These are the most common insecurities fueling your dating app obsession
Are you constantly swiping? This may be why.
Dating apps have become the go-to platform for people looking for love — but for some, it's fueling insecurities and enabling bad habits.
A new study, published in Computers in Human Behavior, revealed the common insecurities that could be fueling your dating app obsession.
People who are insecure about their looks, anxious about being in social settings and constantly think they're being rejected are more likely to use dating apps in a problematic way.
The research, conducted with over 5,400 young adults aged 18 to 35 in Taiwan, aimed to understand how certain psychological traits influence the way individuals interact with dating apps.
With millions of users worldwide, these platforms are more than just a casual means to meet new people—they're increasingly shaping the way young people present themselves and form relationships.
But, as this study suggests, there's a dark side to hiding behind a screen.
Researchers found that individuals who experienced high levels of anxiety — specifically about their appearance, social settings and rejection — tended to view dating apps as a helpful tool for self-presentation and relationship-building.
Because these users are often uncomfortable with face-to-face interactions and worried about their appearance, they are drawn to the relative safety and control of their dating app profile.
Dating apps allow them to curate their image and engage with others in a way that feels less intimidating.
Many participants in the study said that these apps made it easier to form connections — especially those with higher levels of anxiety.
While these perceived benefits may sound positive, they come with unexpected dangers.
Singles with higher levels of anxiety were also more likely to have problematic habits when using dating apps — like compulsively checking their messages, constantly re-evaluating their profiles, or excessively focusing on potential rejections.
These people were also more likely to report feelings of frustration or distress when their interactions on dating apps didn't go as planned.
In the worst cases, these users could develop unhealthy relationships with the apps, using them to avoid real-world social interactions, which would in turn deepen their fear of rejection.
Overall, anxious individuals do seem to benefit from the ability to manage their image and relationships digitally, making social connections easier. However, their vulnerabilities — especially rejection sensitivity— can lead to excessive reliance on these platforms, which may ultimately harm their mental health, well-being and ability to connect IRL.
Young adulthood is a critical period for developing social skills and emotional resilience, making Gen Z and millennials particularly susceptible to the consequences of using dating apps in a problematic way.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
31 minutes ago
- CNN
Calorie-cutting diets could be tied to worsening depression, study suggests
Food & health Mental healthFacebookTweetLink Follow Going too far with a diet might have serious impacts on your mental health. Cutting your calories down too far could be linked with worse depression symptoms, new research suggests. A study published Tuesday in the journal BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health looked at data from more than 28,000 adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which surveyed participants on their diet quality and depressive symptoms. People who followed a calorie-restrictive diet, particularly men and people with a body mass index considered overweight, were more likely to have higher symptoms of depression, according to the data. Quality of diet also mattered. People who reported a diet with more ultraprocessed foods, refined carbs, saturated fats, processed meats and sweets were more likely to report higher levels of depression and those who ate more of a Mediterranean-style diet generally had lower risk of depression, the study showed. 'The findings suggest caution with overly restrictive or unbalanced diets, particularly for people already experiencing weight-related stress or challenges,' said lead study author Dr. Venkat Bhat, psychiatrist, clinician-researcher and director of the Interventional Psychiatry Program at St. Michael's Hospital and University of Toronto. Instead, Bhat suggests 'opting for balanced, sustainable dietary changes that meet nutritional needs and consider individual psychological impacts may help minimize potential negative effects on mood.' There are some limitations to consider when looking at the results. The design of the study can only show associations, not definitively say that calorie restriction causes an increase in depression symptoms, Bhat said. In addition, the study surveyed people on their dietary patterns, which leaves room for error, said Dr. Kary Woodruff, associate professor (lecturer) and director of the nutrition and integrated physiology department's coordinated master's program at the University of Utah. She was not involved in the research. 'I could think I am on a calorie-restricted diet when in fact I may be in a calorie surplus — there's no way to verify participant's calorie-restriction status,' Woodruff said. The study is large and controlled for other factors that could drive the associations found, but its findings contrast with those of previous studies around the topic of calorie restriction and depression, Bhat said. Other studies have found that calorie-restricted diets reduce depressive symptoms, said Dr. Johanna Keeler, postdoctoral researcher at King's College London. Keeler was not involved in the study. One difference is that previous research, including a 2023 paper that Keeler coauthored, studied restrictive diets supervised by medical professional. 'Therefore, these findings might reflect that unsupervised dieting, which can produce nutritional deficiencies, might not be good for depressive symptoms,' Keeler said. More research and randomized control trials may be needed to fully understand how dieting impacts mental health, Bhat said. There are several reasons why the calorie restriction seen in the most recent study might be associated with a negative mental health impact. Previous studies, including Keeler's, found that low-calorie diets that resulted in weight loss for people classified as overweight or obese was associated with reduced depression symptoms. That could be because of physiological changes, improved physical mobility or increased positive social feedback, Keeler said. 'Embarking on a calorie restricted diet without experiencing weight loss, or experiencing 'weight cycling' might not produce improvements in depression, and on top of that may be frustrating or disheartening to individuals, causing an increase in depression,' Keeler said in an email. When calories are too restricted or not enough nutrients are being provided by a diet, there could be an interruption in physical processes that could lead to fatigue, sleep problems and difficulty concentrating, Keeler added. Extreme dieting patterns also are linked to increased anxiety and a higher risk for an eating disorder, Woodruff said. 'The key is to examine what — and how much — is being restricted. Focusing on following a healthful eating pattern that supports mild to moderate caloric restriction may improve depressive symptoms and mood, whereas extreme behaviors can exacerbate mental, emotional, and physical health,' she said via email. How a person responds to a diet varies among individuals, and the results of the study highlight the need for personalized dietary recommendations and consideration of psychological factors in addition to physical health, Bhat said. With so much contrasting advice when it comes to nutrition and what's the best approach for your own nutrition, Keeler recommends input from a medical professional before starting any weight loss efforts. Even if you want to lose weight, focusing too much on heavy calorie restriction might not be the most sustainable option, said Natalie Mokari, a dietitian in Charlotte, North Carolina. Instead, she recommends small changes to move toward a more balanced lifestyle. Start by looking at your meals, Mokari said. Does your plate have a protein, carbohydrate, healthy fat, and some fiber and nutrients through fruits and vegetables? Try prioritizing adding in the nutrition you need first, then see whether there are elements you don't need anymore, she said. Perhaps if you eat from all of your food groups and slow your meals down, you will realize you don't need to grab a second helping or you won't feel the same urgency to grab a sweet treat after, Mokari said. 'Regardless of weight loss, improving dietary quality can significantly improve overall health and quality of life,' Woodruff said. 'Consider working with a registered dietitian to understand what a healthful dietary pattern can look like for you.' Get inspired by a weekly roundup on living well, made simple. Sign up for CNN's Life, But Better newsletter for information and tools designed to improve your well-being.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Harvard Fires Honesty Researcher For Research Fraud - Why That's OK
Harvard Business School dismissed prominent researcher and tenured professor Francesca Gino. Harvard Business School has dismissed Francesca Gino, a tenured professor whose research on honesty and ethical behavior ironically became the foundation for one of academia's most damaging fraud scandals. The firing is the first time Harvard has terminated a tenured faculty member in approximately 80 years. For her part, Gino maintains she is innocent. As I'll explain, this is actually good news for marketers and others who use behavioral science to drive better business outcomes. Gino built her career studying why people lie, cheat, and behave unethically. Her most influential work, published in 2012, found that people were more honest when signing truthfulness declarations at the top of forms rather than at the bottom. This research became a go-to example in behavioral economics circles. The study seemed to offer a simple, cost-free way to reduce fraud in everything from insurance claims to tax filings. Companies and government agencies actually implemented "sign at the top" policies based on Gino's findings. Part of the appeal of this intervention was that it seemed intuitive, not unlike Nobel winner Richard Thaler's work showing that changing retirement plans from opt-in to opt-out resulted in higher enrollment numbers. There was one big difference, though. Thaler's interventions worked, resulting in millions more people saving for retirement. But, when organizations tested 'sign at the top' forms, they were surprised that it made no significant difference in honest form completions. Sometimes, even sound research doesn't scale well in real-world settings. But, Harvard's investigation concluded that Gino fabricated some of the data supporting her honesty research. (All parties agree that the various studies include fabricated data, but disagree on its origin.) The study that promised to reduce dishonesty was itself dishonest. For CMOs and executives who regularly apply behavioral science insights to enhance their strategies, Gino's downfall offers three crucial lessons: Gino wasn't a fringe academic—she was a full professor at Harvard Business School, published prolifically, and spoke at major conferences. Her work appeared in prestigious journals and was covered by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. At one point, she was one of Harvard's highest paid employees, earning $1 million per year. If someone with these credentials could publish fabricated data for years, no researcher should be above scrutiny. Cornell's Brian Wansink, known for his food psychology research, produced work with results that were often surprising, simple, and highly actionable. He, too, faced serious misconduct allegations that led to his resignation. The "sign at the top" intervention moved from an academic theory to a tool that organizations implemented widely. How many companies are still using policies derived from fabricated data? The business impact of academic fraud or poorly designed experiments can extend beyond university walls. At least in this case, a signature at the top has no effect on honesty, good or bad. Behavioral science has struggled with a "replication crisis" where many published findings can't be reproduced by other researchers. Most of these are due to legitimate methodological differences, small sample sizes, unrepresentative subjects, etc. Occasionally, though, they stem from statistical manipulation and even fraud. Major scientific research results that are erroneous or fraudulent often get exposed as other researchers try to build on them. Most research doesn't automatically get replicated, though. The rewards for replication experiments are limited. At best, one confirms the original research. At worst, one ends up in a messy dispute with a fellow scientist. But, some researchers do devote time to research integrity. The Data Colada blog, run by three behavioral scientists, has exposed multiple instances of apparent data manipulation across the field. There's also a site, Retraction Watch, that keeps tabs on retracted papers. Ultimately, most bad research with major findings will be rooted out. Either fellow academics will discover the problem, or data-driven businesses will show real world results don't match the findings. Gino's firing shows that publishing questionable findings can have consequences, even for a star professor and researcher. It's a reminder to other researchers to be sure their data is sound. Published research papers almost always have more than one author. I expect we'll see more of these co-authors double-checking the data and methods to be sure they don't get embroiled in a replication/retraction mess later. Smart marketing leaders should exert healthy skepticism about behavioral science claims: Demand multiple sources. Don't base major strategy decisions on a single study, no matter how compelling or well-publicized. Look for independent replications by different research teams. Focus on established science. Robert Cialdini's principles of influence, for example, have endured for decades because they've been tested countless times in real business environments. Newer, flashier findings should be viewed with more caution. Watch for claims that seem too good to be true. A simple change in form design that dramatically reduces dishonesty sounds almost magical. In retrospect, the "sign at the top" finding's elegance should have raised more skepticism. Test everything. The most important behavioral science principle for marketers isn't any specific psychological finding, it's the commitment to testing. What works in a psychology lab or even for another brand may not work for your customers, your product, or your market. The bad data in the original honesty study wasn't spotted for years. Then, Harvard's investigation took years after that, with Gino remaining on the faculty during much of that time. Academic institutions move slowly, business decisions happen quickly. This creates a problematic gap where bad research can influence corporate tactics long before misconduct is discovered and corrected. The Gino scandal shouldn't make business leaders overly wary of behavioral science. Legitimate research in this field has produced valuable insights about consumer psychology, decision-making, and persuasion. Visit any successful travel website, for example, and you'll see behavior-based tactics everywhere. For marketers, the lesson is clear: approach novel behavioral science findings with the same critical thinking you'd apply to any other business intelligence. Evaluate the claims, verify the sources, and test everything. Remember that in both research and business, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
WebMD
an hour ago
- WebMD
Why We're So Obsessed With Coffee's Health Claims
Or is it? For decades, studies have linked drinking coffee to a longer life and reduced risk of an array of health problems. This week, a big study grabbed headlines linking coffee to healthy aging – women who drank caffeinated coffee were less likely to develop physical problems, cognitive impairment, and chronic diseases as they aged. In January, another study found that morning coffee drinkers lived longer than people who drank coffee later in the day. Another recent analysis suggested those longevity benefits may be limited to those whose coffee doesn't contain a lot of added sugar or saturated fat. Sorry, mocha and Frappuccino fans. Maybe wait for the next study. 'Coffee is like the science version of a celebrity – it makes headlines no matter what,' said Susan Albers, PsyD, a clinical psychologist at the Cleveland Clinic. 'I think that's because it crosses age, culture, and socioeconomic status. It's a substance that everyone enjoys and drinks. And it's one of the most widely consumed psychoactive substances on the planet. We forget that it is actually a drug that is paired with an enjoyable drink.' Three out of four adults in the U.S. report they are coffee drinkers. Half of Americans drink it daily. That's a huge number available to researchers, who can then examine countless variables and look for associations. If we're all doing something and it turns out to be bad for us – or good – public health officials want to let us know. Coffee is loaded with micronutrients, such as polyphenols that have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory benefits, and most coffee also contains the drug caffeine. 'It's such a window into the brain and how what we put in our bodies impacts us on every different level, in positive and negative ways,' Albers said of our own and researchers' seemingly insatiable thirst for more info on coffee. So will there ever be a verdict? We've been let down before. First it was red wine, touted as healthy until recently, when all alcohol has been frowned upon. And like coffee, chocolate seems to forever be switching sides between healthy and unhealthy. What Is It About Coffee Stories That We Just Can't Resist? 'We want to have healthy habits. We want to keep this enjoyable ritual in our lives but make sure that we're not sabotaging our health,' Albers said. 'And so, the more information that we obtain about it, the better. What I think happens is that there might be a little bit of a click bias.' Coffee lovers click to hear scientific confirmation that their habit is healthy, and people who don't like coffee click in hopes of confirming their choice to avoid the drink. Be skeptical of health claims about coffee, especially on social media, advised Jamie Mok, a registered dietitian nutritionist based in Los Angeles, California, and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Unqualified health influencers are everywhere these days, so look for someone with credentials who cites evidence from scientific journals. Extreme or ultra-simple claims made in absolute terms are a sign to keep scrolling. Is There a Consensus About the Health Benefits of Coffee? Yes. But the benefits may not apply to everyone. 'Large observational studies are generally showing a consistent positive association between moderate coffee consumption – so like two to three, maybe four cups a day – and the reduced risk of several diseases, including cardiovascular disease, liver disease, or cancer,' Mok said. Some people may not get all those benefits, she said – like those who already eat a diet rich in polyphenols (you're a blueberry lover, for example), or who aren't drinking black coffee, since that's what is usually studied. And even if you do just have a couple of cups of straight black and only in the morning, it may not be healthy if you have a condition like irritable bowel syndrome or anxiety. Do Your Own Coffee Study 'Coffee really is a gold mine for neuroscientists and psychologists who want to study the brain,' Albers said. 'It gives them this wealth of information about how what we put in our body impacts us. And as a psychologist, that's incredibly exciting and interesting to see how something like caffeine impacts our sleep and our mood.' Both Albers and Mok said that when they are working with clients who have anxiety or sleep problems, caffeine is one of the first places they examine. Most people don't realize the deep impact it can have on other parts of their health, they said. Albers suggested a 'mindfulness drinking' exercise to examine your relationship with coffee that she often shares with clients: Sit down to drink your coffee (riding in the car or on the subway doesn't count). Breathe deeply to smell the aroma, maybe wrap your hands around the cup to feel its warmth, and use the moment to slow down and be present. This can be quick, but run through your senses of taste, touch, smell, sight, even hearing. Before you start drinking, rate your energy level and mood each from 1 to 10. For the next hour, keep track of how you feel, and at the end of the hour do the 1-to-10 rating again for your energy level and mood. 'For many people, after they drink their cup of coffee, their mood boosts significantly,' said Albers, who has authored best-selling self-help books including Eating Mindfully. Repeat the experiment on other days, perhaps taking your coffee black or adding a flavor and see if the results change. You may find that coffee affects your energy or sleep, or it enhances your relationships by adding ritual to a shared coffee date. Maybe coffee helps boost your mood and the steaming cup and familiar taste simply bring you pleasure. 'There isn't anything to feel bad about with that,' Albers said.
