Mastering Modern Online Dating

1. The Digital Dating Revolution

The story of human courtship has always been shaped by the tools available to us — letters, telephones, personal ads, singles bars. Each era has had its dominant channel. Since roughly 2014, that channel has been the smartphone app. Today, approximately 30% of U.S. adults report having used a dating app or website, and among adults under 30 that figure climbs to nearly 50%.^[1] Dating apps are no longer a novelty or a last resort — they are the mainstream infrastructure through which millions of people seek partnership, companionship, and love.

The landscape has evolved rapidly. Early platforms like Match.com and OkCupid in the late 1990s and 2000s required lengthy profile essays and compatibility questionnaires. Tinder, launched in 2012, stripped the process down to photograph and a swipe — radically lowering the barrier to entry while also compressing the initial judgment to a split second. Since then, the ecosystem has diversified enormously: Hinge positions itself as "designed to be deleted," emphasising deeper prompts and relationship-seeking; Bumble gives women-identifying users the power to send the first message; Grindr and Her serve LGBTQ+ communities; Feeld accommodates ethically non-monogamous and queer connections; Hily and Badoo compete globally; niche apps proliferate for nearly every community and interest.

This proliferation creates both opportunity and complexity. More people are reachable than ever before. But more options does not automatically translate to better outcomes, and the psychological and social dynamics of digital courtship introduce genuine new challenges: the paradox of infinite choice, the anonymity that can encourage dishonesty, the asymmetry between how people present and who they are, the novel phenomena of ghosting and breadcrumbing, and the real risks of catfishing and predatory behaviour.

A Note on Inclusivity

This guide uses gender-neutral language throughout unless referring to specific research findings that used gendered categories. The strategies and principles discussed apply across the full spectrum of sexual orientations, gender identities, and relationship structures — monogamous and ethically non-monogamous alike. Where research is cited, the original sample demographics are noted. Many studies in this field have historically over-represented heterosexual, white, Western, educated participants; we flag this limitation where it applies and draw on more diverse research where it is available.

A Note on Ethics and Consent

Authentic attraction is built on genuine mutual interest. This guide explicitly rejects manipulation, deception, and psychological exploitation as approaches to dating. Every strategy discussed here is grounded in the principle that sustainable connection requires honesty — about who you are, what you want, and how you engage. The goal is not to "win" at dating apps but to find people you genuinely connect with, and to build something real with them.

2. Profile Psychology: Authenticity That Attracts

Before you write a single word of your profile, it helps to understand what is actually happening psychologically when someone encounters it. You have, on most platforms, between 0.3 and 3 seconds to make an initial impression from your lead photograph before a decision is made.^[3] That initial judgment triggers a cascade of cognitive shortcuts — and what happens next depends on whether your profile rewards the interest it has captured.

The Authenticity Paradox

Research by Ellison, Heino, and Gibbs (2006) identified a fascinating paradox in online dating self-presentation: daters frequently engage in small deceptions (adding a few centimetres of height, using a slightly older photo, softening a physical feature they feel self-conscious about) on the grounds that these misrepresentations are minor and will be forgiven on meeting. Yet the same study found that these small deceptions create anxiety, reduce trust, and often derail promising connections at exactly the moment they should be deepening.^[4]

Later research has consistently found that profiles presenting an authentic "possible self" — aspirational but genuinely achievable — outperform both highly polished ideal-self presentations and modest self-deprecating presentations in terms of match quality, conversation depth, and first-date success.^[5]

What Attracts: Moving Beyond Physical Appearance

While initial photo judgments are undeniably important, the role of written content is often underestimated. Profile text operates primarily as a compatibility signal — it helps people who found you initially attractive assess whether you are worth the investment of a message. Research by Joel, Eastwick, and Finkel (2017) found that the variance in initial attraction explained by profile elements was substantially lower than people predicted — but the variance in sustained interest was significantly higher.^[6]

The practical implication: a moderate-quality photograph plus an excellent, distinctive written profile typically outperforms an outstanding photograph plus a generic written profile in terms of producing genuine, sustained connection.

Signal Theory in Dating Profiles

Evolutionary psychologists speak of "costly signals" — indicators of desirable traits that are expensive to fake. In the context of dating profiles, the most effective signals are specific and verifiable:

• Specificity over vagueness: "I spent last weekend training for my first sprint triathlon, which mostly meant bonking on a bike ride and eating a comically large bowl of pasta" signals health, humour, and self-awareness better than "I like staying active."
• Values in action: Describing something you genuinely care about in the context of what you do about it signals both depth and character.
• Warm humour: Self-aware, inclusive humour (not sarcasm or put-down humour) is one of the most consistently positively-rated profile characteristics across genders and orientations.^[7]
• Honest vulnerability: A small, genuine admission — "I'm nervous about this whole thing but I'm trying it anyway" — can be more attractive than performed confidence.

3. Building Your Profile: Photos, Bio & First Impressions

Photographs: The Evidence-Based Approach

Your lead photo is the single highest-impact element of your profile. Research from OkCupid's internal data and from academic studies converges on several evidence-backed principles:

• Natural light is superior: Photos taken in natural, soft light consistently rate higher than flash photography or artificial studio lighting, which can flatten features and create an unnatural effect.
• Genuine smiles outperform posed ones: A Duchenne smile (which reaches the eyes, not just the mouth) increases attractiveness ratings significantly compared to a posed, mouth-only smile.^[8]
• Direct gaze increases perceived warmth: Looking directly at the camera (as opposed to slightly away) increases warmth perception and likeability, though angled shots can work for secondary photos.
• Context photos tell stories: Secondary photos showing you engaged in an activity you love — cooking, hiking, at a concert — outperform additional portrait photos in generating conversational interest.
• Avoid group photos as lead shots: They create immediate ambiguity ("Which one are you?") and force cognitive effort, which increases scroll-past likelihood.
• Recency matters: Using photos more than 2–3 years old creates a discrepancy between expectation and reality that can undermine trust at first meeting.

Writing Your Bio: The Art of the Interesting

A dating profile bio is one of the hardest short-form writing tasks there is — you need to convey personality, invite interest, and signal compatibility in the space of a few sentences or prompts. Most people fail not by saying the wrong things but by saying nothing at all: generic, inoffensive, and invisible.

What to Avoid

• The paradox of generic positivity: "I love adventures, good food, and laughing" describes approximately 100% of people and differentiates you from none of them.
• The litany of requirements: A list of what you don't want ("No hookups," "must love dogs," "looking for someone who actually puts in effort") reads as exhausting and defensive.
• Humble-bragging: Burying achievements in false modesty ("I guess I'm pretty successful for my age") reads as insecure and disingenuous.
• Over-length: A wall of text signals either social anxiety or a lack of self-editing ability. Aim for tight, intentional prose.

What Works

• Specificity: Replace "I love music" with "I've seen Phoebe Bridgers three times and cried at every show."
• Conversation hooks: End with an open invitation or a question: "Ask me about the time I accidentally bought a goat." (True story helps.)
• Values-forward language: Show what matters to you through what you choose to talk about, not through abstract declarations.
• A touch of self-aware humour: One well-placed line that shows you can laugh at yourself goes a long way.
• What you're looking for — briefly: A single, warm, honest sentence about what kind of connection you're hoping to find helps compatible people identify themselves.

Platform-Specific Considerations

Different platforms reward different approaches:

• Hinge: Prompt-based rather than free-form — prioritise prompts with specific, distinctive answers. The algorithm rewards profiles that generate conversations (not just likes), so choose prompts that invite reply.
• Bumble: Because women-identifying users send the first message (in hetero matches), a bio that gives them plenty of conversational material is especially important for men-identifying users.
• Tinder: Short text, high visual weight — keep bio tight and punchy; conversation hooks matter more here than depth.
• OkCupid: Longer-form and question-matching still rewards substantive writing; this platform skews toward people who enjoy reading and matching on values.
• Feeld / niche apps: Community norms vary significantly; research the platform culture and be explicit about what you're looking for.

4. Messaging Mastery: From Match to Meaningful Conversation

The conversion rate from match to conversation to date is remarkably low on most platforms. Research suggests that fewer than 20% of matches on Tinder result in any conversation at all, and fewer than 5% result in an actual meeting.^[9] This is partly platform design and partly messaging quality. The good news is that the bar for a genuinely good opening message is not very high, because the average opening message is so undistinguished.

Opening Messages: What Research Says

A large-scale analysis of messaging data found that the most effective opening messages share three characteristics: they reference something specific from the person's profile, they are conversational in tone (not transactional), and they invite a response without demanding one.^[10]

The Anatomy of Good Conversation

Effective digital conversation follows the same principles as good in-person conversation: genuine curiosity, active listening (or in this context, active reading), reciprocal sharing, and progressively deepening topics. The specific dynamics of text-based communication add a few additional considerations:

• Match energy, not message length: A one-paragraph message in response to a two-line message creates pressure and imbalance. Build gradually.
• Ask one question at a time: Multiple questions in a single message can feel like an interview. One genuine, open question is more conversational.
• Reciprocal sharing: After asking a question, share your own related perspective before waiting for a response — this signals that you're interested in connection, not interrogation.
• Notice and acknowledge specifics: Referencing something specific they said earlier in the conversation signals genuine attention and creates the experience of being truly heard.
• Tone calibration: Text strips out the nonverbal cues that carry much of interpersonal warmth. When in doubt, add a small amount more warmth than feels natural — it usually reads as appropriate, not excessive.

When and How to Move Toward a Date

The purpose of app messaging is not to sustain indefinite text-based connection — it is to assess enough compatibility to meet in person. Extended pre-date messaging (more than 1–2 weeks) can actually harm outcomes, partly because it creates expectations that are hard to meet in person and partly because people are better at assessing genuine chemistry face-to-face than via text.^[6]

• Aim to suggest a meeting within 5–10 exchanges once the conversation has established genuine mutual interest.
• Be specific: "Would you want to grab coffee sometime?" is less likely to succeed than "I'd love to meet for coffee — I know a great place near [area] that isn't too loud for conversation. Are you free Saturday afternoon or would another time work better?"
• Make it easy to say yes: Offer two options rather than an open-ended question when proposing logistics.
• If you're anxious about suggesting a meeting: That's normal. The worst that happens is a polite decline. Most people who are still in active conversation are open to meeting.

5. App Fatigue: The Paradox of Infinite Choice

Dating app fatigue is now a well-documented phenomenon. Survey after survey finds that a significant proportion of dating app users describe the experience as "exhausting," "demoralising," or "like a part-time job."^[11] Paradoxically, this occurs alongside continued app use — because the intermittent reinforcement schedule (sometimes you get a great match; usually you don't) is extraordinarily effective at sustaining engagement, in the same way that slot machines sustain gambling even when the overall outcome is negative.

The Psychological Mechanisms of App Fatigue

• Decision fatigue: Making hundreds of rapid binary judgments (swipe left / swipe right) depletes the cognitive and emotional resources needed for genuine connection. Research on decision fatigue shows that quality of judgment deteriorates with volume of decisions.^[12]
• Commodification anxiety: Being judged reductively — and judging others reductively — can erode the sense that you are a full, complex human person seeking connection with another full, complex human person. This dehumanising dynamic is real and cumulative.
• The paradox of choice: Barry Schwartz's research demonstrates that more options increase anxiety and reduce satisfaction with any given choice, because opportunity cost (the value of the option not taken) remains salient.^[12]
• Rejection sensitivity amplification: The high rate of non-matches and non-responses on dating apps can trigger and amplify rejection sensitivity, especially for people who already carry that vulnerability.

Practical Strategies for Sustainable App Use

• Time-boxing: Set specific time windows for app use (e.g., 20 minutes in the evening) and stick to them. Avoid late-night swiping, when decision fatigue is highest and emotional resilience is lowest.
• Quality over volume: Deliberately limiting your daily swipes to a smaller number — and giving each profile genuine consideration — tends to produce better conversation quality and less fatigue.
• Intentional breaks: Scheduled app breaks (a week off every month, or a full pause after periods of intensity) are reported by many daters as significantly restoring motivation and perspective.
• One platform at a time: Managing multiple apps simultaneously increases cognitive load without proportionally increasing good outcomes. Pick one platform and invest in it fully before expanding.
• Off-app activities that support dating: Investing time in activities and communities that align with your values builds social confidence and may create organic meeting opportunities that complement, rather than compete with, app dating.

6. Safety First: Protecting Yourself Online and in Person

Most people who use dating apps have overwhelmingly positive or neutral experiences. But the risks that exist — from minor fraud to serious physical danger — are real, and understanding them enables informed, empowered choices rather than anxious avoidance.

Digital Safety

• Reverse image search before trusting: If a profile seems unusually attractive or their story has inconsistencies, a reverse image search (Google Lens, TinEye) can reveal if their photos are stolen from another person's social media — a key indicator of catfishing.
• Never send money: This bears repeating clearly. Romance scams — in which fraudsters cultivate emotional connection over weeks or months before fabricating a crisis requiring financial help — are among the most financially devastating forms of online fraud. No matter how strong a connection feels, any request for financial transfer should be treated as a definitive red flag.
• Protect identifying information: Avoid sharing your full name, workplace, home address, or car description until you've met in person and established basic trust. Use in-app messaging rather than providing your personal phone number until you're ready.
• Use platform verification features: Many apps now offer photo verification (you take a selfie in a specific pose; the app confirms it matches your profile photos). Using and requesting verification substantially reduces the risk of catfishing.
• Trust inconsistency signals: Catfish and scammers tend to show specific patterns — reluctance to video call, always-busy schedules that coincidentally align with never meeting, stories that change slightly over time, rapidly escalating emotional intensity before any in-person meeting.

First Meeting Safety

• Public places only for first meetings: A café, restaurant, or public park — somewhere busy, well-lit, and with other people around. Never a private home or a secluded location for a first meeting with someone you haven't met before.
• Tell someone where you're going: Share the person's name, which platform you met on, and where and when you're meeting with a trusted friend or family member. A simple "I'll text you when I'm home" check-in system is standard and sensible.
• Arrange your own transport: Drive yourself, take public transport, or arrange a rideshare. Not being dependent on your date for transport home preserves your freedom to leave whenever you choose.
• Stay with your drink: Never leave your drink unattended or accept a drink you didn't see poured. Drug-facilitated assault is rare but real.
• Check in with yourself throughout: Trust your intuition. If something feels off — if you feel uncomfortable, pressured, or simply not right — you are always entitled to end the date and leave. You don't need a reason beyond "I'd like to go home now."

Specific Considerations for LGBTQ+ Daters

LGBTQ+ individuals, and particularly transgender and non-binary people, face heightened safety risks in online dating contexts — ranging from hate-motivated harassment and violence to discrimination that can occur even after an in-person meeting appears to be going well. Additional considerations include:

• Being selective about which information is shared with whom, and at what stage — particularly if you are not fully "out" in all areas of your life
• Being attentive to whether a match's profile is consistent (inclusive language, clear sexual orientation information) or shows signs of entrapment targeting
• Consulting LGBTQ+-specific safety resources such as those provided by GLAAD, the Trevor Project, or local community organisations
• Using LGBTQ+-centred platforms (Grindr, Her, Scruff, Lex, Feeld) where community norms and moderation are more attuned to the specific risks and needs of queer users

7. From Screen to Scene: Transitioning to Real Dates

The transition from digital conversation to in-person meeting is where most of the real work — and most of the genuine opportunity — of online dating happens. This transition is also where significant anxiety tends to concentrate, on all sides. Understanding the dynamics of this transition can help you navigate it with more confidence and less pressure.

Timing the Move to a First Date

As discussed in Chapter 4, research consistently shows that meeting sooner rather than later tends to produce better outcomes. Pre-date messaging that extends beyond two weeks is associated with higher "expectation burden" — the phenomenon where an imagined version of someone has time to form in your mind that is inevitably different from the real person. Meeting within a week to ten days of matching, if schedules permit, tends to produce more relaxed, less fraught first encounters.

Choosing a First Date Venue

The research on first date setting is surprisingly clear: low-pressure, conversation-friendly environments significantly outperform high-pressure or entertainment-focused alternatives.

Managing First Date Anxiety

First date anxiety is nearly universal. Some research suggests that a small amount of physiological arousal can actually enhance attraction, via the misattribution of arousal effect — but significant anxiety tends to suppress authentic self-expression and can create a self-reinforcing cycle of awkwardness. Useful reframes include:

• It's a conversation, not an audition: You are also assessing whether you're interested in this person — you both have that role, and neither of you is the sole judge.
• Curiosity over performance: Approaching a first date with genuine curiosity about the other person reduces self-monitoring pressure and naturally produces engaging conversation.
• Lower the stakes: Most first dates are pleasant but don't develop into something lasting, and that is fine. A good conversation with a new person is a good outcome in itself.

After the Date: Communication and Follow-Up

• If you're interested: A brief, warm message within 24 hours — acknowledging something specific you enjoyed and indicating you'd like to meet again — is appreciated and unambiguous. It does not need to be elaborate.
• If you're not interested: A kind, brief message is the considerate choice: "I had a really nice time getting to know you, but I don't think we're a romantic match. I hope you find exactly what you're looking for." This is harder than disappearing but significantly kinder.
• If you're unsure: That is also valid. A second date is often clarifying in ways that a first date is not. Meeting again with lower pressure, now that the initial uncertainty is past, can reveal whether there's something worth pursuing.

8. Navigating Modern App Culture

The vocabulary of contemporary dating culture has expanded dramatically to name a set of behaviours that are as old as human avoidance — but that digital communication has enabled at unprecedented scale and with reduced social consequence. Understanding these patterns — both as things that may happen to you and as behaviours you may be tempted toward yourself — helps navigate modern dating with both emotional intelligence and ethical clarity.

The Modern Glossary

Being Ghosted: Evidence-Based Response

Research by Leah LeFebvre and colleagues found that the majority of online daters have both been ghosted and have ghosted someone else.^[13] For the recipient, ghosting activates the same neural pain pathways as physical pain — social rejection genuinely hurts. Some evidence-based responses:

• Don't make it mean more than it does: Ghosting says much more about the other person's avoidance capacities than about your worth or likability.
• The one follow-up rule: It is reasonable to send one brief, non-accusatory follow-up after perceived ghosting: "Hey — I've noticed we haven't been in touch. No problem if you've moved on, just wanted to check in." Then leave it. Pursuing further is rarely productive.
• Don't ghost others in retaliation: The normalisation of ghosting is partly sustained by the sense that "everyone does it." Breaking this cycle requires each person to make the slightly harder choice to communicate honestly, even briefly.

Love Bombing: Recognise the Pattern

Love bombing is one of the more psychologically complex patterns to navigate, because it initially feels extremely positive — intense interest, constant contact, rapid declarations of depth of feeling. The problem is that this intensity often isn't matched by genuine knowledge of or care for the other person as a whole person; it is often a projective idealisation that sets up a subsequent cycle of withdrawal, disappointment, or control.

• Signs: intensity disproportionate to the actual time and depth of knowing; pressure to escalate the relationship quickly; jealousy or control disguised as devotion; dramatic swings between intense affection and coldness
• Response: slow down deliberately, notice how you feel when the intensity isn't present, share your observation with a trusted person, pay attention to whether the person is genuinely curious about who you are or primarily enthusiastic about their image of you

Situationship Navigation

Situationships — ambiguous, uncommitted connections with relationship-like intimacy — have become more common in the app era, partly because apps make it easy to sustain multiple low-level connections simultaneously, and partly because explicit DTR ("define the relationship") conversations feel vulnerable. Some considerations:

• You are always entitled to ask for clarity about where a connection stands — this is not "too much" or "moving too fast," it is reasonable self-advocacy.
• Both people in a situationship are often sustaining it partly out of fear of loss — getting clarity often requires one person to be willing to risk the discomfort of an honest conversation.
• If a situationship is leaving you chronically uncertain, anxious, or available for something you're not getting, that is important information about whether it is serving you.

9. Long-Distance Connections & Special Considerations

Long-Distance Connections

Dating apps erase geographical boundaries in ways that are both exciting and complicated. A swipe can connect you with someone in another city, country, or continent — and sometimes those connections feel more real and compelling than anything available locally. Long-distance relationships begun online have specific dynamics worth understanding:

• The digital honeymoon: Extended pre-meeting communication, especially with someone geographically distant, can produce very intense feelings that are partly about the person and partly about the romantic potential of the narrative. Meeting in person should happen as soon as reasonably possible to calibrate these feelings against physical reality.
• Closing the gap planning: Before investing significantly in a long-distance connection, it is worth having honest conversations about whether either person has the flexibility, intention, and financial capacity to eventually close the distance. Connections without a plausible path to cohabitation or geographic proximity tend to stagnate or end painfully.
• Sustained digital intimacy: Regular video calls, shared activities (watching something simultaneously, playing an online game together, cooking the same recipe in different kitchens), and deep conversation can sustain genuine intimacy across distance — but benefit from deliberate scheduling and structure.

Dating as an Older Adult

Adults over 50 are one of the fastest-growing segments of online dating users, partly driven by higher rates of divorce and longer life expectancy.^[14] Platforms including OurTime, eharmony, Match.com, and Silver Singles serve this demographic specifically, though many older adults also use mainstream apps successfully. Specific considerations include:

• Navigating different digital literacy and privacy comfort levels
• Re-entering dating after long-term partnership — including updating expectations formed in a pre-app era
• STI awareness: rates of STIs among adults over 50 have been rising and sexual health conversations remain important at every age
• Blended family and co-parenting considerations that may affect the pacing and structure of new relationships

Neurodivergent Dating

Autistic individuals, those with ADHD, and others who are neurodivergent face specific challenges in the standard dating app environment — and also bring genuine strengths. Some considerations:

• Text-based initial communication can actually reduce the sensory and social processing demands of early courtship, making apps a comfortable initial environment for many autistic daters
• The implicit social rules of app culture (how quickly to respond, how to interpret silences, what conversational norms apply) can be particularly opaque — recognising this, and where possible communicating directly about preferences and pace, is both valid and effective
• ADHD-related challenges (inconsistent response timing, forgetting to follow up, project-starting-but-not-finishing energy) can be misread as disinterest — brief, honest communication about your patterns can prevent misunderstanding
• Seeking communities and platforms where directness and explicit communication are cultural norms (rather than considered socially awkward) can reduce friction significantly

Dating with a Disability or Chronic Illness

Decisions about when and how to disclose a disability, chronic illness, or mental health condition in the context of online dating are deeply personal and do not have a single right answer. Some grounding principles:

• You have no obligation to disclose any health or disability information until you choose to — there is no moment at which it becomes required
• Earlier disclosure (before significant emotional investment) allows you to filter for people who respond with openness rather than discovering incompatibility after significant investment
• Disability-affirming communities, apps, and dating advice resources exist and can provide perspective from people with shared experiences

10. References

1. Rosenfeld, M. J., Thomas, R. J., & Hausen, S. (2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(36), 17753–17758. doi:10.1073/pnas.1908630116
2. Pew Research Center. (2023). Online Dating in America: Patterns, Experiences, and Attitudes. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from pewresearch.org
3. Todorov, A., Pakrashi, M., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2009). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Social Cognition, 27(6), 813–833.
4. Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415–441.
5. Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 78–97.
6. Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2017). Is romantic desire predictable? Machine learning applied to initial romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1478–1489.
7. Wilbur, C. J., & Campbell, L. (2011). Humor in romantic contexts: Do men participate and women evaluate? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 918–929.
8. Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). The Duchenne smile: Emotional expression and brain physiology: II. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 342–353.
9. Tyson, G., Perta, V. C., Haddadi, H., & Seto, M. C. (2016). A first look at user activity on Tinder. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (pp. 461–466).
10. Reuben, J. E., & Van Ouytsel, J. (2023). First message quality and response rates in online dating: A corpus analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 142, 107668.
11. Orosz, G., Tóth-Király, I., Böthe, B., & Melher, D. (2018). Too many swipes for today: The development of the Problematic Tinder Use Scale. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(3), 853–861.
12. Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. New York: HarperCollins.
13. LeFebvre, L. E., Allen, M., Rasner, R. D., Garstad, S., Wilms, A., & Parrish, C. (2019). Ghosting in emerging adults' romantic relationships: The digital dissolution disappearance strategy. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 39(2), 125–150.
14. Brown, S. L., & Shinohara, S. K. (2013). Dating relationships in older adulthood: A national portrait. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(5), 1194–1202.