Online Dating And Problematic Use: A Systematic Review

International Journal of Mental Health and AddictionDatabases searched: Web ofScience and PsychINFON 803 studies foundDuplicates siftN 146 excludedN 657 remaining studiesFiltering: other fields studiesN 445 excludedN 212 remaining studiesFiltering: inclusion/exclusion criteriaN 169 excludedN 43 studies selected for reviewFig. 1 Flowchart displaying the search processResultsThis section has been divided into six subsections which cover: (i) usage and motivation, (ii)personality correlates, (iii) negative correlates, (iv) impulsive behaviour, (v) substance use andbehavioural addictions, and (vi) problematic use of online dating. Across the subsections, thefocus is on the main findings of each study and, when applicable, how these findings relate tooveruse/problematic attributes.Usage and MotivationsA total of eleven studies were found that examined the characteristics of use or motivations ofonline dating use. Out of the eleven studies, there were ten quantitative studies, all of whichwere cross-sectional (Corriero and Tong 2016; Gunter 2008; Hance et al. 2018; Houran andLange 2004; Hwang 2013; Kim et al. 2009; Menkin et al. 2015; Paul 2014; Stinson and Jeske2016; Valkenburg and Peter 2007), and one qualitative study (Lawson and Leck 2006). Onestudy examined heterosexual respondents only (Hwang 2013), and another study focused onmale homosexual populations only (Corriero and Tong 2016), and the remaining studies didnot differentiate between sexual orientations.Before the proliferation of online dating platforms and smartphone applications, Gunter(2008) collected 3844 responses (67% female) from the British population in an online surveyavailable on the website of a research agency that asked questions regarding motivations andusers’ satisfaction with the online dating service. All age groups were represented evenly: 16–24 years (11%), 25–34 years (31%), 35–44 years (27%), 45–54 years (20%) and 55 years(11%). Results showed that 29% had used online dating sites and 90% of these users had spentup to 200 over the previous two years using online dating services (Gunter 2008). These

Cali et al.[2013]BoonchutimaandKongchan[2017]Blackhartet al.[2014]*15 total respondents recruited through N/AResearched the prevalence,radio appeals, face-to-facepragmatism and social impactrecruiting, online posting andof filtering mechanisms, andsnowball sampling (from 18 tohow they are shaping the62 years old; one-third was male)culture of dating[Qualitative: exploratory, small scale,four focus groups]Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale;725 volunteers 18–71 years of ageExamined how severalRejection Sensitivity Ques(mean age 22.31, SD 6.75;dispositional factors aretionnaire; Relationship Ques73.9% female; 91.6% heterosexual;related to the use of onlinetionnaire; Relationship Scales86.6% White/Caucasian)dating sites and to onlineQuestionnaire; Big Five In[Quantitative: cross-sectional studydating behavioursventory; Online Dating Inwith self-reported measures]ventory (ODI) (created by theresearchers); including itemsassessing potential risky behavioursEvaluated the behaviours of Thai *350 men respondents: 200 were from Survey created by researchers, 21questions; 3 with 8the eight carefully selected websitesmen who have sex with mensub-questions. 18 remainingand 150 were from social media(MSM) and are dating apps5-point Likert scalesites. 3 out of 4 are between 18 andusers toward illicit drug usage35 years old; 61.7% bachelor’sdegree[Quantitative: cross-sectional studywith self-reported survey]Examined the stigma associated 82 women at a private MidwesternDating Self-Protection Againstwith online relationshipRape Scale (DSPARS); datingUniversity; 18 and 36 years oldinitiation and its relation tobackground and internet usage(M 24.36; SD 4.73). 47 of themquestionnairedescribed themselves as White, 19women’s self-protective beas African-American, 5 ashaviourAsian-American, 4 used the term‘other’ to describe their racialbackground, and 7 of theInstrumentsBest andDelmege[2012]Sample [design/method]AimsStudy [year]Table 1 Studies included in the review and analysisGreater importance given to self-protective behaviourafter reading the online meeting scenario than theface-to-face scenario. This tendency was especiallystrong among participants who had never been on adate with someone they had met online73% of the researched Thai MSM community is usingdating apps to find their partners as well as forinviting others to engage in illicit drug practice witha 77% invitation success rate. Substance use wasalso associated with unprotected sexParticipants with higher rejection sensitivity are morelikely to use online dating platforms. The latter,those lower in conscientiousness and men are morelikely to engage in risky behavioursFiltering starts at the first phase in order to catchincongruous behaviour; users rely on their instinctdeveloped by the experience; ‘shopping culture ofdating’ saps the dating energy of usersMain resultsInternational Journal of Mental Health and Addiction

Choi et al.[2017]Choi et al.[2016a]Chin et al.[2019]Chan [2017]Study [year]Sample [design/method]InstrumentsMain resultsparticipants identified themselves asHispanic[Quantitative: comparison of 2 casescenario and self-reported measures]Attitude and perceived norm are predictive of the use257 heterosexual participants, 54.86% Items: Behavioural intent,Examined the relationshipsof dating apps. Sensation-seeking and smartphoneAttitude, Perceived norm,males. Mean age 27.14, SD between trust towards peopleuse had a direct relationship with intent. Use of appsSelf-efficacy, and desire for4.35; 70.03% White, 13.61% Asian,online, sensation-seeking,looking for sex was predicted by attitude and self-romantic relationships and13.22% Hispanic, and 8.17%smartphone use for accessingefficacy, indirectly related to smartphone use.general sexual drive; trustAfrican-Americanthe internet, and the intent toSensation-seeking and smartphone use had directtowards people online based[Quantitative: cross-sectional studyuse dating apps to look forrelation with this goalon Pew Internet and Americanwith self-reported measures]romance and casual sexLife Project; Impulsivity andSensation Seeking Scale;smartphone use for accessingthe internetAttachment Style Questionnaire. Users with higher anxious attachment orientation183 participants, 60% male,Examined attachment-relatedwere more likely to report using dating apps,Use of dating apps measuredMage 29.97 years, (SD 8.50),differences in the use of datingopposite to avoidant attachment ones. Mostby the authors’ itemsrange 18–65 years of ageapplicationscommon reason of use was to meet others, and most[Quantitative: cross-sectional studycommon reason for not using it was difficulty inwith self-reported measures]trusting people onlineStructured questionnaire: dating Using dating apps was associated with havingAimed to explore the association 666 students based in Hong Kong;apps, sexual history and17% homosexual/bisexual; 52.9%between using smartphoneunprotected sexual intercourse. Using dating appssocio-demographic informause dating apps (Mage 20.03dating applications and havingfor more than 12 months was associated withtionyears, SD 1.52; 359 females)unprotected sex with a casualhaving had a casual partner in the last sexual[Quantitative: cross-sectional studysex partnerinteraction and having had unprotected sex with thatwith self-reported data]partnerUsing dating apps for more than 1 year was associatedQuestionnaires adapted from*666 students based in HongExamined the associationwith recreational drug use together with sexualprevious studies: the use ofKong (Mage 20.03 years, SD between using smartphoneactivities; risk factors of recreational drug use indating apps, sexual history1.52; 359 females)dating applications andconjunction with sexual activities included beingand substance usesubstance use in conjunction [Quantitative: cross-sectional studybisexual/homosexual male, a smoker and havingwith self-reported data]AimsTable 1 (continued)International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction

Chow et al.[2018]Choi et al.[2016b]Choi et al.[2018]Study [year]Sample [design/method]Investigated whether MSM who *1672 men; 17 to 78 years, medianage of 29; 74% MSM usedmet their partners viasmartphone dating apps the lastsmartphone dating apps are3 monthsmore likely to engage in[Quantitative: cross-sectional studysexual practices such aswith self-reported data via shortrimming (oro-anal sex), andquestionnaires]use of partner’s saliva as alubricant666 students based in HongExamined the associationKong (Mage 20.03 years, SD between using dating apps and1.52; 359 females; 16.66%the sexual abuse of males andhomosexual/bisexual)females[Quantitative: cross-sectional studywith self-reported data]Explored the association between 666 students based in Hong Kong(Mage 20.03 years, SD 1.52;the use of dating apps and360 females; 16.97%risky sexual behaviourshomosexual/bisexual)[Quantitative: cross-sectional studywith self-reported data]with sexual activities inhomosexual menAimsTable 1 (continued)Main resultsone’s first sexual intercourse at an age under 16years; risk factors for alcohol consumption in conjunction with sexual activities were: being older,having monthly income more than HKD5,000 andbeing a smoker; risk factors for alcohol consumptionin conjunction with the last sexual activity includedcurrently being in a dating relationship, a smokerand having sex with a casual partnerUsers of dating apps were more likely to be sexuallyQuestionnaires:abused in the past year than non-users. Using datingsocio-demographics, use ofapps was also a risk factor of lifetime sexual abusedating apps and experience ofsexual abuse; sexual coercionsubscale of revised ConflictTactics Scales (CTS-2)Association between having unprotected sexualQuestionnaires: use of datingintercourse with more lifetime sexual partners andapps, sexual behaviours anduse of dating apps, having one’s first sexualsexual orientationintercourse before 16 years of age, being older,currently being in a relationship, having a monthlyincome at least HKD 5000, being a current smokerand being a current drinker; users and currentdrinkers were less likely to have consistent condomuse. Bisexual/homosexual users and females weremore likely not to have used condoms the last timethey had sexShort questionnaire: (a) source of MSM who used smartphone dating applications weredating mates, (b) specific sex1.78 times more likely to get rimmed, and 1.63times more likely to use partner’s saliva as aual practiceslubricant during anal sex, compared to other sources,after adjusting for age and other sources for meetingpartnersInstrumentsInternational Journal of Mental Health and Addiction

AimsSample [design/method]InstrumentsMain resultsHomosexual users sought a wider range of*678 participants recruited from (a) the ‘Big-Five’ Scale; ODSClemens et al. Researched the role thatgratifications (relationship, sex partner, distractiongratifications based on generalundergraduate student population[2015]biological and personalityand convenient companion) from online dating sitesinternet use, television(n 584) and (b) the general poputraits play in the use of onlinethan their heterosexual counterparts; women wereviewing motives and SNSlation using online networkingdating websitesless likely to use ODSs to find sexual partners, butgratificationswebsites (n 94); males (51%);more likely to use ODSs to be social. Those who18–20 (86%) and 21–30 (11%)were neurotic used dating sites to build an identity,[Quantitative: cross-sectional surveyas a convenient companion and as a distraction.study with self-reported data]People who are open to experiences were found touse dating sites to be social. Disagreeable peopleused dating sites because of peer pressure and as astatus symbol, and conscientious people were foundto use dating sites to find a relationshipOpen- and close-ended items to Specific set of user goals and concerns predictedStudy 1: 62 self-identified GrindrCorriero and Examined individuals’measure concerns of usedaters’ desire for uncertainty, which in turnusers, aged 18 and olderexperience of uncertaintyTongpredicted information-seeking behaviour. Findings(M 22.18, SD 4.01). Study 2:within the context of Grindr,[2016]clearly indicate that Grindr users’ responses to un326 men participants (Mage an all-male location-basedcertainty were not limited to simple reduction24.33, SD 5.63)mobile dating applicationstrategies, but were dependent upon their desire for[Quantitative: cross-sectional surveyand tolerance of uncertainty in relation to their goalswith self-reported data]and concerns of application useExamined the behaviours andCouch andN/AFor users, the control offered by the online*15 participants; 11 males; 24 toexperiences of people who useLiamputtoenvironment was central to risk management.44 years old; 12 heterosexual; 10online dating and how theyng [2007]Additionally, the social context in which ansingle; most located in Melbournemay or may not address risk inindividual encountered a potential risk would shapemetropolitan areahow they perceived the risk and responded to it.[Qualitative: in-depth interview studytheir use of online datingPeople who use online dating considered the risksvia online chat platform]involved and they demonstrated personal autonomyin their risk managementParticipants identified risks of lies and deceit, sexual*29 participants 18 to 70 years old. 12 N/ACouch et al.Explored what online datersrisks, emotional and physical risks and the risks ofwomen; all from Australia but one[2012]perceive to be the risks ofencountering dangerous and untrustworthy peoplefrom the USA; 23 single; 23 fromonline dating, along withonline and in person. Participants framed these risksmetropolitan areaproviding accounts of dangersStudy [year]Table 1 (continued)International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction

Hance et al.[2018]Hall et al.[2010][2008]Goedel andDuncan[2016]Erjavec andFišer[2016]Study [year]Study 1: 640 participants (67%female), 18–65 years of age*3844 respondents; 67% women;16–24s (11%), 25–34s (31%),35–44s (27%), 45–54s (20%) and55 (11%)[Quantitative: descriptive withself-reported data via online survey]5020 participants; 74% female;average age of 39.8 years old, SD 11.4; primarily White, non-Hispanic(83.2%), with 4.1% Hispanic, 5.3%African-American, 3.5%Asian-American and 3.6% other[Quantitative: cross-sectional withself-reported data via online survey][Qualitative: in-depth interview studyvia online chat platform]*38 retired adults; 19 women; 63 to77 years old; all participants wereSlovenian, heterosexual, middleclass and urban[Qualitative: semi-structured in-depthinterview study]174 male users of Grindr app;M 30.8 years old, SD 9.5;94.2% gay/bisexual[Quantitative: cross-sectional studywith self-reported data via onlinesurvey]and risky situationsencountered by online datersExamined involvement of olderadults in online dating: Howolder adults who lived themajority of their lives undersocialism perceived onlinedatingExamined associations betweencontexts of app use (e.g. usingapps when drinking) andcondomless anal intercourseamong a sample of MSM whouse these appsFind out the extent to whichinternet users subscribe toonline dating services andassess users’ experiences ofsuch services and theireventual outcomesExamined factors like gender,self-monitoring, the Big Fivepersonality traits anddemographic characteristics,that influence online datingservice users’ strategicmisrepresentation (theconscious and intentionalmisrepresentation of personalcharacteristics)Sample [design/method]AimsTable 1 (continued)in terms of the risky ‘other’ moving the ownershipof risks away from themselvesParticipants used economic metaphors and related themwith extremely positive expressions of recovery;they have internalised the principles of the marketeconomy and perceived their re-entry into the relationship market as their revivalMain results16-item Rejection SensitivityQuestionnaire (RSQ); RealTrue self mediated the relationship between rejectionsensitivity and online dating site usage;Engagement in condomless receptive and insertive analSurvey: app use, contextualintercourse with one or more partners in thefactor and transactional sexualpreceding 3 months was common (39.7% andencounters, HIV status and43.1%, respectively) and was associated withsexual behavioursseveral app-use contexts; associations between alcohol and other drug use when using these apps andcondomless receptive and insertive anal intercourseSurvey: motivations of use and 29% said they had used an online dating site. Most ofsatisfaction with the servicethese respondents (90%) had spent up to 200 oninternet dating in the past 2 years, with 70% of usersachieving at least one date, 43% enjoying at leastone sexual relationship and 9% finding a marriagepartnerMen were more likely to misrepresent personal assets,Survey items: personal assets,relationship goals, personal interests and personalrelationship goals, personalattributes, whereas women were more likely tointerests, personal attributes,misrepresent weight; self-monitoring was the stronpast relationships; 25-itemgest and most consistent predictor of misrepresenRevised Self-monitoringtation in online dating. Agreeableness,Scale; 44-item Big Five Inconscientiousness and openness also showed conventorysistent relationships with misrepresentationN/AInstrumentsInternational Journal of Mental Health and Addiction

(M 23.59). Study 2: 326 participants (206 female), 18–59 years ofage (M 24.15, SD 7.61)[Quantitative: cross-sectional studywith self-reported data]*3050 men who have sex with men(MSM); median age was 37; mostparticipants (73.8 %) were Dutch[Quantitative: cross-sectional studywith self-reported data via questionnaires]Explained the relationshipbetween rejection sensitivityand online dating site usageQuestionnaire:socio-demographics and HIVstatus, the three most recentpartners in the preceding6 months and sexual behaviour with those partnersMe Scale; Online Dating Inventory (ODI) Study 2 only:Revised Self-Disclosure ScaleInstrumentsMarketplace metaphor was salient for participants, whoemployed several strategies that reflected theassumptions underlying the marketplace perspective(including resisting the metaphor); implications ofthis metaphor for romantic relationshipdevelopment, such as the objectification of potentialpartnersrejection-sensitive individuals felt they can moreeasily represent their ‘true’ selves in onlineenvironments, such as online dating sites, whichpartially explains why they were more likely toengage in online datingOnline dating was not significantly associated withUAI among HIV-negative users. HIV-positive participants were more likely to practise UAI withpartners dated online; after correction for partner andpartnership characteristics, online partnership acquisition was not associated with a significantlyincreased risk of UAIMain resultsEspecially among HIV-positive men, a high percentageQuestionnaire: demographics,4984 users of an online platform;of unprotected anal sex was reported (39%). Afterchatting and dating behaviour,(M 33.2 years, SD 10.05); mostcorrecting for the disclosure of HIV status, thissexual behaviour, sexualrespondents (81%) reported a Dutchpercentage remained twice as high compared withbehaviour with last e-datecultural background

Online Dating and Problematic Use: A Systematic Review Gabriel Bonilla-Zorita1 & Mark D. Griffiths1 & Daria J. Kuss1 # The Author(s) 2020 Abstract Despite the constant growth in the use of online dating sites and mobile dating applica-tions, research examining potential problematic u