An Exploratory Study of Incels’ Dating App Experiences, Mental Health, and Relational Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incel refers to an online group of young males who feel frustration and despair at being repeatedly neglected on the dating market. Despite gaining notoriety for a number of public attacks, the majority of incel research is comprised of analyses of their forums rather than of individuals themselves. This provides a good contextual overview of the incel community but does not capture the experiences of incels or identify how and why this group responds so strongly to rejection. A total of 38 incel and 107 non-incel males (MAGE = 23.60, SD = 4.90) were recruited through Reddit and two institutional forums to participate in the present online study, completing questionnaires pertaining to their dating app experiences and their mental and relational well-being. Large differences between incels and non-incels were found, with the former reporting greater depressive symptoms, rejection sensitivity, relationship status influence, and insecure attachment. These were all associated with perceived popularity, which incels scored lower on. Incels also adopted more liberal dating app strategies, yet reported fewer matches, conversations, and in-person outcomes. The pattern of results reported sheds new light on the role that dating apps may play in incels’ efforts to attract mates and how these frustrations manifest. This is integral both to understanding the broader incel discourse as well as any efforts to develop treatment strategies with self-identified incels who seek counseling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".