This post includes the full transcript of this week’s Beyond the Buzz episode, followed by the clarity poll and full evidence.
Thank you to this week’s guest, Rik Foote, Founder & CEO of HAEVN.
🎧INTRO
Welcome to Beyond the Buzz — where curiosity meets clarity.
I’m Dr. Tara Moroz, scientist and communicator with decades of experience translating complex human research into clear, evidence-informed insight.
This episode looks at dating apps, swipe fatigue, matching algorithms, and compatibility claims — because the promise can sound simple, even when the decision feels personal.
For this episode, I’m focusing on apps designed to help people meet, date, match, or build romantic connection. I’m not covering paid attention platforms, AI companions, or services that sell emotional connection without the goal of meeting someone.
Maybe you are swiping, pausing, deleting the app, or wondering whether a more intentional platform would feel different.
Connection is already hard enough without trying to decode what an app can actually promise.
To bring a real-world product perspective into this conversation, I spoke with Rik Foote from HAEVN.
Let’s take a closer look together — starting with what’s driving the buzz.
📊THE BUZZ
The buzz around dating apps is not just that they help people meet. It is the bigger promise that smarter matching can make dating feel less frustrating.
And this is not a niche question. In a July 2022 Pew Research Center survey, three in ten U.S. adults said they had ever used a dating site or app, the same share reported in 2019 [H1].
There is also a large business behind the promise. One market report estimated the global online dating market at over 12 billion U.S. dollars in 2025, with projected growth to over 23 billion U.S. dollars by 2034 [H2].
But the experience can also be exhausting. In a 2024 survey of 1,000 U.S. adults who had used a dating app within the previous year, nearly eight in ten said they sometimes, often, or always felt emotionally, mentally, or physically exhausted by dating apps [H3]. The most common reasons included struggling to find a good connection, disappointment, rejection, repetitive conversations, and swiping itself [H3].
So the question is not just whether dating apps are popular. It is what they can reasonably do, what they have not proven, and where design choices may still matter.
🧾RECEIPT CHECK
Let’s check the evidence — our kind of receipt check.
This is the moment to pause and ask the questions that matter — what’s the evidence, what’s the source, and how do we know?
🔬WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS
Here’s what the evidence shows.
The strongest evidence is not that dating apps can predict love. It is that they can expand access [E1]. A major psychological review found that online dating can help people find and contact potential partners beyond their usual social circles [E1]. That access can change who someone has the chance to meet [E1].
But the same review found much weaker evidence for the bigger promise: that compatibility algorithms can reliably predict long-term romantic outcomes [E1]. So the evidence supports dating apps as a way to meet more people [E1]. It does not strongly support the idea that an app can know, in advance, who will become the right partner [E1].
That distinction is important because dating app use is not one behaviour with one goal [E4]. One systematic review — a study that reviews available research on a topic — found that people use dating apps for different reasons, including connection, dating, sex, curiosity, entertainment, and validation [E4]. So asking whether dating apps “work” is too broad. Work for what? A date, a conversation, a relationship, a confidence boost, or a way to pass time? The answer depends on the goal [E4]. That also helps explain why swipe fatigue can mean different things for different people: struggling to find a good connection, disappointment, repetitive conversations, or simply a mismatch between what the person wants and what the app experience provides [H3,E4].
Wellbeing is part of the picture too. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis — a study that combines results across studies — found that dating app users, on average, reported worse psychological health and wellbeing than non-users, including anxiety, loneliness, and distress [E2]. But that does not mean dating apps caused those outcomes, or that every user is struggling [E2]. The more careful takeaway is that wellbeing should be part of the conversation about the app experience, especially when the experience can feel repetitive, emotionally loaded, or hard to step away from [E2].
Researchers have also studied “problematic online dating,” but the field does not use one clear definition [E3]. That matters because simply using an app often, or feeling tired of it, does not automatically make the behaviour problematic [E3]. Researchers are looking at patterns involving loss of control, distress, difficulty cutting back, or app use that begins to interfere with everyday life [E3]. The harder questions are not just how often someone opens the app, but why they are using it, whether they still feel in control, and what the experience is doing to their wellbeing [E3].
Safety also belongs in the evidence picture.
In 2023, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission received more than 64,000 reports of romance scams. Reported losses reached over 1 billion U.S. dollars, with a median reported loss of 2,000 dollars per person [H4]. Those figures are not limited to dating apps; romance scams can also begin through social media or other online contact [H4].
A systematic review found that scammers may create false identities, build trust and emotional connection over time, and then use that relationship for financial gain [E5]. Research on prevention, victim support, and platform responses is still developing [E5]. That is why safety, verification, privacy, reporting, and user control belong in the evaluation of a dating platform [H4,E5].
So the evidence does not reduce dating apps to good or bad. Access is better supported than algorithmic prediction [E1]. Wellbeing findings require careful, non-causal interpretation [E2]. Problematic online dating does not yet have one settled definition [E3]. Safety also belongs in the evaluation of the platform experience [H4,E5]. Newer app designs should be judged by the claims they make — and the evidence they can eventually show.
🧠WHY THIS BUZZ RESONATES
So why does this resonate?
Dating apps offer a sense of motion. You can open the app, make a choice, and feel like you are doing something.
But that motion may start to feel tiring when conversations feel repetitive, intentions feel unclear, or matches seem to go nowhere. That may help explain the appeal of a newer app promising fewer mismatches, clearer intentions, or a more thoughtful experience.
The promise is easy to understand: better inputs, better matches, better chances.
So I wanted to ask what this looks like from inside a dating app trying to do things differently.
🧭GUEST INSIGHTS AND TAKEAWAY
To explore how one newer platform is thinking about these issues, I spoke with Rik Foote from HAEVN.
So Rik, when someone comes to HAEVN already tired of the usual dating-app experience, what are they hoping will feel different?
[Rik: I think people are hoping dating feels intentional again. For many, it’s become a constant process of searching, evaluating, and wondering if they’re wasting their time. HAEVN starts by understanding what someone is actually looking for, then makes introductions based on that. It lets people spend less time managing dating, and more time living their lives.]
That distinction between dating and managing dating is useful.
You also use the language of compatibility. What does that mean inside HAEVN — and where do you draw the line between making a more informed introduction and predicting the outcome?
[Rik: Intent comes first. Before we ask whether two people are compatible, we ask whether or not they’re trying to build the same kind of relationship or not. Because if they’re not, compatibility is almost irrelevant. Once intent is aligned, we measure compatibility across the things that research and experience suggest matter over time. We don’t predict love, we don’t guarantee chemistry, we simply reduce uncertainty before we make introductions.]
So, in HAEVN’s framing, compatibility is a better-informed starting point, not a prediction about how the relationship will end.
The broader evidence supports expanded access more strongly than it supports claims that algorithms can predict long-term romantic outcomes [E1]. How does that fit with the way you describe what HAEVN can — and cannot — do?
[Rik: I actually agree with the research. We don’t believe anyone can reliably predict the outcome of a relationship. And that’s one of the key distinctions between HAEVN and platforms like eHarmony. We’re not trying to predict success, we’re trying to make better introductions. So if two people share the same relationship intent, and also demonstrate a high degree of compatibility, we think that makes a much better place to start. What happens after that is completely up to them.]
So the distinction you are making is between improving the introduction and predicting relationship success.
Safety is another place where the platform and the person both have a role. From your perspective, what responsibilities belong to the app, and what still has to remain with the user?
[Rik: I believe dating platforms in particular have a responsibility to create a trustworthy environment. That means verifying people are real, protecting their privacy, being transparent about how matching works, and giving members control over their information. But no platform can replace good judgment. Meeting someone will always involve human decision. And I think it’s our job to reduce as much unnecessary risk and uncertainty before that first conversation even happens.]
That balance — what HAEVN says it can improve and what still belongs to the person — is a useful place to land.
Rik, thank you for bringing the builder’s perspective into this conversation.
Your Evidence Edit moment.
So what’s the takeaway?
Dating apps can widen who you have the chance to meet [E1]. What they have not shown is that a compatibility algorithm can reliably predict who will build a strong relationship [E1].
That does not make every design choice irrelevant. An app can still try to reduce friction, clarify intentions, protect privacy, or change how introductions are made. Those are narrower promises than predicting love, and they should be judged by what the platform actually does.
Start with your own goal. Are you looking for a relationship, a date, a conversation, validation, entertainment, or simply a wider pool of people to meet? People use dating apps for different reasons, so asking whether an app “works” only makes sense once you define what “work” means for you [E4].
Then ask three questions: What is this app helping me do? What is it claiming to know? And what judgment still belongs to me?
It is also worth looking at how the platform handles verification, privacy, reporting, and control over personal information [H4,E5].
A better starting point can help; it cannot choose the relationship for you.
💭REFLECTION PROMPT
Something to reflect on…
When you hear a dating app promise better matches, which part of that promise matters most to you?
Is it access? Compatibility? Safety? Wellbeing? Less wasted time?
And what would help you feel clear enough to decide whether the app is worth your attention?
📬OUTRO & CTA
If you found this useful, follow Beyond the Buzz and share it with a friend who likes a little science with their scroll.
You can also explore the full transcript, the clarity poll, and evidence in The Evidence Edit.
Until next time, stay curious — and stay kind to your mind.
This is Beyond the Buzz — cutting through the hype, because evidence is empowering.
Next week: Which Anti-Aging Skincare Ingredients Actually Work?
📊 POLL
📚REFERENCES — What’s the Hype (H1–H#) / What’s the Evidence (E1–E#)
🔓 Open Access |🔒Paywalled
H1
Pew Research Center. (2022). Share of U.S. adults who have ever used a dating site or app. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/
H2
Fortune Business Insights. (2025). Global online dating market size. Fortune Business Insights. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/online-dating-market-115542
H3
Prendergast, C. (2025, July 25). Forbes Health Survey: 78% Of All Users Report Dating App Burnout. Forbes Health. Data collected March 27–April 1, 2024. Online survey of 1,000 U.S. adults who had used a dating app within the previous year, commissioned by Forbes Health and conducted by OnePoll. https://www.forbes.com/health/dating/dating-app-fatigue/
H4
Fair, L. (2024, February 13). “Love Stinks” – when a scammer is involved. Federal Trade Commission. Date of statistic if provided: 2023. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/02/love-stinks-when-scammer-involved
E1
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436522 🔒
E2
Sharabi, L. L., Ou, L., Von Feldt, P. A., & Parsons, T. D. (2026). Dating app use, psychological health, and psychological well-being: A systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 177, 108879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108879 🔒
E3
Thomas, M. F., Dörfler, S., Mittmann, G., & Steiner-Hofbauer, V. (2025). Problematic Online Dating: Systematic Review of Definitions, Correlates, and Study Designs. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e72850. https://doi.org/10.2196/72850 🔓
E4
Castro, Á., & Barrada, J. R. (2020). Dating Apps and Their Sociodemographic and Psychosocial Correlates: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186500 🔓
E5
Bilz, A., Shepherd, L. A., & Johnson, G. I. (2023). Tainted Love: a Systematic Literature Review of Online Romance Scam Research. Interacting with Computers, 35(6), 773–788. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwad048 🔓
🎧 Prefer to listen?
Listen to Can Dating Apps Really Find You a Better Match? on the Beyond the Buzz website — or follow Beyond the Buzz in your favourite podcast app.
Educational content only. This publication does not provide individualized medical, psychological, or professional advice.
Full disclaimer: beyondthebuzzmedia.com/disclaimer