Online dating: predictors of problematic tinder use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Geolocation apps have radically transformed dating practices around the world, with profound sociocultural implications. Few studies, however, have explored their addictive potential or factors that are associated with their misuse. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to assess the level of problematic Tinder use (PTU) in an adult sample, using a machine learning algorithm to determine, among 29 relevant variables, the most important predictors of PTU. METHODS: 1,387 users of Tinder (18-74 years-old; male = 50.3%; female = 49.1%) completed an online questionnaire, and a machine learning tool was used to analyze their responses. RESULTS: On 5-point scale, participants' mean PTU score was 1.91 (SD = 0.70), indicating a relatively low overall level of problematic app use. Among the most important predictors of Problematic use were the use of Tinder for enhancement (reduce boredom and increase positive emotions), coping with psychological problems, and increasing social connectedness. The number of "matches" (when two users show mutual interest), the number of online contacts on Tinder, and the number of resulting offline dates were also among the top predictors of PTU. Depressive mood and loneliness were among the middle-ranked predictors of PTU. CONCLUSION: In accordance with the Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution model of problematic internet use, the results suggest that PTU relates to how individual experience on the app interacts with dispositional and situational characteristics. However, variables that seemed to relate to PTU, including lack of self-esteem, negative mood states and loneliness, are not problems that online dating services as currently designed can be expected to resolve. This argues for increased digital services to identify and address potential problems helping drive the popularity of dating apps.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".