In a recent study exploring the world of dating apps, researchers have uncovered intriguing insights into the experiences of individuals who identify as “incels.” The new study shows that incels, who face challenges in the realm of dating and relationships, have unique experiences on dating apps that differ significantly from those of non-incel individuals. The new findings appear in The Journal of Sex Research.
Online dating has become an integral part of modern romance, with millions of people seeking love, companionship, or casual connections through dating apps. However, for a subgroup known as “incels,” the journey to find a partner is fraught with unique challenges. Incels are individuals who identify as being unable to secure romantic or sexual relationships despite their desire to do so. They often congregate in online communities to discuss their experiences and beliefs.
The researchers aimed to understand the specific difficulties that incels face when navigating dating apps and how these experiences might contribute to their broader beliefs and well-being.
“I began my first incel study in 2019 and at the time, I was frustrated by the lack of research on incels. They were certainly prevalent enough in the news and it became the most authoritative source on incels, but I suspected it may not be painting the most nuanced or helpful picture,” explained study author Brandon Sparks, a senior lecturer in forensic psychology at Kingston University.
“I wondered whether their sudden rise (or at least the public’s sudden notice of them) was due to dating apps, which can be very convenient, but can also result in a lot of rejection in a very short period of time. At the end of the day, I thought incels deserved someone to study them from a more sympathetic angle; rejection is tough to deal with, repeated rejection even moreso, and stigmatizing them isn’t going to help anybody.”
The researchers recruited self-identified incels by posting survey links on incel-related subreddits, such as r/braincels and r/incels. They also recruited a comparison group of men through the University of Saskatchewan’s study subject recruitment systems. The final sample consisted of 38 self-identified incels and 107 non-incel males. Participants were in their mid-twenties, predominantly heterosexual, of European ancestry, had some degree of post-secondary training, and reported relatively neutral political orientations.
A notable finding was that incels often adopted more open-minded practices on dating apps. They tended to cast wider nets, considering matches from diverse geographic locations and age ranges. Incels also showed higher rates of swiping right on profiles, indicating a willingness to engage with potential matches.
Despite their liberal approach, incels reported fewer matches compared to their non-incel counterparts. Only a small fraction of incels reported having meaningful conversations on dating apps, and a significant majority mentioned that they were not actively engaging with anyone on these platforms. Furthermore, incels reported rarely going on dates, having sexual encounters, or forming committed relationships through dating apps.
The study uncovered significant differences in the motives behind dating app usage. Incels showed a stronger inclination towards seeking long-term relationships, while non-incels appeared to engage in dating apps for various social and entertainment-related reasons.
On the psychological and relational well-being front, incels faced significant challenges. They reported higher levels of fear about being single, sensitivity to rejection, and a greater degree of self-esteem tied to their relationship status. This group also exhibited lower overall self-esteem and experienced more depressive symptoms compared to non-incels.
One noteworthy aspect of the study was the strong association between incels’ perceived popularity on dating apps and various negative attributes. Those incels who felt less popular tended to experience more depressive symptoms, fear of being single, and dating anxiety, while also having lower self-esteem and secure attachment.
Interestingly, when all variables were considered together in a logistic regression analysis, two factors emerged as unique predictors of incel group membership: low self-esteem and insecure attachment. These factors seemed to play a crucial role in distinguishing incels from non-incels.
“Incels are dealing with a lot,” Sparks told PsyPost. “They’re very clearly struggling on dating apps and this is related to their elevated rates of depressive symptoms, dating anxiety, and insecure attachment patterns. They also demonstrate a greater fear of being single and are more sensitive to rejection more generally.
“Incels will say I’m stating the obvious (and they have a point), but I think it is worth reiterating for a lay audience. These are individuals navigating difficult circumstances that ultimately want the same thing everyone else wants: to be loved and valued.”
“Generally speaking, the pattern of results I expected emerged, but the magnitude of the differences was much higher than I anticipated,” Sparks noted. “In other words, we’re not talking about incels having slightly more depressive symptoms, but a sizeable increase.”
These findings have important implications for understanding the experiences of incels on dating apps. While incels demonstrated a more open approach to potential matches, they faced challenges in terms of matching and initiating conversations. This could contribute to their sense of isolation and frustration. Importantly, the study reveals that incels prioritize seeking meaningful relationships over casual interactions on dating apps.
“I asked incels and non-incels the different reasons for using dating apps; I was surprised, given that incels’ name is in reference to sex, that they did not endorse casual sex more strongly like they did relationship-seeking,” Sparks said. “What this should tell folks is that incels are clearly interested in the benefits of long-term partnership rather than simply having sex for the sake of having sex.”
While the study provides valuable insights, it has limitations. One limitation is the potential skepticism and distrust of academic researchers among incels, which may have affected the composition of the study participants. Additionally, the research does not explore the behaviors of incels on online forums, where much of their ideology and discourse are shaped.
“At the end of the day, this study was cross-sectional in design and was designed to provide a bit of a descriptive element to incels,” Sparks explained. “There is no evidence that dating apps ‘created’ incels or that they are to blame for the adverse outcomes incels report. One thing I was surprised to learn later was that many incels do not even use dating apps, so we also haven’t captured them in the study (although the results replicated when I did not restrict sampling to dating app users). The big question is simply: how do we help incels? How do we help them live happy, meaningful lives?”
The new research underscores the importance of understanding diverse experiences in the online dating world and provides guidance for clinicians working with incel clients. While limitations exist, future research can further explore these complex dynamics.
“I think it is important, as it is with any group that you study, to consider the impact that your work will have on them,” Sparks added. “The bulk of research on incels is not flattering and while incel forums do host some concerning content, continually painting all incels with this brush can make them more reluctant to engage with other researchers.”
“This has a spiralling effect where research conducted with incels directly becomes restricted, which can make it more difficult to have an educated discussion about this population. This is not to say that incel forums can’t or shouldn’t be scrutinized, but more balance is needed with respect to methodological approaches.”
The study, “An Exploratory Study of Incels’ Dating App Experiences, Mental Health, and Relational Well-Being“, was authored by Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, and Mark E. Olver.
