from the law; for if he sins, he destroys the laws by his example.”

Though the king, endowed with “a divine quality,” was “not subject to the penalties of the law,” the American president is not so endowed.

Susan Dunn Williamstown, Mass. The writer is emerita professor of humanities at Williams College and the author of “Sister Revolutions: French Lightning, American Light.”

Re “ The Safety Net Is on the Ballot ,” by Paul Krugman (column, March 17):

Mr. Krugman’s astute assessment of our nation’s entitlement programs was a timely reminder of two of the many things at stake in our next election.

I fear that many Americans lack an interest in understanding the catastrophic possibilities should Donald Trump be re-elected. Many voters would choose to form their opinions around sound bites from social media or partisan cable channels rather than taking the time to read up on the issues that will ultimately matter most to them and their futures.

I fear that another Trump presidency will mark the end of many time-honored traditions and programs that have become a bedrock in our society.

Mr. Krugman gives President Biden his due on Mr. Biden’s understanding of and commitment to our Social Security and Medicare programs. Should Americans fail to heed Mr. Krugman’s warnings, it will be far too late to walk back the damage Republicans would do.

Amy M. Ferguson Dunmore, Pa.

Re “ Why Does Every Song Sound Familiar,” by Marc Hogan (Opinion guest essay, March 24):

The commodification and exploitation of music are as old as selling sheet music by Tin Pan Alley song pluggers over 100 years ago. The hitmakers have always driven revenue, while the wannabes eternally struggle for traction.

While Mr. Hogan criticizes the current monetization of hit songwriters’ catalogs — and ties it to the dearth of opportunities for new talent — the richness and breadth of musical content these days are remarkable and overwhelming. It’s just difficult for new talent to break through and make a living, and I’ve never known it to be any different.

“Music business” is two words. I’ve been a songwriter, recording artist, record producer and music executive for more than four decades, and the song remains the same.

Robert Kraft Encino, Calif. The writer is former president of 20th Century Fox Music.

Re “ OK, Class, First We Shoot the Deer ” (Food, March 20):

Can we please stop using euphemisms such as “harvest” and “cull” when referring to killing animals? Let’s not sugarcoat it: School hunting and animal agriculture programs take impressionable children who are considered too immature to make responsible decisions about voting, smoking cigarettes or operating a car, and teach them how to kill living beings.

It’s especially troubling when you consider that a large number of U.S. mass shooters were exposed to or took part in violence against animals or other forms of cruelty at an early age.

Having been a teacher in the Bronx for many years, I feel strongly that educators have an obligation to model kindness to those different from us and compassion for those weaker. Children are naturally empathetic, and we do them and the greater population a disservice when we teach them to suppress that.

Lisbet Chiriboga Norfolk, Va. The writer works for TeachKind, PETA’s humane education division, but is not writing on behalf of the organization.

The photos of the blood and organs of the deer were somewhat repulsive, but the article’s title is cruel.

But then, it was truthful. My memories of “Bambi” haunt me still.

Rosemary Abbate Moorestown, N.J.

Re “​ Should Wildlife Advocates Help Set Hunting Rules in Vermont? ” (news article, March 26):

As a liberal non-hunter and non-fisher (I live in Brooklyn, for goodness’ sake), I read the article with interest. My conclusion is that for each of my fellow liberals’ attempts to regulate something like this, it becomes obvious why Democrats are losing the nonelite working class.

Let it go, people, or you will continue to feed the class anger that led to a Donald Trump presidency.

Paul Swetow Brooklyn

This is your brain on dating apps

“The brain is ready to get addicted, particularly when it comes to love,” one expert says.

For modern romantics, the “swipe right” feature on dating apps has become a colloquial shorthand for attraction—and the pursuit of love itself. Now, it’s under fire.

On Valentine’s Day, a lawsuit filed by six people accused popular dating apps of designing “addictive, game-like” features made to “lock users into a perpetual pay-to-play loop.”

Match Group, the owner of several popular online dating services and the defendant in the case, wholly rejects the criticism, saying the lawsuit “is ridiculous and has zero merit.”

But the news has also brought attention to an ongoing debate: Are these products truly addictive? And is unhealthy user behavior more the fault of dating apps or the challenge of building healthy technology habits in an increasingly digital world?"

What happens when we swipe?

The possibility that the perfect match is just one swipe away can be irresistible.

“The brain is ready to get addicted, particularly when it comes to love,” says Helen Fisher, biological anthropologist and senior research fellow at the Kinsey Institute of Indiana University. These apps are “selling life’s greatest prize.”

Elias Aboujaoude, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford, says dating apps give users a “rush” that comes from receiving a like or a match. Though the exact mechanisms at play are unclear, he speculates that a dopamine-like reward pathway may be involved.

LIMITED TIME OFFER

Receive up to 2 bonus issues, with any paid gift subscription!

“We know that dopamine is involved in many, many addictive processes, and there's some data to suggest that it's involved in our addiction to the screen,” he says.  

Part of the problem is that much remains unknown about the world of online dating. Not only are the companies’ algorithms proprietary and essentially a black box of matchmaking, but there’s also a dearth of research about their effects on users. “This is something that remains severely understudied,” Aboujaoude says.  

Amie Gordon, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, agrees, saying predicting compatibility is “a big known mystery” among relationship researchers. “We don't know why certain people end up together.”

Match Group declined to comment on how they determine compatibility. However, in a recent interview with Fortune Magazine , Hinge CEO Justin McLeod denied the app uses an “attractiveness score,” and instead builds a “taste profile” based on each user’s interests as well as like and dislike patterns. In a company post, Hinge says they use the Gale-Shapley algorithm to pick pairs most likely to match.

Are these apps designed to be addictive?

As with any other social media platform, there’s reason to believe that dating apps want to keep their users engaged. “Dating apps are companies,” says Kathryn Coduto, an assistant professor of media science at Boston University. “These are people that are trying to make money, and the way they make money is by having users stay on their applications.”

Match Group denies the allegation that their apps are designed to promote and profit off of engagement rather than connection. “We actively strive to get people on dates every day and off our apps,” a company spokesperson said. “Anyone who states anything else doesn't understand the purpose and mission of our entire industry.” In his Fortune interview, McLeod also maintained Hinge’s algorithm isn’t trying to steer users to pay for a subscription.

Fisher, the longtime chief scientific adviser for Match.com, agrees, saying the best thing for business is for users to find love and tell their friends to sign up too.

Cheng “Chris” Chen, as assistant professor of communication design at Elon University, says that while the specific algorithms are kept secret, the way they’re designed is “not exactly neutral. Take swiping: it is just more fun than tapping, making the whole process feel more like a game,” she says.

You May Also Like

How ultra-processed food harms the body and brain

The menstrual cycle can reshape your brain

How wildfire smoke can permanently damage your brain and body

Dating apps also use clever tactics to keep users coming back, she says, such as push notifications and the “random rewards they offer, which really get our brains excited because we can’t predict when we’ll get a match.”

As social media platforms go, Stanford sociology professor Michael Rosenfeld sees dating apps as relatively useful and true to their intended goal.

“The reality is people are making relationships and uninstalling the apps in the millions every year,” he says. “Ultimately, the app wouldn't have any users if they weren't connecting real people to each other.”  

Is the problem dating apps, social media, or mental health?

Scientists have observed people exhibiting unhealthy behaviors on dating apps—much like those seen on other social media platforms.

“To me it’s a very blurry line between what dating apps do and what social media have done,” says Aboujaoude. People “start relying on dating apps for self-esteem purposes, for superficial connectedness, for temporary boosts to their mood.”

Whether this behavior constitutes a true addiction, however, is a matter of debate.

Coduto says she’s hesitant to ascribe a medical diagnosis to compulsive dating app usage. There’s no widely accepted definition for addiction in the context of social media, and the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders doesn’t recognize either internet or social media addiction as a medical disorder.  

Still, she says, some of the hallmarks of addiction are present—like compulsively checking dating apps and even experiencing withdrawal.  

This behavior is most pronounced among people experiencing social anxiety and loneliness, according to Coduto, whose research has shown that the interaction between those two emotional states leads to compulsive dating app use. Aboujaoude, too, has observed people spending hours on dating apps as a coping mechanism for depression or anxiety, which also leads to significantly lower user satisfaction . Even if that doesn’t meet the criteria for addiction, Aboujaoude says, “the fact is it has the markings of pathological behavior.”

But the idea that apps are turning people into lonely, swiping zombies might be more moral panic than reality.  

About 15 million new romantic or sexual relationships form in the U.S. every year, says Rosenfeld. Just because not every person will find a perfect match in their preferred time frame doesn’t mean the apps aren’t working.

“I don’t agree with the lawsuit that Match [Group] is preying on people,” he says. “I think they’re actually doing pretty efficient match-making work.”

With infinite choices just one swipe away, he adds, “it's harder for people to find the other person who's exactly what they want...And that is frustrating."

While users would benefit from clarifying their motivations for swiping, experts say dating apps could also be more transparent about their algorithms and build interfaces that emphasize real connection over instant gratification.

“Imagine an app that reminds you, ‘You have swiped 50 times in the last 5 minutes. Maybe take a break?’” Chen says. “This kind of feature encourages users to reflect on their behavior and manage their time on the app more consciously.”

Related Topics

• NEUROSCIENCE

One way to heal a brain injury? Let LSD open your mind—literally.

The First Year

Secrets of the Brain

Untangling mysteries of the brain—with the remarkable biology of squid

What triggers morning migraines? Scientists might now know.

• History & Culture
• Photography
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved