The first research question was how problem use is defined and measured. Each report’s definition of problem use and corresponding measurement is listed in Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1. Figure 2 shows an overview of problematized uses. We hereunder synthesize results quantitatively. We list all examined problem uses independent of whether associations were found significant. Results are presented in order, starting with the most used definition and proceeding to the least used definition of problematic dating app use.

A total of 10 reports defined problem use as use for certain (maladaptive) motives [42,44,48,49,53,56,57,59,62,64]. Two papers distinguished between use for either sexual or romantic motivations and grouped users into 2 categories (sexual versus all other purposes) based on a single dichotomous item asking, “If you use any of these [online dating] platforms, have you used them to have sexual encounters with others?” [57,59]. Other papers [48,59] measured motives with items by Sumter et al [68], with the Tinder Motives Scale [71], or using custom items [44]. Researchers problematized app use for self-esteem enhancement [56], identity building, and as a distraction [44]. It is noteworthy that harm was also associated with use for relationship seeking [53] or for companionship purposes [44,56], making these motives seem maladaptive for dating app use. Similarly, app use when lonely, sad, or depressed; when drinking alcohol; when using drugs; and to arrange sexual encounters in exchange for money [49] were tested as predictors of ill-being. Lastly, authors [62] problematized using dating apps with certain body ideal preferences (eg, for thinness and muscle tone).

Nine papers [20,46,47,50,52,56,60,63,64] conceptualized problem use of dating apps as behavioral addiction. Scholars consider problematic use of dating app “a behavioral addiction – whether a distinct one or a variant of sex-based addiction or Internet addiction. It could, indeed, also conceivably meet criteria for an impulse control disorder” [20]. Others cite the 6-component model and state that problematic use of dating apps and other technologies is characterized by “excessive use (e.g. more than a person intended to use), difficulty controlling use, use to avoid or escape negative emotions, and use that creates distress and functional impairment in various life domains” [56].

Six papers [20,50,52,60,63,64] employed the Problematic Tinder Use Scale (PTUS) [21] or later the Problematic Online Dating Apps Use Scale (PODAUS) [50] because these scales have 6 items covering exactly the 6 components put forward in the 6-component model of addiction [31]. Example items of the PTUS are “During the last year, how often have you spent much more time on Tinder than initially intended?” or “During the last year, how often have you tried to cut down on Tinder use without success?” [64].

Two more papers used similar scales [47,56]. The Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale [75] was used by Jayawardena et al [56], replacing “Facebook” with “Grindr.” The scale contains 6 items based on the 6-component model of addiction (2005). For example, the item on tolerance reads, “Felt an urge to use Facebook more and more,” and the conflict item reads, “Used Facebook so much that it has had a negative impact on your job/studies?” [75]. The Internet Addiction Test [70] was used by Drouin et al [47]. It contains 20 items on the 6 factors: excessive use, salience, lack of control, anticipation, neglecting work, and neglecting social life. Example items are “Do you choose to spend more time online over going out with others?” or “Do you try to cut down the amount of time you spend online and fail?” [70].

The ninth paper by Ding et al [46] employed the term problematic use and defined it as experiencing a “negative impact on mental health, social adjustment, and daily life as a result of excessive use.” Specifically, they employed a Chinese scale by Jiang [69]. It contained 5 dimensions, namely increased viscosity, physiological damage, misplaced anxiety, cognitive failure, and guilt.

Also, 9 papers were concerned with specific activities or experiences on dating apps, although their focus was diverse [15,16,20,43,47,53,60,65,67]. Since the central activity in online dating is swiping through profiles, 3 articles have specifically problematized the abundant availability of partnering options and manipulated them in experiments [15,43,65]. A fourth article has problematized excessive swiping [16] and measured it by adapting items on excessive smartphone use [28], for example, “I just have to keep swiping – there’s no other way.” The same study also problematized the mode of decision-making while swiping [16].

One paper examined deception in online dating [47], another online bullying victimization and perpetration [67], and another [58] examined trolling. Trolling included deceptive, aggressive, and disruptive behaviors, measured by the adapted Global Assessment of Internet Trolling [73]. The adaptation of March et al [58] reads, for example, “I enjoy griefing other people who access the app” or “The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.”

Furthermore, Mignault et al [60] problematized chatting with many at the same time and meeting many new partners (and meeting them after chatting briefly). In contrast, others [48,66] defined having many matches and chat conversations as subjective online success and related it to desired emotional reactions. Having few contacts was an item of self-conscious social comparisons with other Tinder users (eg, “I think that most Tinder users have more matches than me”) by Her and Timmermans [53]. Similarly, Rochat et al [20] problematized a variable that combined the number of online and offline contacts, Tinder satisfaction, and motives (internal consistency not reported). In the same paper, they also looked at the correlates of paying for Tinder (comparing paying to nonpaying users). The authors constructed their own variables and used custom scales with unknown validity.

The compulsive framework was used in 6 papers [45,48,53-55,59]. Compulsive use of dating apps is defined as the “inability to reasonably control their daily behavior, resulting in abnormal consumption patterns” [48]. Following Dhir et al [72], Her and Timmermans [53, p. 1305] defined compulsive as being “unable to rationally manage his/her routined performances.” Yet, researchers examining compulsive use also problematized increased time spent online, while reducing time spent engaging in face-to-face interactions [45]. Thereby, individuals may “become dependent on the applications for an increasing number of interpersonal interactions” [45, p. 6].

Of the 6 papers, half [48,53,55] used the compulsive social media use scale [72]. This scale has 4 items (which originally referred to Facebook [FB]): “Spent a lot of time thinking about FB or planned use of FB?,” “Felt an urge to use FB more and more?,” “Used FB in order to forget about personal problems?,” and “Become restless or troubled if you have been prohibited from using FB?” Apart from this scale [72], 2 older scales for compulsive use were employed: Coduto et al [45] used 3 items adapted from Caplan [27]: “I want to, or have made unsuccessful efforts to, cut down or control my use of the Internet,” “I have attempted to spend less time online but have not been able to,” and “I feel guilty about the amount of time I spend online.” Thus, in addition to lack of control (or relapse), the scale by Caplan [27] measures guilt about spending high amounts of time.

Marciano et al [59] used another scale for compulsive use, namely the Compulsive Internet Use Scale (CIUS) [74]. This scale was built after analyzing the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) criteria for dependence and obsessive-compulsive disorder and the literature on behavioral addictions [74]. Marciano et al [59] used 14 items such as “Do you find it difficult to stop using dating apps?,” “Do you think you should use dating apps less often?,” and “Do you feel restless, frustrated, or irritated when you cannot use dating apps?”

Four articles problematized a disbalance between offline and online interactions [45,51,55,60]. Half of them were concerned about a preference for online over in-person social interactions [45,55] measured with 4 items. Two items indicated a preference, for example, feeling safer starting a conversation and more confident on dating apps than in face-to-face dating situations [45,55]. The 2 other items indicated that one is treated better on dating apps than offline, for example, “I’m treated better on dating apps than offline” [45].

A third study considered it problematic when users invested too little time in online interactions: The authors of one study [51] hypothesized that quickly meeting in person would be associated with increased sexual risk behavior. Similarly, another study [60] included one item about quickly meeting people offline. Thus, from their perspective, it seems preferable to invest a considerable amount of time (eg, a month or more) in online interactions.

Four articles problematized mere use or frequent use [42,51,62,66]. Three papers relied on a single dichotomous item asking for use versus nonuse. Specifically, they distinguished nonusers from those who reported lifetime experience with dating apps [42,62] or from those who reported current use [51]. One study [66] measured frequency (from 1=never to 7=always) and analyzed the highest value (out of several social media platforms) of media use frequency (daytime and presleep). In their variable Tinder use pattern, the authors [20] combined different motives and experiences (we categorized this variable under Specific Activities or Experiences; see above) and also had an item asking since when individuals were using Tinder (duration since initial usage).

Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1 lists what each report tested as adverse correlates of problem use (independent of whether associations were significant or not). Figure 2 provides an overview. Note that researchers usually examine more than one outcome per study, so the numbers do not add up to the number of papers (n=29).

Eleven papers were concerned with joviality, happiness, sadness [48,53,55], negative mood [62], mental distress [59], depressive mood [20,56,57,63], suicidal ideation, and internalizing symptoms [57]. Other emotional issues were alexithymia [46], love addiction [50], and satisfaction and frustration of basic psychological needs [61].

A form of anxiety, for example, social or attachment-related anxiety, or fear of being single, was examined in 9 papers. These were 4 papers [15,16,45,46] as well as 5 papers that additionally examined mood and emotions [48,53,56,57,63].

Nine papers examined media use behaviors as correlates of dating app problem use: Five of these examined user motives of dating apps [20,48,56,61,63], for example, use for self-esteem enhancement [56,61], use to escape negative emotions, or use against being alone [56]. Two other papers associated dating app problem use with maladaptively using other media, namely problematic cyberpornography use, problematic social media use [50], and social media addiction—defined as excessive and irrational use of social media [66]. One paper examined the preference for online social interactions as a predictor of compulsive use [55], and another one looked at satisfaction with app use [64].

Of 8 papers examining undesired behaviors, 4 examined risky sexual behaviors, for example, the number of lifetime hookups, unprotected sex with multiple partners, or sex with someone just met [49,51,57,60]. Two papers were concerned with neglecting or avoiding offline activities such as class or work [45,46] in association with dating app problem use. Two papers examined decreased sleep quality [57,66], one study assessed substance use [57], and another assessed urges for disordered eating [42].

Eight papers related problem use to personality correlates: 3 papers selected the Big 5 [44,50,61], while 4 papers examined self-control, sensation-seeking [63], and (dysfunctional) impulsivity [20,51,58]. Two papers examined narcissism [58,67], Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism [58].

Self-attitudes were the topic of 7 papers, specifically self-esteem [15,61,63], body dissatisfaction, appearance-based rejection sensitivity or body esteem [52,62], upward social comparison on dating apps [16], and internalized homophobia [59].

Five papers examined undesirable decision-making outcomes such as number of options searched, selectivity, a difference between stated preference and chosen profile [43,65], partner choice overload [15,16], or the perceptions that algorithmic recommendation systems are useful or that they restrict user choice [54].

Five papers examined variables related to sexuality, namely sexual desire [52,63], compulsive sexual behavior [57], cognitive distraction during sex, sexual esteem, sexual preoccupation, and sexual depression [52]. Another paper related sexual orientation and biological sex [44] to dating app problem use.

Four articles considered interpersonal outcomes such as the intention to commit to a romantic partner [54], deception, perception of others’ deception [47], having online or offline contacts, number of current matches [63], and satisfaction with offline dates [64].

First, motives are the most examined topic in dating app research. This is in line with communication scientists’ interest in individual uses and gratifications of media use [44]. Users report a number of motives ranging from relationship seeking to passing time [68]. Interestingly, dating apps are nominally intended to facilitate sexual and romantic interactions, and yet, using them for sexual motivations [57,59] and relationship seeking [53] were both linked to adverse correlates. So, scholars investigated if (and sometimes found that) using dating apps for what they are seemingly intended for is problematic.

Some of the examined motives described compensational uses such as self-esteem enhancement [56]. Use out of ill-being suggests that individuals turn to certain media and use them in maladaptive ways to cope with existing psychological issues. Logically, using technology to cope with ill-being cross-sectionally correlates with ill-being, so longitudinal and experimental designs should test whether this compensation is effective. Moreover, research should focus on psychological problems and functional impairments, instead of pathologizing everyday (media) behaviors [20].

Second, scholars often examined problematic use in the sense of behavioral addiction and relied on existing behavioral addiction models. They mostly employed the 6-component model and the according measurement [21]. Those components can be criticized, as salience and media use for mood modification need not be problematic. One paper used the behavioral addiction scale and alternated between calling the construct problematic or excessive use [20], writing that it “could be considered a behavioral addiction,” but one should not overpathologize. This back and forth within one study represents the ambiguity in a divided body of literature. Other definitions and scales entail criteria such as excessive use (eg, more use than intended) and difficulty controlling use, but also use to avoid or escape negative emotions and use that creates distress and functional impairment [56].

Third, scholars problematized specific online activities or experiences, for example, paying for Tinder [20], deception [47], abundant availability of partnering options [15,43], chatting with many at the same time, and meeting many new partners (especially after little online communication). In stark contrast, others problematized having few matches and chat conversations [53]. This line of research is in dire need of validated and reliable scales. On the one hand, we need methodologies (eg, experimental) that reveal how many interactions are too little, fine, and too much (and for whom). On the other hand, this shows that the following theoretical questions are not answered: Which activities and which number of options and matches are helpful for relationship seeking, and which number distracts from one’s goal? Which activities are effective for enhancing self-esteem? How many options and interactions [15] are advantageous for well-being? This is very similar to the unresolved question around the ratio of time spent online to offline (another problematized use). Another study examined excessive swiping whereby they (1) defined excessive as compulsive and (2) remained unclear if excessiveness or the activity of swiping was the problem [16].

Fourth, compulsive use of dating apps was problematized. Its dominant characteristic was loss of control over use, in line with definitions in other fields [29]. However, some employed a scale that included use to forget about problems and ill-being if use is not possible [48,53,55]. Coduto et al [45] employed a scale including guilt due to use.

Fifth, some scholars problematized a disbalance between the time spent online compared to offline. This topic showed the greatest heterogeneity: On the one hand, some were concerned with a preference for online interactions [45,55] and too little time for face-to-face interactions [45]. Concerns around too many online activities in relation to offline activities mirror the fear that the internet will displace “real” life, that is, traditional ways of living and relating [76]. On the other hand, too little time in online interactions was also considered a kind of problem use of dating apps [51,60]. One study [51] tested if long online interactions, for example, a month or more, correlated with desired outcomes and thereby acknowledged the advantages of longer online interactions. Similarly, having few contacts was an item of self-conscious social comparisons with other users (eg, “I think that most Tinder users have more matches than me”) in the study by Her and Timmermans [53] suggesting that many contacts are preferable. This ambiguity between concerns for too little offline versus too little online time may be explained by the idea that we are concerned about too little offline time with existing ties, but also about too little online time when getting to know strangers.

Sixth, mere use (lifetime or current) or frequency of use was examined by few of the reviewed studies. While there are tons of studies on usage frequency or comparing (lifetime or current) users to nonusers regarding psychological correlates, our search term was supposed to yield only studies mentioning compulsion, addiction, or the like. However, since some studies contained those terms in their outcomes, we had included 3 reports that problematized mere use or mere frequency.

Concerning measurement, the validity of most measures is questionable. In the most frequently used measurement, the criteria conflict and withdrawal [31] entail life problems and emotional reactions [21] and thereby conflate predictor (media use) and outcome. Similarly, use out of ill-being and use that creates life problems [28,45,56] invalidly includes life problems within the measure of media problem use. Including detrimental consequences within the measure of media (problem) use and then using this variable to predict detrimental effects is tautological [25]. Quantitative researchers should not ask participants if they attribute their problems to media use but measure the 2 variables separately and test their association [77]. For future researchers who want to systematize findings, we suggest they only include studies with scales that validly separate problem use from undesired outcomes.

Regarding undesired correlates of problematized online dating, the strongest focus was laid on individual well-being with researchers measuring mood and emotional issues (eg, depressive symptoms) and anxieties. Although psychopathology is a driving force behind addiction, psychopathology at clinical levels remains underresearched (or is explicitly excluded [57]). Self-attitudes such as self-esteem were examined less frequently.

Scholars also tested associations of problem use with user motives and other media variables. Not only was use for certain motives the most frequently employed problem use, but user motives were also examined as predictors of problem use (eg, compulsive use). Research on user motives clearly dominates the field. Importantly, motives are often worded as coping with an undesired state (eg, to forget about problems) or enhancing a desired state (for self-esteem enhancement). Such motives can be expected to correlate with problem use because life problems (eg, low self-esteem) are included within the measure of media problem use (use for self-esteem enhancement motive).

Other media variables were, for example, social media or pornography addiction, which can similarly be expected to yield correlations with problem use due to common method bias (especially if measured with nonvalidated items).

Undesired behaviors such as engaging in a high number of hookups (which some authors conceptualized as an undesired behavior) and neglecting responsibilities were often treated as outcomes of media use. That is, researchers conceptualized dating apps as a contextual factor facilitating undesired behaviors [49,60]. There is a fear that unlimited access to online partnering options may distract from offline duties and facilitate a casual hookup culture. Others claim that internet dating has an “enduring effect” on relationships because couples meeting online stay together for a longer time than those meeting offline [78]. However, an observed difference in relationship length can be attributed to many factors apart from technology: Individuals choosing (paid) online dating services are usually highly motivated to start a relationship and remain partnered [71]. So, the claims that online dating has a causal effect on relationships remain unsubstantiated.

For personality, it is common to use validated scales and to assume the effects of personality on media selection and behaviors, in the sense that (eg, impulsive) individuals choose media in line with their preference (apps affording quick decisions) and use them accordingly (eg, longer than intended). Researchers would not hypothesize that problematic technology use makes people more impulsive.

For partner choice, however, some assume causal effects of dating app problem use. There have been claims that dating app use has revolutionized the way we relate to each other and that, due to an abundance of alternative options, singles may not want to commit and may develop a rejection mindset [79]. While supposedly making connections easier, technology may make it, in fact, more difficult to connect because users may get distracted by too many dating options or by in-app rewards [80]. Yet, this problem has not been quite represented in academic literature.

Sexuality and variables related to interpersonal perceptions and interactions were studied least frequently in the included reports. We lack empirical evidence on the question of whether problem users of dating apps (ie, binge swipers) are also in fact binge daters with plenty of noncommittal hookups. Future research should test if dating app use stimulates (or displaces) in-person dates. Few researchers tested correlations with compulsive sexual behavior, quality of sex life, or intention to commit. This does not mirror the popular fear that online dating (addiction) creates interpersonal problems. If examined, sexual and interpersonal variables tend to be studied as outcomes of online problem behavior [47].

An accumulating body of correlational evidence links dating app (problem) use to psychological variables such as self-esteem [13]. Yet, to this date, it remains unclear how they are linked because methodologically, dating app research is not as rigorous as research on other types of media problem use. To address the question of whether dating app (problem) use influences well-being or the other way around [20], we need studies with solid theoretical foundations and strong designs. Moreover, we suggest experimental and longitudinal designs to test causal and over-time effects (between and within subjects). These can tell if problem use of media causally leads to life problems.