Psychology of Online Dating at Consonance (Gleichklang)

Psychology of Online Dating and Relationships at Consonance (Gleichklang)

Since 2006, we at Consonance (Gleichklang) have placed psychology at the forefront of all our work to support our members’ online dating and friendship search with the highest possible effectiveness.

Our approaches have evolved over time, as the psychological research on online dating and partner search, as well as the psychology of romantic relationships and relationships in general, has changed and expanded.

What has remained constant, however, is the philosophy of our dating platform. Through the systematic application of psychological methods, we aim not only to help our members find a partner but also, to the best of our ability, to contribute to the long-term viability and high relationship satisfaction of the relationships that form through Consonance.

In these comprehensive knowledge resources, we explain for those who are deeply interested what psychology knows about online dating and, building on that, how we as a psychological matchmaking service and friendship matching service use the methods of psychology to support our members in finding a relationship.

Psychological Research on Online Dating at Consonance (Gleichklang)

There is now a growing body of research on online dating, with this research often focusing on the so‑called apps, such as Tinder, to name the most famous.

Unfortunately, we are remarkably missing the one crucial study that would allow us to understand how effective these dating apps actually are: a representative sample of people looking for a partner, tracked over a period of 20 years in their use of the dating apps and the course of the relationships they found. The absence of this study already points to the fundamental problem from a psychological perspective.

Dating apps have billions of resources at their disposal. They could easily commission an independent psychological institution to conduct a representative study on the effectiveness of dating apps from a psychological perspective. If the result were positive, this would be the best advertising for dating apps possible.

But instead of enabling this study, dating apps focus on completely different evaluations that answer many peripheral questions but not what actually interests all of us.

The video by our co‑founder and psychologist Guido F. Gebauer, titled “Gewollte Einsamkeit – die Masche der Dating‑Apps” (Deliberate Loneliness – The Dating App Scheme), also reports on the background to this phenomenon.

In the meantime, however, a lot of information from psychological research on dating apps has accumulated over the years, painting the following picture:

• Dating apps are structured, including their billing mechanisms, to keep users on the app. They are not optimized for mediating long‑term viable romantic relationships. Instead, profiles that appear attractive are systematically suggested to a large number of users as reward stimuli, constantly conveying the hope of contact with an active profile. This can go as far as suggesting the same person to others hundreds of thousands or millions of times. The chances of success are zero, but the reward stimulus still works. Dating apps thus live more on hope than on actual matchmaking.
• Dating apps are designed so that selection decisions are typically made within seconds and primarily based on appearance. In reality, however, as humans, we can glean almost no information about a person’s personality from images, even if we sometimes imagine we can. Moreover, the focus on images leads to tendencies to post altered and beautified pictures. Appearance also does not correlate with the extent to which we can be happy in a relationship. Users thus orient themselves towards criteria that are not linked to potential relationship satisfaction.
• Users of dating apps themselves feel that the systems do not operate in their interest. Psychological studies show that they therefore develop their own theories on how to trick the systems. However, these are individual theories that bear virtually no relation to the completely opaque reality. Thus, from a psychological perspective, users of dating apps become similar to players and casino visitors.
• In fact, the system of dating apps is based on short‑term reward stimuli, mediated neurophysiologically by dopamine release. Profiles with attractive photos act as stimuli that make us euphoric. When the emptiness comes, we compensate with renewed dating activity. Psychological findings thus indicate that dating apps also rely on addiction mechanisms. This explains why they are among the most downloaded, deleted, and then re‑downloaded apps of all.
• If we are in a game mode, the chance that we can seriously engage in a relationship formation process is low. Psychologists suggest that dating apps tempt us to replace the actual goal of online dating with other goals related to entertainment, distraction, virtual chatting, erotic fantasies, self‑validation, and non‑committal contacts. Many users are not even aware of this. So they can search on dating apps for years and believe they are doing something for their partner search, while in fact they undermine their chances of finding a partner.
• Psychological studies also show that dating apps attract users with very different motives. The motive of finding a relationship is only one of many. On a scale of 15, it reaches a mean value of only three. Experience orientation, trend orientation, but also purely erotic motives and self‑validation are relevant. Others want to distract themselves from relationship pain or forget their ex‑partners. In such a heterogeneous pool, it becomes very difficult for users to find a compatible person for a relationship, especially since the matching of dating apps – as far as can be reconstructed from psychological studies (the providers remain opaque) – is apparently almost exclusively based on photo attractiveness.

Unfortunately, several psychological studies suggest that dating apps can undermine our willingness to commit in an even deeper sense:

• When users in online dating experiments are shown several profiles that they scroll through one after another, internal devaluation attitudes arise. The same profiles that would have sparked interest if shown individually are now perceived as uninteresting. But this is precisely the driving mechanism of the entire dating industry: to make as many profiles as possible available at all times. Quite a few people make it a regular leisure activity, often even before going to bed, to open dating apps and scroll through profiles.

Online Dating, Willingness to Commit, and Choice Overload at Consonance (Gleichklang)

The psychological background is that we enter a critical comparison process. At the same time, interesting profiles suddenly appear less interesting in the context of very few highly attractive profiles. The knowledge of the constant scrolling possibility creates the eternal hope for an even better profile. Thus, we fail to pause and enter into a real contact.

It goes even further:

• Psychological studies also show that the mere idea of alternatives – that is, the knowledge that there are more profiles – leads to a decrease in willingness to commit among online dating participants. The mere knowledge that there are more thus causes users to perceive their own willingness to commit as reduced while online dating. At the same time, other psychological studies show that singles with lower willingness to commit are more likely to remain single.

Another piece of the puzzle in the psychological reconstruction of dating apps is based on the choice overload effect:

• Studies in consumer research clearly demonstrate that increasing the number of alternatives leads to increasingly poorer and more superficial decisions. The reason is simply that our human information processing capacity for reflective decisions is limited. When we are flooded with profiles, we must resort to ever simpler and more superficial selection criteria. We can no longer seriously consider the profiles. The result is the notorious split‑second decisions with which profiles are swiped away or classified as interesting.

Simplicity Reduces Seriousness at Consonance (Gleichklang)

Dating apps exploit another principle of psychology:

• The easier we make it for people to enter somewhere, the more likely they are to do so. A profile on a dating app is set up in two minutes, everything seems free at first. There is no hurdle that people have to jump over. So many sign up who are not interested in serious relationships. Again, this makes finding a relationship the proverbial search for a needle in a haystack, especially since some never log off – why would they, it costs nothing.

Online Dating by People in Committed Relationships at Consonance (Gleichklang)

Another psychological study arrives at the conclusion that up to two out of three users are already in a relationship. Tinder claims these numbers are wrong but does not provide its own reliable data. When someone searches on Tinder, they will officially describe themselves as single to improve their chances of virtual contacts. Those who are genuinely looking for a partnership on dating apps are thus unknowingly confronted with the situation that many of those they contact are actually already in a relationship.

Dating apps have therefore developed a psychologically optimized strategy to keep users on the apps at all costs. This is exactly what the Tinder founder himself said when he explained that he developed Tinder based on the model of the ever‑pecking pigeon in the operant conditioning of psychologist Skinner. So he did not develop his now world‑leading dating app to optimize lasting, viable, and happy relationships, but the eternal swiping back and forth of its users.

From a psychological perspective, this gives rise to another risk that affects not only partner search but even our ability to relate:

• If people continue to use dating apps even after a relationship begins and seek the thrill there, this could affect the viability and emotional closeness of their relationships.

A client in dating coaching could always relatively easily make contact via dating apps and also start relationships. All ended after a few months. The reason: the client used dating apps even during his relationships and thus no longer had the psychological resources and ultimately no longer the motivation to truly engage in the relationship.

Global trends in single rates also indicate that dating apps, due to their structure, are not suitable for finding a partner from a psychological perspective. While contact options exploded through dating apps, single rates in the corresponding countries have continuously risen. Many people experience involuntary singleness, and they have done so not less but more since the advent of dating apps.

The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman spoke of Liquid Love, relationships that become fluid and interchangeable. Dating apps carry the risk that such relationships are formed. So it is not surprising that recent studies also suggest that relationships that start online are overall less viable than relationships where the parties met offline.

Superficial Communication in Online Dating at Consonance (Gleichklang)

The communication structure encouraged by dating apps also lowers the chances of real encounters and deeper getting‑to‑know‑each‑other:

• Dating apps tempt with short hello messages, often with multiple tracks, and they quickly fizzle out. A coaching client of mine had been active on the apps for years and always felt she was actually dating successfully. But a relationship never developed. Together we realized that she, in constant multi‑tracking and distraction, ultimately neglected all contacts from which a relationship could have actually emerged.

Actual Relationship Formation on Dating Apps at Consonance (Gleichklang)

But isn’t it a fact that many relationships form through dating apps, including those that last long and are happy?

Absolutely.

But from everything we know, these relationships probably form not because of but despite the structure of dating apps:

• If all people went for a walk in the forest every day and did not hang out elsewhere, many relationships would form during forest walks. But does that mean that forest walks are the best way to find a partner? Certainly not. The same applies to dating apps.

According to psychological findings, dating apps have increasingly displaced other ways of finding a partner. Partner search at third places, through friends and family, clubs, religious communities, or workplaces has lost importance. One reason is that it is so easy to turn on an app. At the same time, the willingness to be open for finding a partner elsewhere also decreases.

This is well illustrated by the psychologically studied phenomenon of phubbing:

• People sit in cafés. What do they do? They look at their smartphones, even when they are sitting together at a table. This lowers our chances of finding a relationship in third places. What do we fall back on? Our smartphones and dating apps.

So the situation is that we can find romantic relationships through dating apps. But from everything psychology tells us, dating apps are not an optimal structure to make our partner search successful. Dating apps are not matchmakers, but entertainment and game systems in which partnerships sometimes arise – because there are so many people there who are no longer elsewhere.

How Online Dating Shapes Our Expectations of Partner Search at Consonance (Gleichklang)

Dating apps do not only influence our behavior within the apps and in our relationships when we continue to use them, but they also influence the way we approach online partner search and what expectations we have. We have repeatedly observed this in surveys among Consonance members.

Dating apps have conceptualized partner search as a scrolling and comparison process with lots of variety, always new profiles, and constant choice. Psychologically, these very processes lead rather to the opposite: they support fleeting contacts, they hinder viable relationships.

But because dating apps have become the new norm of partner search, we all begin to adjust our attitudes towards online partner search and our expectations of dating platforms to these mechanisms.

An example from our early days at Consonance in 2006:

• From the very beginning, we charged a registration fee (fairly staggered and with discounts) because we wanted to prevent being overrun by dubious profiles, multiple profiles, and fake profiles. In the first years we had hardly any members, but our matchmaking rate did not decrease with the growth of our membership; it even increased slightly.

How can that be?

• When we started, there were no dating apps. No one expected constant contact. All members knew that they were new and that it could take weeks or months until a suggestion came. The members’ focus was maximally directed at that one suggestion, and when it came, they were fully motivated to explore the possibility of a relationship together. Thus, members could more often find a relationship from very few and very rare suggestions than today, where even with us the number of suggestions has increased.

At the same time, we would fail magnificently today if we started with the approach of back then. No one would accept waiting for months for a suggestion. Why? Because the global spread of dating apps has profoundly changed our expectations of online partner search.

Users of online dating now expect not only from dating apps but from all providers in the dating field constant and permanent new suggestions. They have – without knowing it – internalized the model of dating apps and now take it for granted.

As a result, we have to do a lot of educational work so that our members understand the psychology behind our approach and develop the willingness to engage with our decelerated system, which in turn is associated with very high prospects for a real partner search.

In fact, many Consonance users are already irritated when they have no suggestions immediately after completing the registration. They know the dating apps and want to start scrolling right away.

Matches, Monetization, and Psychological Effects at Consonance (Gleichklang)

Perhaps the deepest influence on our behavior and experience comes from the so‑called matches, which are also an invention of the apps, as well as the purchase offers associated with them that are supposed to increase the chances of getting more matches. This mechanism underpins the entire economy of many dating apps. At the same time, however, it multiplies all the previously mentioned potential negative effects of dating apps.

A match means that both are interested in getting to know each other – one would think. But that is a misconception. Matches are in reality the most powerful reward stimuli and the greatest incentive to stay on the app. Only very rarely do two matches actually get in contact, and even these contacts usually consist only of short messages. Most matches simply remain in the match list. The feeling of having a match creates the desire to get another one.

This leads to a fundamental shift: users increasingly set themselves the goal of maximizing the number of their matches, while the actual goal of finding a partner recedes further into the background. By tying monetization to these matches, dating apps ultimately turn partner search into a virtual game. Those who play more deeply simultaneously reduce their chances of a partnership, since more profiles and more simultaneous matches are associated with lower willingness to commit.

Personality Traits of Dating App Users at Consonance (Gleichklang)

Personality psychology has also now examined dating apps and arrives at understandable but concerning results: the stronger the expressions of the so‑called dark triad (psychopathy, narcissism, sadism), the higher the affinity for dating apps.

In addition, there are phenomena such as gaslighting, breadcrumbing, ghosting, and love scamming. These phenomena do not exclusively affect dating apps, but all social networks. However, they are further amplified by dating apps due to their psychological structure and deeply ingrained into human partner search.

Where we can start within two minutes, not only people looking for relationships do so, and not only those who want to chat or distract themselves, but also people who want to blackmail, manipulate, and exploit. These are exactly the love scammers and gaslighters. Individuals as well as internationally organized criminal gangs systematically use dating apps to fake love for users and exploit them at the moment they are vulnerable. It is a billion‑dollar business. It involves not only extorted money payments but also involvement in drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal structures. Every platform is affected, but the low‑threshold access to dating apps and the fact that there are people looking for love and being vulnerable maximize the susceptibility to love scamming and gaslighting in the sense of organized extortion networks.

Ghosting and breadcrumbing are further phenomena that are also promoted by dating apps due to their psychological structure and can be very painful. Because of permanent availability and fluidifying relationships, some people toss their various contacts like breadcrumbs while online dating, without ever seriously entering a relationship. This can irritate people and make finding a partner more difficult. Due to constant distraction and the ease of breaking off contacts at any time, some delete any approach, even profiles where there was already intense exchange, simply because a supposedly better profile appears or because it becomes “too much” for them.

Dating Burnout and Psychological Consequences at Consonance (Gleichklang)

The “becoming too much” is now a topic of psychology. Studies on dating burnout are increasingly appearing. All these effects described above leave clear traces on users over time. Embedded in an addictive structure, deprived of other ways of finding a partner, and at the same time repeatedly disappointed and hurt, users increasingly perceive their activity on dating apps as a waste of time, comparable to chronic work overload. We burn out particularly strongly when what overloads us is simultaneously experienced as meaningless.

However, this dating burnout is psychologically also an opportunity to free oneself from the game and return to real relationship and attachment. How this is possible and how we at Consonance try to support this process with psychological methods is explained below.

Finding a Partner as a Rare Event That Nevertheless Occurs at Consonance (Gleichklang)

Many users of dating apps have the impression that they are doing something useful for their partner search: as if their daily efforts, the evening glance at the match list before going to bed, the many messages, the constant scrolling would incrementally build up something and ultimately lead to finding a partner. We have said that from a psychological perspective the exact opposite is the case. The more active users are in the dating apps, the greater the risk that they become involved in bondlessness and that their goals shift from finding a partner to the short‑term reward goal of the “match”. They thus fall into permanent distraction, choice overload, and the chance decreases from profile to profile that they can still engage in a relationship formation process.

In reality, finding a partner is not comparable to manufacturing a product:

• When we manufacture a product, we can stop in the evening and continue the next morning. Eventually, at the end of our efforts, if we haven’t made any mistakes, the product will be finished. This is classically incremental, and typically, the more we do, the faster we finish.

Finding a partner, and this is the crucial difference and common fallacy, does not arise from our previous contact efforts with others. These do not build incrementally and do not bring us closer to the goal.

Finding a partner is rather something completely different psychologically, namely:

• A rare event (for those searching, not typically a daily partner, nor weekly, monthly, etc.), which nevertheless occurs for most people at some point. Since relationships should last a long time, the event also does not need to happen often; it is enough if it happens once and, after breakups, a second time, etc.

This leads to a crucial psychological requirement for those seeking a partnership. We must recognize that one moment, be ready, and react correctly so that a relationship actually comes into being.

If, on the other hand, we are distracted, we quickly move on to the next moment and often miss opportunities that present themselves to us.

This simultaneously means that the entire entertainment and game character of dating apps and also our expectations of wanting to see quick results are counterproductive. For all this does not increase but decreases the chance that we recognize and seize the moment when it arises. The more we are embedded in the activity, the more distraction, other contacts, or even merely imagined alternatives there are, the more the probability decreases that we will recognize and seize the opportunity.

A psychology of finding a partner must therefore address both points: increasing the probability that we recognize an opportunity. Increasing the probability that we seize an opportunity.

Both are anything but trivial, especially in the current situation where modern dating systems worldwide are practically designed to prevent us from recognizing or seizing opportunities. Not because there are malevolent actors who do not want us to find relationships, but simply following largely naturally from the economic optimization that the systems implement. They are constructed so that users stay and thus generate economic profits for the companies and corporations involved. If this happened to simultaneously optimize partner search, it would be a win‑win situation. However, from a psychological perspective, this is not the case, so ultimately the economic optimization of dating platforms comes at the expense of users’ partner search.

Psychological Support for Finding a Partner at Consonance (Gleichklang)

What can be done psychologically to change this situation?

From our nearly two decades of activity as matchmakers since 2006, we have learned that it is not enough to provide users with an automated system and leave them alone. If this is done, user behavior implicitly and explicitly reflects expectations about partner search and relationship formation that do not necessarily correspond to what is psychologically optimal or necessary. Relationship processes may then never materialize or break off prematurely.

This insight, which we gained in the course of our work, has led us today to dedicate a significant part of our efforts at Consonance to informing our members and all interested parties about the psychology of partner search and especially the psychology of finding a partner. In this way, we aim to bring about changes in attitudes and behavior that increase our members’ chances of finding a partnership.

From evaluating the existing psychological research on online dating and romantic relationships in general, our own surveys, evaluations of our users’ activities, and individual conversations with coaching clients, I have developed a scheme that I am convinced, from my psychological perspective, can optimally promote finding a partner.

The scheme is demanding because it actually means that we must first give up all our habits in modern online dating in order to then be able to reach a relationship through online dating.

Communicating this scheme and supporting our members in the process of their partner search in implementing this scheme of psychologically effective partner search is a significant part of the services we provide for our members. Whether the success occurs with us or on another platform is ultimately secondary from the perspective of members seeking a partner.

This is the psychologically optimized scheme for effective partner search:

Briefly summarized, the basic problem to be solved:

When many profiles are viewed one after another, a comparison mode arises in which supposed weaknesses come into focus and suitable profiles suddenly appear only mediocre. The expectation also grows that something “better” will come along soon. This causes contacts to be broken off early or not started at all. From the perspective of psychology, this reduces the chance that a getting‑to‑know‑each‑other process will even begin.

The 7‑Step Scheme for Focused Online Dating at Consonance (Gleichklang)

1. View only a few profiles per day, about one to three, or even fewer or less often, which is even better. This keeps perception clear and less comparative.
2. If resonance with a profile is not ruled out, make contact. First impressions often change during the getting‑to‑know‑each‑other process, and many compatibilities only become apparent in the exchange.
3. As soon as a person responds, do not view new profiles and do not write to anyone else. This ends the comparison mode and keeps attention on a real contact.
4. Actively deepen the contact and quickly move beyond pure writing: first a video call, then a meeting. For finding a partner, it is crucial that the getting‑to‑know‑each‑other transitions into a real‑world encounter.
5. Allow several real‑world encounters, even if it doesn’t “click” immediately. Attraction can grow when trust, safety, and a sense of well‑being develop. This is a central psychological effect that is often prevented by fast swiping.
6. As long as this contact is ongoing, do not return to online dating. Staying open to new contacts distracts and weakens the bond development that is just beginning.
7. As soon as it becomes apparent that a relationship is forming, end online dating. Those who continue searching in parallel remain internally undecided, and this can sabotage relationship building.

How This Approach Makes Partner Search Effective at Consonance (Gleichklang)

The scheme works with a simple psychological basic principle:

Closeness arises through concentration and openness for an encounter, not through constant alternatives. Those who lead partner search out of the game and comparison mode create the conditions for the rare event of finding a partner to actually take place, by perceiving and seizing the moment. This increases the chances that a contact becomes a real partner search success.

By the way, this scheme can also contribute to the success of partner search on dating apps. With the scheme, we resist the pull towards gamification of our partner search and thus create the conditions for a real relationship to emerge. In this way, we can resist the clicking structures of dating apps and still find our relationship happiness even there.

Psychologically Suitable Environment for Serious Relationship Search at Consonance (Gleichklang)

A Membership Maximized for Seriousness of Relationship Search

Does it make sense to look for vegans at a marksmen’s festival?

Presumably the result will be disappointing. Where we search thus determines whether we achieve our goals. In online dating, this is primarily a question of who: who is present on the platforms. If we search on an erotic platform, we will probably not find a romantic relationship. On a sugar daddy platform, no true love in the romantic sense will arise. Of course, there are exceptions, but the overall probability distribution will point in this direction.

So what can increase our chances of finding a partnership when we explicitly search for it?

The theory of “above all, many suggestions” is exemplarily implemented by the dating apps. It is highly successful and has revolutionized partner search worldwide. Unfortunately, it is not very effective. The drive of dating apps and other modern dating systems to monetize through many users influences the composition of the user base, which in turn affects everyone’s chances.

If dating apps were to focus primarily on partner finding, Tinder would lose the majority of its members, who, from what we know from psychological studies, are not really looking for a partnership at all.

We have opportunities to find a partnership everywhere in life. This is also a psychological piece of advice. Go through the world with open eyes. People looking for a partner should not limit themselves to the online realm but should generally have an inner readiness to recognize and seize the moment of finding a partner. This can happen online, but a visit to a café can also lead to great love. It just won’t if we look at our phones instead.

It is also helpful to say openly that we are looking for a partner. Partnerships still arise through introductions from friends, acquaintances at work, or colleagues. If we openly communicate that we are not only single but also looking for a relationship, we increase the chances that someone will draw our attention to an opportunity.

We should therefore see online dating only as one option that works in the background, but that should not waste our time on pointless scrolling and should not distract us from the singular opportunities of the real world.

Psychological Advice on Choosing the Right Online Dating Venues

But there is also important psychological advice regarding online dating: concentrate the resources of your online partner search on those places where we can reasonably assume that people looking for a partner are actually active and that the many other possible motives play no or only a minor role.

The psychological background to this recommendation is simple: the moment of finding a partner does not depend only on ourselves. It is not enough if we recognize or think we recognize that we have found our love. The so‑called love at first sight is often not reciprocated, which, according to psychological studies, is extremely painful. Finding a partner becomes possible only when both sides, or in polyamorous constellations all sides, recognize the moment of finding a partner for themselves and seize the opportunity.

So if I search with all seriousness in a pool of people who are looking for something else, the best dating behavior and the highest inner readiness will hardly improve my chances of a committed romantic relationship.

Psychologically Plausible Rules of Thumb for Platform Seriousness

How can we recognize where singles who are serious about finding a relationship are?

There is no certainty, but there are psychologically plausible rules of thumb that enable us to make an informed decision that goes beyond mere guessing: people tend to take advantage of simple and free offers. Moreover, people love games, and gaming platforms (as well as casinos) are therefore full. Our behavior is deeply influenced by short‑term rewards. Self‑regulation from a psychological perspective is therefore the ability to forgo short‑term rewards for a long‑term goal. Or to accept effort in order to achieve a goal one day.

As a psychological rule for orientation, the following applies for online partner search:

• Where people can start with an online dating system in the easiest and quickest way, most people will gather whose seriousness for a real relationship search is rather low. Because if it’s free, if it takes 12 minutes, if it requires no effort, then I can just give it a try. Chatting is also interesting, virtual eroticism is also exciting. If I get a response, it boosts my self‑esteem. Boredom can be overcome for a while.

We must therefore assume for any dating platform that gives its members easy, quasi‑instantaneous, communication‑free, and effort‑free access that a highly heterogeneous motivational profile of users will emerge, and to a large extent also users who are not serious about relationship search or who are looking for other forms of relationships (e.g., as already married or partnered people) than we would like.

Just as intensively, we can look at the reward structure on dating sites:

• The more short‑term rewards (attractive profiles, profiles available at any time, liked profiles, matches, purchased matches, visual or auditory reward stimuli) dating platforms have built in, the more likely it is that not a few of their users will fall into a game mode, where they will not find a partner due to permanent distraction and multi‑tracking. If I behave differently here, this certainly already has an impact. But even if I follow the seven‑step scheme completely, I must expect a lot of frustration since the other users on the hunt for the quick thrill do not do so.

Psychological Criteria: Platform Focus and Effect on Authenticity

Another psychological risk we can recognize is what the dating platforms focus on. We know that external characteristics say little about overall relationship satisfaction. Psychological studies even show that our perception of external attractiveness can change dramatically over time. Moreover, a second look can lead to a completely different assessment of attractiveness than the first look suggests. Psychology has also shown that we not only find people we perceive as attractive likable, but that we also begin to perceive those we like as attractive.

This is also evident in love relationships in the so‑called love‑is‑blind effect, which has been studied and proven by a number of psychological studies. We systematically consider our partners to be more attractive than others do, precisely because we love them. When our love decreases, the attractiveness we attribute to our partners also decreases.

But if we now select potential partners exclusively based on photos in seconds, we deprive ourselves of all these possibilities of relationship and love formation that go beyond this simple third‑party comparison process.

If platforms in the field of online dating therefore put photos heavily in the foreground, if photos are associated with immediate actions (e.g., accept, reject), if text plays only a subordinate role, if new photos pop up immediately when we have already seen others, then we can and should assume that superficial evaluation processes dominate on this platform, which does not help relationship formation.

Psychologically Central Guiding Question Instead of Self‑Presentation

How can I present myself optimally in online dating?

Such questions have also been asked of me as a psychologist and dating coach by journalists. However, this very question is wrong, and we should learn neither to ask it nor to seek an answer for it.

Finding a partner does not mean that I conquer someone against their will or persuade another person to enter into a love relationship with me. Instead, from a psychological perspective, the core desire in partner search should be to get to know a person who loves us as we are. Of course, we also have potential for change that we can tackle together and solidarily in our relationships. But love should fundamentally refer to ourselves and not to a distorted self‑presentation.

Psychological Harmfulness of the Application Metaphor in Online Dating

Platforms that rely on game, choice, entertainment, collecting matches, or at least implicitly (often even explicitly in their monetization) encourage this, motivate a dating of competition, where partner search becomes an application. In applications, however, we present ourselves as best as possible to get the job, especially when we really need it. For finding a partner, however, the application metaphor is psychologically harmful. It leads to inauthentic profiles and reduces the sincerity necessary when we really want to get to know, understand, and build a relationship together.

If platforms have therefore built in processes that tempt positive self‑presentation, we can assume that the authenticity of the profiles as a whole will decrease. If we go to such a platform, we move in a circle of people whose profiles we must seriously doubt. Incidentally, we also tend towards positive self‑presentation outside of platforms and their structures. All the more important is that in an intimate area like partner search, where honesty and authenticity play such a big role, a lack of authenticity is not additionally motivated by dating structures. When Tinder, for example, publishes rankings of the most popular profiles, it does exactly that.

The point is psychologically significant: because studies show that even slight deviations from reality in profiles (outdated photos, edited photos, changed age information) are poorly received by people looking for a partner and reduce the motivation to engage in a real getting‑to‑know‑each‑other with such a person.

Strategies for Choosing Dating Platforms

From these simple but highly plausible psychological considerations, the following recommendation for choosing dating platforms arises: people looking for a partner can specifically choose platforms where participants without exception pay a fee, where registration involves a more time‑consuming process of information collection, where no playful entertainment elements are built in, and which also do not place photos, self‑presentation, and competition at the center of relationship formation.

This recommendation will not solve all problems, and it is sometimes more difficult to implement than it seems. After all, it doesn’t help if platforms, as hundreds do, actually employ paid chat moderators so that no contact can arise. In a world where, especially on the internet, fraudulent offers and the desire for quick money play a big role, it is essential to thoroughly check the seriousness of the individual platforms. There is no royal road to this, since most information on the internet comes from the platforms themselves, review sites can be systematically filled with false reports, and Google’s algorithms as well as AI systems primarily disseminate mainstream information, according to the texts provided to them.

Nevertheless, it is important to pay attention to seriousness. Because if we as people looking for a partner fall into the clutches of a fraudulent platform, it can cost us not only money and time but even our psychological well‑being. Without realizing what is going on, we become entangled in loving traps. Others show interest in us. Our hope grows, feelings already arise. It is not easy for people to get out here either, even when they begin to suspect what is going on. A coaching client of mine had spent a thousand euros to send roses and other online gifts to others, and although she noticed that nothing was coming of it, it was difficult for her to stop. She ended this form of dating with a grieving process but stayed too long to avoid the grief.

Warning Signs: Purchasable Gifts, Moderation, and Communication Barriers

This brings us to another structural element that should make all our alarm bells ring. We can purchase gifts for other members on dating platforms. Dating platforms, if they are geared towards relationship formation, should be happy when members communicate. They should encourage appreciative, non‑superficial communication with all their might and certainly not make communication more difficult by requiring the purchase of quite trivial symbols in addition. Many of these dating platforms are likely to be more evaluation platforms. Those we describe do not exist; they are automatons or, before AI, real people who earn their living as chat moderators.

Taking a look at the terms and conditions is worthwhile, but it does not always protect. Many try to disguise the fraud by writing about entertainment or chat moderators in the terms and conditions. That should be a red flag. But even when we are confronted with structures like a purchasable symbol, it is reason enough to leave the platform.

It is truly terrible when we, helpless in our psychological vulnerability with our most hopeful longings, are exposed to a fraudulent dating platform. There seem to be really many of them: I had a conversation with the operator of one comparatively, who was genuinely surprised that the topic of finding a partner was central in the conversation. He apparently did not know this from many other dating sites.

I have also logged into a supposedly vegan dating platform myself, and what I experienced there is shocking when we realize that members fall for it: even during the registration process, members were interested in me, and this escalated when I let the registration rest. I should take out a premium offer so that I could read the messages, and if I didn’t do so soon, it was said at some point that they would be deleted.

Partner search is often a long‑term undertaking. For our successful members, partner search takes an average of about two years, for many less and for many more. In a radio discussion on Deutschlandfunk, a member of ours called in who found a partnership after nine years and now lives happily with him in Italy.

The idea that hordes of people contact us during the registration process to express their interest is absurd and has no psychological reality. But at the same time, these messages raise our hope, activate our longing, and not a few fall for them. The advice here is to establish a firm rule for oneself and stick to it strictly: if such expressions of interest from supposed other members come during the registration process, and if they are even tied to fees, e.g., to read their messages, that is a red flag, and the only correct step is: get out of the platform.

Another communication barrier and marketing strategy, unfortunately also present on typically reputable platforms, is detrimental to relationship formation from a psychological perspective: some platforms accept members for free, who are then also matched. However, they can only write to suitable suggestions if they pay, or they cannot communicate further after the first communication if they pay.

Let us be clear that finding a partner is always mutual. This affects not only those who do not want to make a contribution, but also those who are willing to have made a contribution. They waste their time with messages to people and their psychological energy, their hope, their wishes and longings, who cannot even write back to them.

At the very least, it must be said that such fee models do not maximize the members’ goal of finding a partner.

Research and Psychological Safeguarding Before Platform Selection

Despite all unreliable information, it is naturally still helpful and necessary to research platforms before entrusting ourselves to them. Despite everything, we can find out a lot if we search holistically, compare, and evaluate sources. We can find out whether platforms are established, whether they are possibly distinctly fraudulent, whether red flags are reported en masse on the internet.

In addition, of course, it makes a difference whether I read claims on the internet or social networks or an article in the Zeit. It still pays to pay attention to sources.

Are Contact Persons Available?

Is the platform reachable, or can we turn to them with our individual problems? Can we perhaps even pick up the phone? Partner search is an intimate process, and this should be supported by personal availability. Of course, there are call centers today that take on all orders. But in conversation, we can determine whether helpful and sensitive support is actually provided or not. Platforms that are truly interested in their members finding a partner will recognize that this support is important and will therefore offer it.

The Problem of Love Scamming in Online Dating

When writing about the psychology of partner search, a separate chapter must also be devoted to the area of protection against fraud and love scammers. There are two perspectives here, both of which are wrong from a psychological point of view:

1. Victims of love scammers are to blame themselves; no one of sound mind could have such a thing happen to them. Love scammers are not a general problem of online dating, and the only thing that can be done is to influence those affected, their attitudes, and ways of acting.
2. Being harmed by love scammers has nothing to do with one’s own person. Anyone can be affected, and the only thing that can be done is to make platforms as safe as possible against the influx of love scammers.

In fact, love scammers, as we also see at Consonance, are becoming increasingly sophisticated. The now‑used AI additionally makes it more difficult to recognize inauthenticity in texts as easily as was possible for a long time. In partner search, we bring hopes, longings, and fears. In an area like partner search, we are always vulnerable. Love and connection by no means arise only offline; many report having already fallen in love online. A friend of mine fell in love with another Consonance member more than 15 years ago and is now married to her. So it is not irrational to invest feelings online. It is human and within the psychological spectrum of expectation.

Love scammers themselves have learned over the years. They try to grasp people at their longings and convey care, understanding, and a future perspective. If we long strongly for a relationship, we are susceptible to this. Therefore, not only a few are harmed by love scammers, and the phenomenon of falling in love online is widespread. It can affect very many people.

Nevertheless, it is also not the case that victims of love scammers differ on average in all characteristics from others, according to psychological studies.

Psychological Findings on Victims of Love Scams

For example, Whitty and Buchanan describe that the denial of the fraud, that is, actively not wanting to believe that one has become a victim of a love scam, increases the risk of becoming a victim again. In such cases, those affected are contacted again after the first exposure and exploited again.

Whitty also found in a second study that victims of love scammers on average tend more towards impulsivity, willingness to trust, and the search for intense experiences. Consequently, they engage with love promises more quickly. Additionally, an increased susceptibility to addictive patterns of behavior was shown.

These findings were confirmed in a review article by Coluccia and colleagues. In addition, the authors reported elevated values for neuroticism and idealized notions of relationships. Victims of love scammers would ignore warning signs during the initiation phase or rationalize and relativize doubts in order to maintain the relationship.

In a qualitative study, Drew and Webster observed that victims of love scammers stated that they were particularly impressionable at the time of the fraud due to loneliness, longing for closeness and affection, and other burdens. These statements are explicitly based on qualitative interview data.

Prevention of Love Scamming

Overall, the findings indicate that there are specific characteristics and reactions of victims of love scams. At the same time, these are average differences, and independently of this, people can also be harmed beyond such person‑related characteristics in certain life situations and through particularly skillful actions by love scammers.

Nevertheless, it is important to know these constellations so that we can recognize our vulnerability and counteract it reflectively. A coaching client was one of those who did not want to see what was obvious. He refused to end the seemingly beautiful relationship that still existed when I spoke with him. Another Consonance member, however, reacted completely differently. She had approached us with the request to help her partner, who was supposedly in a most difficult situation in a prison in the USA, as her own resources were now exhausted. She immediately recognized the incredible fraud she had fallen victim to and consistently refrained from any further contact.

This simultaneously makes it clear that online scams can happen anywhere and also occur at Consonance. Fortunately, since our founding in 2006, we know of only a handful of cases. As operators of a dating platform, however, we see daily that love scammers try to infiltrate our platform and exploit our members. We counteract this through manual checking of every profile, payment obligation, an automatic detection algorithm that must then be manually verified, member education, and abuse reporting functions. Nevertheless, even we cannot guarantee absolute security for our members.

Therefore, prevention is necessary that involves those potentially affected to protect them from this fate. There is a basic attitude and a very simple pattern of action with which almost complete protection is possible:

• As a basic attitude, in addition to feeling and heart, also use reason. Only when both speak in the same direction is this a strong signal for viability.
• In addition, we should internalize and automate the basic rule: at the slightest financial wishes or requests, immediately break off contact and report the relevant account to the dating platform.

Reflection on One’s Own Relationship Patterns and Models

Reflect on Past Relationships and Learn for the Future

Too often we start online dating blindly. We overlook that, firstly, we typically look back on a relationship history that may still influence us. Furthermore, we fail to recognize that it is by no means self‑evident which relationship model we want to live, even though this massively affects our future relationship satisfaction and the stability of a relationship.

Psychological research indicates that people tend to look for partners who resemble their ex‑partners. This would not be a problem if a large part of previous relationships had not failed precisely because the partners were ultimately incompatible with each other. If we now again seek similar partners, it can quickly happen that we jump out of the frying pan into the fire.

Against this background, it makes sense to pause for a moment, reflect on past relationships, and identify the patterns that led to the failure of the relationships. Was it a fundamental incompatibility of the people, and if so, what were the decisive characteristics? Was it our own actions, neglecting the relationship or not using opportunities to work on the relationship? If so, what can we do in the future to prevent this? These questions are about finding out where we can start in partner search and where new strategies for relationship design are necessary.

For example, we may be able to identify clear red flags that caused not only our previous relationships to fail but which will also cause future relationships to fail; if we are aware of this, we may even be able to recognize this during the relationship search phase. Likewise, we may find that we neglected relationships, did not communicate enough, withdrew into our own routines, and did not develop common life goals. If this is clear to us, we can also bring about change in future relationships.

Clarify Our Relationship Model (Monogamous, Open, or Polyamorous?)

Relationship is not relationship:

• Relationships can be lived in very different ways. Often we presuppose the normative model of an exclusive two‑person relationship, i.e., monogamy. However, studies show that approximately one‑fifth of all respondents in Western countries have already had experience with other relationship models in the area of consensual non‑monogamy. Moreover, studies show that consensually non‑monogamous relationships can lead to comparable relationship satisfaction and stability as monogamous relationship models.

It is important to distinguish between different forms of consensual non‑monogamy. Briefly, the following models can be differentiated:

• Open relationships: Love is exclusive, sexuality with third parties is permitted.
• Swinger relationships: Love is exclusive, sexuality is lived together as a couple with third parties.
• Polyamorous relationships: Neither love nor sexuality is exclusive; it is possible to have multiple romantic and sexual partners.

Within polyamory, different subtypes can be described:

• Among other things, a distinction is made between primary partners, secondary partners, or tertiary partners. With primary partners, there are often stronger emotional and spatial bonds than with secondary partners, with whom the sexual relationship may be more intense. Tertiary partners are spoken of when further romantic and sexual components are involved, but the intensity of the bond is very low. Polyamorous relationships can also exist without secondary or tertiary partners if the emotional, spatial, and sexual closeness is high and evenly distributed among primary partners. Likewise, there can be exclusively secondary partners, where a high degree of independence is emphasized, which is even more the case when individuals have only tertiary partners. All forms can also occur mixed, with one person often having a primary partner and another secondary partner. In some polyamorous relationships, all participants maintain polyamorous relationships, in others only one or part of the people.
• There are also group relationships, in which more than two people together maintain a partnership relationship. Furthermore, open relationships, swinger relationships, and polyamorous relationships can also be combined with each other.

For socio‑cultural reasons, many presuppose monogamy without question.

However, there is a problem here:

• In many monogamous relationships, one or both partners do not feel sexually or romantically fulfilled. Not infrequently, the consequence is that sexual and/or romantic contacts outside the relationship are maintained, hidden from the partner and outside the agreement. Because this is concealed, openness and trust decrease. When it comes out, it is often very hurtful, and breakups can result.

In our own survey with Consonance couples, we found that infidelity in monogamous relationships is one of the most common factors for breakups. In contrast, we found no differences in relationship stability and satisfaction between monogamous couples where monogamy was adhered to and consensually non‑monogamous relationships.

Studies also show that alongside mono‑partnership sexuality, there is also poly‑partnership sexuality. This means that there is a significant proportion of people, among men and women as well as other genders, who do not want to orient their sexuality exclusively towards one person. If poly‑partnership‑sexually oriented individuals enter a monogamous relationship, the probability is high that they will become sexually unfulfilled and possibly begin to have affairs. However, neither sexual unfulfillment nor infidelity does romantic relationships any good.

We also see patterns in which people repeatedly enter monogamous relationships, have affairs, break up, and choose monogamous partners again. This is highly dysfunctional for all involved, as relationships become unhappy. Unhappy relationships, however, reduce our life happiness. According to psychological studies, singles are somewhat unhappier than partnered people overall, but still happier than people in unhappy or even toxic relationships.

Psychological Summary on Relationship Forms

The psychological summary is that we should definitely reflect on our relationship models before searching for a partner. We should enter relationships with open visor to achieve genuine intimacy and shared relationship happiness. A prerequisite for this is that we ourselves know what we are looking for. What we should look for must not be based on an illusion but must also correspond to our possibilities.

Again, a simple psychological scheme can be helpful. Let us ask ourselves whether we can find sexual and romantic fulfillment in a monogamous relationship. This simultaneously means that we should have the ability to adhere to monogamy. If we answer yes to this question, the search for a monogamous relationship is possible. If we answer no, we should restrict our search to consensually non‑monogamous relationships.

It is also possible that we arrive at the answer that we could live both a monogamous and a non‑monogamous relationship. In this case, we can make it dependent on the other person and the constellations we encounter. Relationship models can of course also change during a relationship. Openness helps to give relationships developmental opportunities.

But we should also ask ourselves a third question: Do I want a relationship at all? We live in a society where we no longer have to live in partnerships, even though there is still a strong normative model in this direction. While most people actually desire a relationship, there are also people who only think they have to be in a relationship due to social stress and pressure. Actually, they would be happier alone or with a friendship‑plus arrangement.

Psychologically, it makes little sense to enter relationships if there is doubt about one’s own desire for a relationship. In this case, the recommendation is rather to build a happy and meaningful life as a single. If a desire for a relationship arises later, it is never too late.

Relationship Models in Dating Platforms

Our relationship models influence the choice of dating platform. It is necessary to check whether one’s own model is represented on a platform and whether there is recognizability in the search process. If I search monogamously and this topic is not addressed on a platform, that is not necessarily a good sign. Because in this case, many people will enter partner search who may latently live other models but more or less pro forma engage in a monogamous model.

We see from the frequency of infidelity, sexual and emotional unfaithfulness that such a choice is usually not the best.

The more openly dating portals deal with the psychological reality of different relationship models, the higher the chance of authenticity and compatibility in the search process.

Our Approach at Consonance to Relationship Models

At Consonance, we try to map the entire relevant spectrum of human relationship desires and forms and present them transparently as options for which members can make a reflected decision. Through this open approach, we want to promote mutual transparency and enable our members to search for a relationship model that suits them. At the same time, we want to help prevent painful processes of incompatibility that are often only recognized once bonds have already formed.

We see this approach as an expression of the findings of psychology, which undoubtedly prove that there are different relationship models in human relationship reality and that different relationship models can be lived successfully. We recognize that there are mono‑partnership‑sexually and poly‑partnership‑sexually oriented people, with others standing between these poles. We believe that only through an explicit consideration of these different relationship types can a contribution to compatibility and relationship happiness be made.

In addition, the psychological research provides no evidence for a general superiority or inferiority of any particular relationship model.

Rather, the psychological findings suggest that different people in different constellations and life situations can become happy with different relationship models.

Providers in the field of online dating should face this psychological reality. If they do not, they fail to do justice to the complexity of human needs and lifestyles in the areas of sexuality and relationships. Only such an inclusive approach can maximize the authenticity of members looking for a partner and thus also the possibility of matchmaking to bring compatible people together. Inclusion is therefore always a gain for everyone, regardless of which characteristics or relationship models are involved.

Sexual Experience Needs and Sexual Compatibility

Sexual satisfaction typically decreases in romantic relationships. In addition, there are many couples who have never been able to build real sexual satisfaction with each other. Sexual satisfaction means that the two individuals or, in polyamorous constellations, more than two people experience each other as mutually sexually fulfilled.

Sexual preferences, practices, and orientations towards certain constellations can be so important and strong that they act like a sexual orientation. Sexologist Sari van Anders, with her sexual configuration theory, has presented a modern psychological concept of sexuality that enables a profound individual understanding.

Sexuality as well as relationships are not only the result of compatibility but also of shared encounters and open communication. Through openness and joint experimentation, changing places and practices, sexuality can maintain or revive its passionate character even in long‑standing relationships.

But even if much depends on what people develop together, there are also compatibility aspects that play a role from the outset. If there is a good fit, the prospects increase that mutual sexual satisfaction becomes possible. Sexual satisfaction is in turn linked to relationship satisfaction.

If, against the backdrop of openness and appreciation, we reflect on our sexual experience needs and share them with each other in relationships, the prospects for sexual compatibility, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction increase accordingly.

At Consonance, we have integrated numerous aspects of sexual orientation and also more complex concepts embedded in sexuality and gender (Guydyke, Girlfag) into our matchmaking. Sexual experimentation readiness, speed of starting sexual activity when getting to know each other, inclinations towards BDSM and the associated roles, polyamorous sexual constellations, whether in swinger relationships, open marriages, or polyamorous relationships, as well as the desire for asexual or platonic relationships are compatibly assigned by the matching algorithm.

The psychological findings clearly show that we should not simply regard sexual compatibility and sexual satisfaction as a by‑product of partnerships. Already in partner search and in the process of relationship building, sexuality and the compatibility possibilities that exist between people or can be developed play a central role. Too often this is neglected in online dating, which contributes to relationships being characterized by low sexual satisfaction or even explicit incompatibility of sexual experience needs.

One reason for the lack of openness in our sexual communication is socially conditioned inhibitions and normative models, due to which many people are blocked from access to their actual sexual experience needs.

The first step towards improvement is the recognition of one’s own desires, for which we at Consonance have developed the sexual experience test, which presents sexuality in eleven dimensions.

Sexual satisfaction: Describes how satisfied people are with their current sexual life, whether they can realize their desires and feel generally sexually fulfilled.

Sexual experimentation readiness: Captures the openness to new sexual experiences, changing places and different practices, as well as the degree of willingness to vary.

Sexual love reference: Indicates the extent to which sexuality is tied to emotional closeness and love relationships or is lived independently of them.

Sexual self‑experience: Refers to sexuality as a means of self‑exploration, personal development, or even spiritual experience.

Sexual inhibitions: Includes fears, shame, or insecurity in dealing with sexuality that can restrict sexual experience and behavior.

Sexual problems: Describes functional or physical impairments of sexuality such as orgasm, arousal, or pain problems.

Instrumental sexuality: Refers to whether sexuality is used to achieve non‑sexual goals, such as conflict avoidance, social bonding, or exerting influence.

Sexual fluidity: Captures the changeability of sexual orientation and the relevance of sex characteristics for sexual attraction.

Addictive sexual experience: Describes a greatly increased sexual desire that, with high expression, can dominate daily life.

Asexual experience: Occurs when sexuality is perceived as unimportant or uninteresting, without this necessarily being associated with distress.

BDSM interests: Denote inclinations towards consensual practices of dominance, submission, control, or ritualized pain.

When getting to know each other and building a relationship, it can be very helpful to exchange views on mutual experiences. When we talk about sexuality, it is easier for us to overcome inhibitions and thus jointly shape and further develop the sexual encounter.

Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction are correlated, but can by no means be fully reduced to each other. Relationships can be happy with low sexual satisfaction and vice versa. Nevertheless, the attainable optimum is that we develop both forms of satisfaction and continuously pay attention to them in the course of the relationship. Good initial compatibility of mutual sexual needs provides a first conducive prerequisite for this, which is to be deepened in the further processes of getting to know each other, relationship building, and relationship design.

When Does a Relationship Begin – What Are the Prerequisites?

This is a very important question:

• After all, we only enter a relationship when we have the impression that the prerequisites are given. But this impression is not a sure thing, and it depends largely on what we believe are indicators of a viable love relationship.

Unfortunately, we often believe many things that do not necessarily correspond to reality:

• Our belief can be based on a false foundation, e.g., an unhelpful theory of relationship formation. Likewise, our belief can arise from distorted perceptions, short‑term situational influences, influences of moods that lie outside the actual relationship question.

For finding a partner, the critical challenge is to recognize the moment when a relationship can form.

From our surveys at Consonance and from the psychological research literature, we know that the matter is much more complex than a simple requirement. Empirical studies show us the following facts about what people experience in their relationships and during relationship formation:

1. According to a comprehensive international study, approximately two‑thirds of relationships arise from friendships that only later deepen into love. If we do not have this possible beginning on our radar, it can happen that we prematurely and permanently place another person in the so‑called “friend zone,” even though a very happy and lasting relationship could have developed between us. The willingness for a friendly beginning is therefore a crucial factor that can help us not to miss the moment.
2. Being in love is not a reliable indicator: not a few expect instant infatuation and exuberant feelings instead of friendship. Being in love activates hypomanic emotional structures and deactivates critical reason. It can be a wonderful feeling, but it can equally arise for someone with whom the relationship becomes toxic – including love fraud – as well as for someone with whom love falls asleep or everyday life becomes unsatisfactory, as well as for someone with whom we actually become happy. Being in love itself unfortunately gives us no information about whether a relationship will be happy or not.
3. Two unfavorable developments can thus occur: we expect infatuation and therefore reject a partnership option that would actually have brought us great happiness and great love. Or we enter a relationship that ends in unhappiness. The joy of love and being in love are wonderful feelings; they take us to the peak of our experience, but love pain is simultaneously one of the worst emotional pains we can have.
4. Studies also show that, in the majority of cases, infatuation, when it arises, does not arise before the start of a relationship but only afterwards. In reality, people come together as partners in a relationship, and in the course of time, infatuation also occurs for some. For some, it is different and infatuation is the beginning. However, this is not the typical course. If we focus solely on the possibility of a beginning with infatuation, the probability is not low that we will actually remain single.
5. Some believe we should only listen to our feelings. Others see relationships as a pragmatic, rational event, much like an arranged marriage. Interestingly, arranged marriages show no significant differences in relationship satisfaction and love over time compared to other relationships. But even so, it would be wrong to simply ignore feelings. For in reality, reason and feelings are two central aspects of our behavioral control, both of which have their purpose. Only the purpose is often not always safe to decipher. Everything speaks for a relationship when our feelings and our reason point in the same direction. If, on the other hand, only the feelings are there, but everything tells us that we cannot be happy like this, the risk of failure increases. If reason says “it fits,” but feelings say “no,” we must likewise reckon that love feelings may not arise and we may thus find ourselves in a relationship without love. It doesn’t have to be the case, but the risk is there.
6. Furthermore, it is not easy for many to distinguish between red flags for a non‑viable or even toxic relationship and turbulences at the beginning of a relationship. When we enter a relationship, we do not yet know each other completely as people. In the process of increasing familiarity, we necessarily discover aspects in partners that do not always please us. Turbulences result from this. However, these are to be expected, and if we take them as a reason to break off a relationship, it might well be that no relationship will ever work out. Turbulences can even be ultimately positive. If we manage to clarify turbulences against the backdrop of authenticity, openness, and mutual understanding, the bond increases. A red flag, by contrast, is not a turbulence; it is a factor that fundamentally opposes relationship happiness. Red flags can be present when we are in love or when we are not in love. If we do not want to look, what is so often observed occurs: we jump out of the frying pan (a previous hurtful relationship) into the fire.

Ultimately, the art of saying “no” or “yes” lies in recognizing and correctly interpreting the signals and, on their basis, making a decision that serves our happiness. So what should be present to begin a relationship when infatuation says little, but reason alone is not enough?

There are three prerequisites we can check:

• I really want a relationship with all the changes to my life that necessarily accompany it. If this question is not answered, it is better to first look for friendships and not for a romantic relationship. This should and can also be communicated.
• We mutually feel a positive feeling for each other, such as sympathy, affection, interest.
• We both determine that, based on our knowledge of our life philosophy and relationship models, we could imagine going through life together permanently.

If all three questions are answered with “yes,” this is a good argument to enter the process of relationship development.

For some, this model may sound rational or very pragmatic:

• In fact, it is an integration of feeling and reason. It is also not love without love. Rather, there are feelings that signal love that not everyone immediately perceives as love based on their model of love. When two people seriously want a relationship, when they feel emotionally positive with each other, and when they both recognize through authentic communication that they could go through life together permanently, then this is a strong emotional and rational basis. The feeling associated with it is already a feeling of love, even if those for whom love is only infatuation might not classify it as such.

However, if we begin a relationship under these three prerequisites, it is highly probable that one day, if we stay together, we will find that our relationship is based on love. The advice is therefore, in partner search and relationship decisions, to pay attention to a congruence of feelings and reason, but not necessarily to expect great, exalted, euphoric feelings. The emotionality can be much calmer and, together with compatibility of life models, lead to a happy relationship.

Knowledge Resources on the Psychology of Online Dating

A comprehensive knowledge resource on the psychology of partner search is being created here. The article is a work in progress. But we are already letting readers participate. A new section will be added every few days. Feel free to stop by occasionally!

Extensive links to the individual sections in the article will also be integrated.

Another central knowledge resource at Consonance is our relationship blog, where weekly demographic articles on partner search, sexuality, and relationships are published.

The psychology of partner search is the heart of Consonance, and with this evolving knowledge resource we want to make this heart even more visible. In the meantime, we are happy to continue supporting you in your relationship search and bringing it to success:

Convince yourself and sign up now: CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!